Perversion of Rewards

I have been working at a hospital now as a doctor for 3 months and I already want to kill people. I guess I understand where Kevorkian started. But I get ahead of myself and should explain my reasoning.
I as a physician am required by law to treat patients who do not want to be treated nor pay for the services. And should I refuse to treat said patients I can have license revoked, and am open to lawsuits. I treat patients who use medical care and time, who have zero intention of following medical advice. I have patients who it 5 minutes of Internet research, know more about their "illness" and "treatment than I do . I can prescribe a treatment to save a persons life, and I am responsible to make sure the patient takes the treatment, for if I do not and some adverse event takes place, I am liable, not the patient.
So if any of this doesn't make sense and if you were required to do these things, would that first paragraph start to makes sense?
The next thing I would say if I was being told this is well...quit, no one is keep you there so quit complaining. And I fully agree with you (or myself in this instance), for as of next year I will never see a patient again, well maybe for one month a year but they will be sedated by the time I get there, so its ok.
I bring this up not simply to complain but, to really stress how health care, and its treatments are not a right, they are privilege. And the people that provide this are skill professionals (some of them anyway) and not charity workers or babysitters (even though we are many times required to be). So making health care required to be carried by all, and payed for by all is ridiculous. All that does is make health care cost burdens carried by the responsible i.e the ones that take the treatments and take care of their bodies (thereby costing less in the system) and makes them pay for the irresponsible (i.e the alcoholic who continues to drink despite the fact that he just vomited his weight in blood, or the diabetic who just lost his foot who continues to eat krispy creme).
Naturally as humans, as animals for that matter we respond to rewards, and what universal health care does is misconstrue the rewards and punish the good. But then again isn't that what our current government does, so not surprisingly these policies are working to come to fruition.

Cheers,
Zachary

If the average person is not fit to run a government, is it fit to have a goverment filled with average or worse people? And then is it truly a wonder why we are floundering as a nation.

Cheers
Zachary

Do we really want a religious government?

I got to thinking about how the voting republicans all want religion to be part of government (now i mention voting republicans and now all republicans). I got to thinking in depth about this, mostly because I've been reading a bit about Buddhism, and how different it's religion had effected government.
As a religious leader looking not necessarily for power but a way to maintain it, a religious backing is the best way. A government that creates law and policy under the preface that it is gods doing or gods work creates a very powerful system. In that anyone who questions the law or policy questions god, and thus they are deemed heretics and not taken seriously. The leaders also remove responsibility from their shoulders. This is because if they laws and policy are the will of god then the outcome of these laws and policies are the responsibility of god, not the politicians. As well they create an unquestionable system, as if the policy and laws are the will of god, you have to take up anyway questions, praise, or qualms to god. And the last I heard (or not heard) was that god has not been answering to questions for quite some time.
So for anyone out there looking to create a question proof government, religion is the way to go. But for our leaders of a democratic government this is atrocity if committed is to be with out forgiveness.

Cheers
Zachary

Nash equilibrium

With all the coverage that is currently taking place on the up coming elections. I can not help but be overwhelmed by the simularities and utter stupidity of current political parties. And how they are taking more and more power from the people the are sworn to help.
And my love for economics and math have led to me to applying a great leap in behavior theory, the Nash Equilibrium. Applying this to the current two party system gives as it seems to me the results of reality today. In that each of the parties by themselves and not playing against the other would do reasonably well for the american public (I"m biased in saying the republicans would be better, but then I mean better for me) but toghter and playing against one another we get a result that is far worse.
And why is the american public putting up with this, it seems common theme throughout america that the majority does not really like one candidate or the other, yet they do not act to excercise their vote elsewhere. I guess that is a credit to the scare tactics by the two big parties, and partly by press.
In other words my friends, economics is wonderful and math even better and the right to be able to excercise free though, speech and action is absolutly priceless so fight for it, even if the fight is no more than filling in the right circle election day.

Cheers
Zachary

ps. Jill I'm glad to hear your response on the last post, and I would direct you to this 56% of violent offenders are repeat offenders, and with repeated inability to show proper judgment for society should lose their right to decide affairs for the public i.e. vote. But then again I appear to have view points drastically opposed to the american public so who knows.

pss if this in at incoherent please forgive me, I am in the middle of a 30 hours work day at the hospital

Suffrage

I have been thinking about the idea of universal suffrage.  And how it is a complete fallacy.  The truth is there is very restricted suffrage in the US.  From minors to, immigrants, those who are insane and so forth suffrage is a privilege not a right and certainly not universal.  There is a restriction on voting because on individual's vote affects everyone as a whole.  And it is in this light that I would like to put out there that person's who commit felonies should have their privilege to suffrage removed.  I mean if their vote is made to affect everyone as a whole, haven't they proved their inability to do so for the good of others, i.e. they have committed a felony.  As above voting is not a right but a privilege give by the whole to a few, thus I believe that privilege should be removable.  

Cheers

Zachary

A good politician

That statement might just be an oxymoron, but lets get idealistic and believe that it is possible. I have come to the recent conclusion that in order to make a good politician you should not have any desire to become one. It seems that the majority of those in office are there, because they have some higher desire in mind, not to do the job to the best of their ability. A city council person wants to be mayor, a mayor a senator, a senator president, always doing what ever is necessary to make that next step.
It would seem that the best person to lead would be one with the leadership thrust on to them and find later that they wear the mantel well.

Cheers,
Zachary

Definition

I was recently in a conversation about what defines you. And the person I was speaking with spoke at length about what she does and how that defines her. And I couldn't help in thinking that this person has cause and effect backwards. To me what you do does not define you it is an effect of what defines you. Bythat I mean, how and what you choose to do are a result of your character, ideals, morals etc. So if you are defined about what you do, you are allowing yourself to be defined by something outside of yourself and is just ass backwards. But I guess the people that are crushed by a failed relationship, or a disolved marriage or being fired from a job are defining themselves not interenaly but externally. So define who you are independent of the external and then you can mold the external to your wishes, sound new agey but I think it will make you a hell of alot happier.

Hope you are all well,
Cheers
Zachary

Salvation

So sitting through my long boring 3 weeks of 13 hr day orientation with enough power point to make you want to kill Microsoft I got to thinking about salvation.   And my mind wandered to the many groups following people who thought were Jesus back to earth, i.e David Koresh, Charles Manson and the likes.  And I got to thinking if there ever comes to be Jesus reborn as the Christian faith teaches or the Messiah coming as the Jewish faith teaches do they really think he will get by society?  I mean any man or woman spouting these sayings is either looking for a Waco show down or a one way ticket to the state psych facility and they throw away the key.

It made me think even further that maybe if there is the jewish/christian God that maybe he has been sending saviors all the time, and Jesus was just lucky to gain a strong following, and the others were killed by society and made either saints or wrote off as crazies.  In other words in this day and age and the ages past are we able to believe and be able to be saved.

Cheers,

Zachary

Emperor's new groove

Sorry everyone for my hiatus from blogging, no real excuse but I just finished moving and starting my intership.

Katie, I love the continued blogging. I agree and disagree with the article about oil and gas. I love the media and their freedom to write what they will. But for the last 10 year or so it seems that they are following the Bush administration with the theme "Fear sells". That, in my opinion, is why they are putting all the oil crisis things up. Do I think they are affecting the market significantly no, in that I don't think they quite yet have the power to alter the market significantly on such a global product. But they can alter buyers choices, which can lead to more alternative fuel cars being sold.

Missing you all,
Zachary

The Emperor's New Clothes

http://seekingalpha.com/article/78440-the-oil-shortage-and-other-fairy-tales

Here's an article that was published on May 22nd, but is still very much a timely topic given oil prices over the past several weeks. The article discusses the effect of media hype (specifically CNBC) on oil prices and the lack of fundamental evidence to substantiate the huge increases. I love the analogy the author uses, comparing the oil hype to the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes". I have included an excerpt below, but think that the full article is definitely worth a read. I sit in front of a tv at work that has CNBC on 24 hours a day and can personally attest to the media hype the article discusses. The fact that their Index ticker at the top of the screen has been flashing "America's Oil Crisis" for the past month and highlights the Oil price in bright orange is definitely not doing anything to appease investors' worries.

"The really sick thing is that we are cast in the role of the people in this version of "The Emperor’s New Clothes." King Oil parades out into the crowd wearing nothing but a very expensive smile while all the court jesters on CNBC ooh and ah at the magnificence of the demand cycle, even though there are no fundamentals there at all! I will continue to play the role of the small boy in the crowd who points and laughs and says "But there’s nothing really there," as I did with housing two years ago, but until you start pointing with me, until the voices of reality drown out the sycophants in the mainstream media. the people of our kingdom will continue to be taxed to pay for the kings’ imaginary outfit, until we expose him for the naked fool that he is."

Enjoy,
Katie

Food Waste

Get this shit:
"Americans waste 27% of all food available for consumption"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18martin.html


Shocked? Sadly, no.

Two questions came to me: 1) Does this mean Americans would be 27% MORE obese? and 2) What type of food are we throwing away? The article mentioned that England threw out 4 million WHOLE apples...what a sad waste... I know the economics of shipping an apple to Burma doesn't work out, but do we have intelligent entrepreneurs working on this issue?

Google Health

Yes, I know I've been posting a lot about my products, but since ~40% of the posts (and 90% of the reading) are done by me, I don't care.

Anyway, Zac mentioned this a while back and now that it's live, here's a "quick peek" for you:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/19/google-health-a-quick-peek/

Looks Like It's Freedom Week!

first foie gras, now marriage - looks like this country (or at least these states) is getting its act together and becoming American!

The Los Angeles Times banners, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead, while everyone else fronts, the California Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married. The 4-3 ruling that overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage cited a 60-year-old decision that struck down a ban on interracial marriage as precedent. The decision, which described marriage as a "basic civil right," means the nation's most-populous state is now the second in the country, after Massachusetts, to extend marriage rights to gay men and lesbians. But the LAT highlights that the California court went even further than Massachusetts because its decision "would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation." The WSJ says the decision is "the most important legal victory to date for proponents of same-sex marriage."

-Slate, 16-May-08

Restaurant Freedom

Trust me, Zac - I have a response for you... in the meantime, let's celebrate:

Chicago’s foie gras ban has been repealed in a 37 - 6 vote by the City Council, overturning the 48 - 1 vote that put the ban into effect five years ago. Sun Times

Fighting for Freedom

I went to see this great movie last week called Perepolis.  It tales of a girl growing up in Iran, and her families struggles with freedoms, and civil wars.  Tim I think you would enjoy the movie.  And it started me thinking about my place in the fight for freedom.  Thinking of myself in that girls situation, would I have stayed and fought Big Brother or would I have fled the county to begin anew some place else.  I believe I would not have blinked an eye and have been out of there fast enough to leave one of those looney toons puffs of smoke, even if that place was the USA.  Is this because I don't have enough national pride, or life experience to know I should fight for my place in the world.  I tend to think that I place to high a value on my own life to become a freedom fighter when I could much more easily move to another country and begin a new life.  

I am still left with these questions, When in freedom worth fighting for?  At what point do you start fighting for it?  At what point is to much freedom taken away for you to stand up and fight for it?  Because we have been losing many civil liberties lately and this line of thinking makes me wonder, should have been standing up to this removal of rights? Should I stay in a country where they are so easily removed?

Always questioning

-Zachary

Michael Pollen at Google

Since I bragged to most of you about how I got to hear one of my favorite intellectuals speak at Google, I will post the link from his lecture at Google (posted on YouTube, of course).

http://blogs.menupages.com/sanfrancisco/2008/05/michael_pollan_speaks_at_googl.html


In case you live in a bubble - he is the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma (possibly the best book about food ever written) and the more recent "In Defense of Food."

re: The Rise of the Rest...Part 2

I don't think that first post expressed my ideas fully, I want to make this clear.

I don't give a fuck about Americans losing jobs. If you can't make money from growing potatoes, grow rice. If you can't make money growing rice, make cars. If you can't make money from that, go work at McDonald's or a bank or invent something.

Enough of this pussy-footing. Billions (not millions) of people would KILL (and do) to have the opportunities that these anti-NAFTA babies have living in Detroit and Pennsylvania.

Hope that was more clear.

Love always,
Timmy

re: The Rise of the Rest

For America to continue to lead the world, we will have to first join it.

Katie - I'm so happy you're writing!!!

This subject really gets me going. It pisses me off that Americans want it both ways. We want to own stock in companies that use Chinese labor, buy cars made by the ultra-efficient Japanese, drink French wine, wear Italian shoes, and have Mexian immigrants plowing our fields...but we don't want our precious less efficient population to lose jobs.

Too bad. Globalization is good for everyone. Allow the rest of the world to have the same opportunities as Americans and see how much faster we'll cure cancer, build a house on Mars, and live to 180.

I have a lot more to say, but it all boils down to: If Americans can't keep up, then they don't deserve to be called Americans. Being American is something people need to earn. Just because Indians, Mexicans, Germans, and Chinese do it better, doesn't mean we can build walls or make laws to pretend they don't exist.

Love,
Tim

Power of the Few

Katie I agree with much of the article, with people wanting to globalize.  I would contribute much of that to the ease of travel and most of all the Internet.  But honestly I think one of the big obstacles of globalization of the US is the media.  Every time an American company moves jobs out of America, the media shows heavily how little Mikey and his dad Will can't get a job and have no where to turn.  In addition they say America wants the road to globalization but they don't know where the road is, or what car to drive, I bet the average American wouldn't know what globalizing is. Another huge if not the biggest obstacle is the hypocrisy of the American system of democracy.  Democracy is supposed to be the vote of the many is supposed to have the largest voice. And two elections ago the majority voted against the person who won the presidency, and the superdelegates are going to vote for Hilary who again is not wining the majority.  But in America the truth is the few appear to have the greatest power, and the few are who are holding American and for this discussion globalization back.  For example, Will and little Mikey caused taxes for companies trying to hire their labor on a cheaper market, the minority of Hispanics makes all signs and voting ballets in two languages, and make us ask the Mexican government if WE can put up on fence on OUR own damn boarder (the really pisses me off), it causes a war to take place for a family feud and a Vice Presidents oil company etc. etc. etc.  

So it appears that we constantly speak of the greater good, and the power of the many but in practic we are a country run and hindered by the few.

-Zachary

Katie, I like you posting!

The Rise of the Rest

http://www.newsweek.com/id/135380/output/print

A very long but interesting article about globalization and the rise of the rest of the world written by Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek who was named one of the 100 most influential young policy makers in the world by "Foreign Policy" magazine.

His article is a response to the recent poll in which 81% of Americans responded that they think the country is on the "wrong track". Zakaria argues that rather than defining this era as the decline of America, it should be looked at as the rise of everyone else. He points out that Americans have been pushing for globalization for decades, and now that it is being realized, we are upset at the prospect of losing power. The article presents interesting perspectives on terrorism and global economics and ultimately makes the argument that although we may lose the power to dictate, we still have the power to lead the world; however, in order to do so, we have to join the world first.

Excerpt from the closing paragraphs of the article:
"To bring others into this world, the United States needs to make its own commitment to the system clear. So far, America has been able to have it both ways. It is the global rule-maker but doesn't always play by the rules. And forget about standards created by others. Only three countries in the world don't use the metric system—Liberia, Myanmar, and the United States. For America to continue to lead the world, we will have to first join it.

Americans—particularly the American government—have not really understood the rise of the rest. This is one of the most thrilling stories in history. Billions of people are escaping from abject poverty. The world will be enriched and ennobled as they become consumers, producers, inventors, thinkers, dreamers, and doers. This is all happening because of American ideas and actions. For 60 years, the United States has pushed countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology. American diplomats, businessmen, and intellectuals have urged people in distant lands to be unafraid of change, to join the advanced world, to learn the secrets of our success. Yet just as they are beginning to do so, we are losing faith in such ideas. We have become suspicious of trade, openness, immigration, and investment because now it's not Americans going abroad but foreigners coming to America. Just as the world is opening up, we are closing down.

Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that by the turn of the 21st century, the United States had succeeded in its great, historical mission—globalizing the world. We don't want them to write that along the way, we forgot to globalize ourselves."

Thoughts?...

Cinco de Mayo & Silly Holidays

Here's something some of you didn't know: Mexico doesn't celebrate Cinco de Mayo.

Some regions do, but it's not a national holiday. It is only really celebrated in Puebla - where they celebrate winning a battle against the French in the 1860s. Ironically, the French won the next battle and took Mexico City the following year.

The celebration has now turned into a US holiday that celebrates Mexican culture and identity. I think that's a good reason to have a celebration. In fact, I think we need more celebrations that involve learning about cultures and peoples other than us.

Salud!

Unbelievable

It honestly strikes me as odd that some of the greatest business minds of the world fail to see the investment potential of green energy.  Yes right now it is not as efficient as it should be and no in the next five years it may be hard to start profiting.  But cornering the market in the production of energy that is going to be our only resource for energy seems to me like a great thing to do.  

And way to go congress and presidential candidates on once again a gross misunderstanding of economics.  One defiantly has to love the tax holiday, and seriously though is 18 cents really going to help anyone a the pump, I mean when gas was a dollar a gallon yeah 18 cents is a good amount but when your pushing 4 per gallon 18 cents is exactly what it looks like under my couch cushions....small change.  And small change is what is going to happen to our energy crisis.

-Zachary

Dumb As We Wanna Be

Thomas Friedman, NYT (Thanks Scott for sending me this)

The above article goes even further than my inflamed initial reaction to how stupid the "gas-holiday" is. A couple great quotes from the short op-ed in the NY Times:

"It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country."

"When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit."

"...energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

In response..

Excellent answers Tim.  The comparison about CEOs and the President is scary.  It is really no wonder our government sucks balls(compared to what it could be).  And it is that our system makes it easy and sometimes necessary to PLAY politics thus chocking the system from the inside.  With a dictator or a regime or monarchy the ruler has TIME to make corrects and doesn't have to appease as many people.  But there in lays the fault they can pursue and agenda that is not great or even terrible (i.e. Hitler).  And dear God can you imagine Bush with an indefinite presidency?  

I think China does have it right in thinking the average person is not smart enough to run a government, again I put Bush in that category.  But the average person is smart enough to run their own lives with out government nannying.  But thinking takes work and time and the average person it seems would rather have someone else do the thinking.  

It does seem in your arguments that you feel a utopia is a bad thing. I got that from you statement about cell phones and internet being the down fall of Utopias.  But Utopias can be good and the internet could be the saving point in them. But I do agree that they do not seem likely and agree with you feeling that regardless someone will always feel repressed and have the need to rise or our start acts of terrorism.  

A mon avis, I don't think anything will change until people vote with their heads and not their hearts and hormones.   And even still that will not change until great people start to work for the government as their officials.  And it is hypocritical on my part because I could not do politics, but I guess I could if I were allowed to do it right.

-Zachary

re: The Empire & Utopia....

Zac,
I love the analysis. In fact, we only have to look at the paper everyday to see countries struggling with their "utopia" such as Russia, Iran, and China.

A Russian premier said recently (when criticized about the lack of democracy in the transition from Putin to Medvedev), "We have a plan for Russia until 2020 - but you (USA) don't even know who will be in power next January..." That brings up a great point. Democracy makes it difficult to get things done sometimes. Could you imagine if we threw out CEOs every four years? How would great companies ever exist? It takes 4 years just to get started.... not to mention changing Congress every 2 years.

Countries like Iran, China, and Russia deeply believe that average people are not smart enough to run a country. They understand what a "perfect country" is, whether it relates to religion (Iran), money/oil (Russia), or complete control over communication (China). Most recently, countries like Burma and Thailand keep screwing up their democracy and militaries take over and suppress people even more. It raises a good defense for "utopian principles."

The US in fact, is leaning much more towards this "Utopia" idea and trying to institute US-values throughout the world. Obvious examples are Iraq and Afghanistan and the former Third Reich. Less obvious examples are Mexico, Colombia, Iran, South Korea, and Japan.

A mon avis, I think the internet and cell phones will be the end to Utopian government plans. The recent uprisings in Tibet and Burma were strongly correlated with the internet and phones - now that they can see what life is like outside their utopias, many decide they like the non-utopian life better. Also, when the uprisings occur, text messages and videos allow the outside world to see what's going on and pressure the government.

Whether we like it or not, I don't think utopias will be possible because there will always be a people that feels suppressed. These people will rise up, gain momentum and try to take over to institute their utopia and suppress a new group of people.
-Tim

G to the O to the D

I think about the big guy or girl or thing often, it comes up with when trying to get a big picture of the world.  And one thing I hear often mentioned in relation to God is that how can one so powerful on omnipotent all allow these terrible things to happen all over the world.

This last sentence is what I am about to address.  First I have to clarify one really important premises.  That ones own happiness and outlook is solely in the realm of the possessor to influence.   I don't mean comforts or situation I mean a state of being and thought.  Now to move to the point I draw back to my catholic school days when I remember hearing that God's greatest gift to mankind, or womankind is free will.  To me I can not fathom a great gift, and I relish it everyday. No keeping this in mind and if there is a big God out there and this was his first and most unbreakable gift all the strife and horrors are lifted from his blame.  Meaning in order for some of the terrible things that are happening to not be taking place or for God to interfere would mean breaking that first and most precious gift free will.  I mean to stop someone from killing me if he wanted to kill me would be to remove his will.  And if there is a God this point that I just made makes me respect and pity God to amazing levels.  Can you imagine watching your creations do what is going on and be able to stop it but know you will not, seriously that takes will power.  

So I can take all sorts of responses on this or on you view of a God or of gods.  

Another thing I thought of is that there are many gods (notice lower case g) interfering with worlds around the universe, and God is the big boss, and that the gods just are not doing a great job of running the show. 

In defense of my fellow humans terrible treatment of well... everything I will say this.  In terms of evolution which I firmly believe in, we, as higher thinking beings are embryos time wise.  We have had so little time to evolve into understanding our place in the world, and how to deal with everything especially each other.   With roughly 10k years of thinking experience and relatively limited lifespans it is no wonder we can't figure out what the hell to do, especially with our ability to manipulate our environment so effectively albeit destructively.  In no way am I excusing what is going on but I will say in the grand scheme of things it is not really all that surprising.  

-Zachary

The Empire, Utopia and Power

In thinking about the world today and all of the petty wars and civil strife taking place all over I got to thinking.  What if one person or a group of persons was powerful enough, or had enough political savvy to unite the world under one flag, or government or dictatorship, or republic etc.? My question is would it be the right thing to do?  I'm in two minds and per usual because I like to argue both sides of points in my head. 

Side one, it would be wonderful not to have the stress of countries trying to expand their boarders, to be able to institute rights (for example, women in the middle east and the gay population in Alabama).  There would be no stress of another world war III, and everyone could cooperate to rooting out terrorists.  And terrorist would have less people to find asylum with if they were not trying to over through another government.  It would still be around but then again maybe it could be better.  I think of it as vaccinations, they hurt a little and can maybe cause autism but they make the world better.

Side two says this is terrible.  Forcing people to be under one system is an atrocity.  People should always have a right to choose who they want to follow, even if following means war, and death.  It is their right to make those decisions for themselves.  If they want to subjugate women, or blacks or whites or hispanics or males then it is their right to try, but it is also the right of the afore mentioned to rise against said subjugation.  In other words regardless of the greater good, peoples choices always come first.

Another question I have is why is that everyone who seeks power (I'm speaking politically I guess) are never good at carrying the mantel when they have it?  But those who it is thrust upon wear the mantel so well (G. Washington for instance).  Perhaps it is the want of power that taints the person doing the seeking?

-Zachary

Two New Books

I realize I haven't really been participating in this blog since it was first incepted by Tim several months ago. I would love to make excuses about how busy my life is, but I'm not going to because quite frankly I just forgot about it. Now I do actually have more time at work though, so over the past week I've caught up on all of the recent postings and see what I've been missing. I'm looking forward to contributing more going forward.

To start, I just wanted to throw out the names of two books I bought last night on my walk home from work. I was in the mood for something totally new and I came across these by chance while browsing the display tables at Borders. I haven't read either yet, so I can't offer a review, but I wanted to know if any of you have read or heard about the books and what your thoughts are.

"Mergers + Acquisitions" by Dana Vachon - A fictional novel, based loosely on the author's life, about a fresh-out-of-college Investment Banker living the good life as a young, rich socialite in New York City. It supposedly exposes and analyzes the life of the young, money hungry members of the I-Banking world in a humorous, "smartly-written" story. What caught my eye initially was the review on the front cover, "If Holden Caulfield had stuck it out at a good school and landed on Wall Street, he might have written Mergers+ Acquisitions...It rocks." - The Wall Street Journal. As a huge "Catcher in the Rye" fan, I couldn't resist. Also, Bloomberg News wrote, "Some of the best worm's-eye views of Wall Street yet penned...told with humor and verve...Nobody involved in finance should miss it."

"The Economic Naturalist" by Robert H. Frank - Non-fiction: shows how simple economic cost/benefit and supply/demand principals explain a plethora of everyday questions that at first glance may seem unexplicable. (Eg. Why does a $500 tuxedo rent for $90 a day while a $20,000 car rents for only $40? and Why do keypad buttons of drive-up cash machines have Braille dots?) Many of the questions I'm sure we could explain ourselves through economic theory, but I'm interested to see how Mr. Frank approaches these answers. From my 3-second flip through of this book, it seems to be a much less detailed (and probably not as good) copy-cat of Steve Levitt's "Freakonomics" which I think many of us have read. The answers are all only several paragraphs long and the questions are similar to the examples above...more of an every man's real-world economic theory book rather than the deep analysis that Levitt's book provides.

Again, if anyone has read either book I would love to hear your thoughts. Also, if my blurbs have inspired anyone to go out and pick up a copy, I'd love to discuss after we finish.

Happy Friday!

Google is Mapping the Oceans in 3D

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9931412-7.html?tag=nl.e703

Thought you may find it interesting

Altruism, good or bad?

So I had a great discussion here at Chez Plotz about altruism.  One of us arguing it as the savior of the the planet and human race and the other its ultimate downfall.  I'm going to talk  about the latter which is easier being it is my point of view.  

Throughout history we have been brought up on the view that to give you life or your money for a great cause, or even better for someone you don't know is one of the greatest feats someone can achieve.  And that a truly altruistic human is great and wonderful.  Well look at our history, there is a lot of good but there is damn sure a lot of bad.  I think altruism is a gross perversion and is another type of control.  When your best interests or lost and given away it grains against everything you are and become something that you don't want.  That something starts to rage against itself because it has essential told itself that it is not good enough to survive and thus gave away to something better.  The crux is if that person was a stranger you don't even know if you made a good decision.

In my un-humble opinion our world would be better served and lived in if altruism became the greatest sin (sorry about the term but it was the best I could come up with).  I mean happiness is what drives us, and if your actions were taken with yourself in mind in both the immediate and more distant future how could this not become a better place in which to live.  I guess it comes down to how you view yourself, if you see yourself as the most important thing to you than this philosophy makes prefect sense.  But if your fellow man is more important than self well I guess this sounds like a terrible and heinous direction of life.  But I will argue that the later does not know life because by loosing the first recognition of self they have already lost part of life already and have very little grounds with which to defend it.  Unless they realize that they are worthless, which most are not, then losing self would be tolerated but still not wanted.  

It seems that when establishments (society, religion, government etc) gain power and influence the first thing they preach and try to implement is a loss of self and altruistic actions.  But they will never put it in those terms.  It is after all what allows them to stay in their positions of influence.  But ones happiness is the only realm of influence that a person truly controls, and it is that acceptance in which I think can truly make the world a better place.

-Zachary

Re: Glassbooth

My results:

Ron Paul - 63%
John McCain - 57%
Mike Gravel - 53%

I think these types of quizzes can be useful to the uninformed voter as a tool to narrow down the candidates to those they may be interested in. That way they will (hopefully) go find out more about those they have common beliefs with. I agree with Timmy that some question may have been misleading and it was difficult to answer some of them.

Talking to people in SF, I've realized more people than I previously thought have no idea what the candidates platforms are but still enthusiastically support a specific candidate. Everyone out here either supports Obama or Clinton but actually doesn't know the difference between the two candidates. Beyond that, they actually have no idea the difference between Obama or Clinton and McCain! When you ask if them if they support universal health care or allowing immigrants to become citizens their opinions are very different than the candidate they are supporting. Granted, I doubt anyone fully agrees with any one candidate on all matters. It seems like there are a lot of "bandwagon fans" out here in the sense that they will support whoever is most popular at the time with their friends, city, or country.



Congratulations, Dr. Plotz!

Glassbooth

Well done, PORKCHOP!!!- I like that site. My results were interesting...to say the least.

McCain: 67%
Ron Paul: 67%
Obama: 53%

At first, I posted my similarities with each candidate - but looking at the questions, I noticed that the results were very misleading. For example, on immigration - I care more about allowing people to work and giving them working permits and ending this H1B visa shit. "Fences" didn't even enter my mind - although I hate fences of any kind. I am more concerned about 'glass ceilings,' discrimination, and losing competitive advantage in the world.

I am also in favor of a fairly strong police force that has the power to take down bad people (terrorists, gangs, etc) - but I don't agree with most provisions of the Patriot Act. In fact, I don't like "acts" at all since they usually contain hundreds of "acts" and pass them through as one. Issues should be voted on one at a time or in small groups. Some of these were great - some challenge my liberty so much that I considered forming a militia (thanks to the 2nd amendment).

I like the idea - but I don't like the questions. It needs to be more detailed and nuanced.

How'd ya like them apples

Since 2000 the federal government has doubled its spending on school, with no increase and many times a decrease in how well the kids are doing.  Does this say we should spend less, spend more, or spend differently.

My opinion runs with all of the above, but in different degrees.   I think free high school education is one of the few things a government should do, and it does not appear to be doing it well (surprise, surprise).    But what we are doing is obviously not working, and think focusing on standardized test scores is one of the problems with this, not to mention that property taxes pay a significant proportion of schools incomes.

Not only that private schools are charging tuitions that are more than most colleges, it is a crazy thought to me to spend that kind of money on high school, but I may have to for my kids especially if I end up in the Big Easy as it is looking most likely, or if Galt's Gulch ends up being in norther California (the other place I may live) I will still be paying for that private school

So this is defiantly a case of more not necessarily being better, and was curious on the thoughts of others on the dismal state of our schools.

-Zachary

My candidate

So I took Ms. Ward's online quiz for a political candidates and I was found to support Mike Gravel 65% and next in line was Ron Paul 61%, Mr. Obama 58% and McCain at 56%

The first makes sense as Mr. Gravel is now planning to run with the Libertarian Party, who I firmly support but the libs front runner is one Mr. Wayne Root, who looks better than Gravel to me at this point.  

But a 65% match rate to me is still way to far off to vote for, I mean would you buy a car that only matched you at that level, I wouldn't and I sure as hell don't want the man running my country to match only at that level.

Other should take the quiz, I am curious to see your marks get you.

-Zachary

Nice find Jackie, and nice to hear from someone new

Who You SHOULD Be Voting For

So because this blog has partially turned into a conversation between Zac and Timmy that everyone can silently ponder about, and partially because this election is the one that I have paid the most attention to in my young voter life, I thought I would share this with you.

My goal is not to pitch for one candidate over the other. To be honest, I don't know enough about one specific candidate to feel passionately enough to sway your strong opinions one way or another. On the radio this morning, they were interviewing a webpage creator who has made it easy to show which candidate cares the most about the issues that matter the most to YOU. On the first page you rank which issues matter the most to you. There is a 20-point scale. You can give as many points as you'd like to 14 different topics, as long as you don't exceed the allotted 20 points. As you continue through the site, it asks you more detailed questions about your chosen issues.

Check it out: http://glassbooth.org/ and take the quiz. It takes less than 10 minutes and I think it will be very interesting to see whether or not we have accurately decided who we are voting for. If you are undecided, will you vote for the candidate that the quiz thinks you should? Do you agree or disagree with this clever and unique way of helping Americans choose the next President?

Two Party System

I have been trying to figure out why we are in a rut of a two party system. I've found that it is not just because of America's reluctance to vote for a third party, it is just amazing difficult to just get on the ballot. In Illinois a third party has to get 42,000 signatures in just 90 days, which you think that isn't so much but they have to be got by the person running.  Making it pretty difficult to do campaigning at the same time.  Anyway for all those planning to vote don't rule out a third party, just voting for them is saying that you support a wider choice.  And with our candidates being almost identical we really need variety.  

-Zachary

Bubbles are for gum not for oil

So my big question is what is going to happen with the cost of oil per barrel.  Is the price going to continue to rise?  I was hoping oil would drop again so I can put some money in it when I get some.  But with China and India drinking oil like 48 brighton drank bad beer it seems like the current price is just a respite on its way even higher.  So I was curious on your thoughts on the current oil "crisis".  It seems to me like mother earth is getting karmic retribution in the markets.  I would say that the prices are good for us but with the developing nations using more and more it is not doing much help t all if we reduce our consumption.  

-Zachary

Grayness & my Vote

Zac,
Well said. And I want to take both your posts together because they bring up a very good point about 1) grayness in decision-making; 2)means-to-an end; and 3)politics and the art of "getting elected."

I'm increasingly turned off by this "gray world" we live in Zac. Especially when it comes to politics. My entire voting life, I have never had a candidate that I supported. It has caused me to be skeptical of democracy and forced me to vote for "the least bad." I refuse to do this anymore. As of RIGHT NOW I will only support candidates that believe in the following 5 statements (in no particular order):

1) Adults should make decisions for themselves and be held accountable- no bans on food, no bailouts on mortgages.
2) Adults know better what do with their money than the government - low taxes
3) Government should not try to be "moral" - complete separation of church/state & stay out of abortion, homosexuality, gambling, smoking, drinking
4) Education and Science are the MOST IMPORTANT things a government can (and should) promote: stem-cell research, public schools for children
5) Free movement of goods and people around the world: no tariffs, no quotas (on goods or people), no H1B visa shit, give everyone a SS number and say "thanks for coming - here's a hammer/pen/laptop"

Hillary fails 1,2,3,5
Obama fails 1,2,3,5
McCain fails 1,3,4

My vote goes to Alan Greenspan

Ends and Means, how do they fit?

Well Hodgie apparently you died. And in you infinite wisdom you had recommended a show called the Wire. And following the word of the great late Hodgie I watched it. It was pretty damn good, especially with how bad television is now days I was pleasantly surprised. Even more happy was I when the end of the show brought about some questions for me to ponder. So will pass one on to you all.

It has to do with Ends and Means and how you justify meeting one to the other. I guess the core of it comes down to is doing something bad ok if the end result is good. Or can you accept doing something wrong for something good. I mean yes we do it a lot on a larger scale, government, vaccinations, wars etc. and we talk about while all these things are and can be ugly the end result is good so therefore the means are good.

I want to disagree with this. I know not many people believe in a black and white world but I do. But bad is bad regardless of how you put a spin on it. And I think people make a whole lot of fuss and in process create all the grey to make them feel better. They say that there is no black and white and therefore things can be justified in there minds. I don't know if I can swallow that. Maybe some evils just have to be accepted, and I guess I'm going to have to live with that, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm not going to bitch about it, and thus thank you blog.

-Zachary

P.s. I today got my final government exam scores back and I have officially finished all my requirements for my M.D.. And sent in my applications to be licensed to practice medicine. So I figured I'd toot my horn here.

Cheers

But there is no Global Warming

I mean if you look at the evidence, there really is nothing conclusive on global warming.  I mean there are holes, and warmer environment but  I mean it's just probably a normal cycle.  

So if you agree with all the above your a fucking idiot, and well that is what congress is trying to get us to believe.  And I guess either McCain is trying to make Americans eat to.  Which is weird cause honestly I haven't heard much on the way of complaints about higher gas prices, it seems people are just accepting it.  

McCain and all current government is trying to be a sheltering parent.  By that I mean hey if you make a stupid decision when you a kid who bails you out, your parents.  And that is exactly what they are proposing on doing.  Your right Tim all the middle class shouldn't have bought that escalade and they damn sure shouldn't have bought that huge house on a mortgage that they can't afford.  But Big Brother is going to step in and take care of it. Or maybe they just are saying they will to get into office and then will quietly ignore it. 

They theme I think is this politicians don't give two rats asses about economics because people don't care to understand economics so there fore politicians don't have to abide by it.  Try pushing things that don't make sense to Americans (i.e. that gas prices should be higher, or industrial jobs should be done in another country) and well as a politician you don't get elected.  And getting elected is the bottom line.

-Zachary

$20/gallon for Gas

Genius economist John McCain wants to help the "struggling middle class." He is proposing a gas-tax holiday on gasoline for the summer (i.e., no taxes from Memorial - Labor Day). BusinessWeek

What the fuck planet is he on? Does he not notice the war in Iraq over oil? Or the constant fear of global warming? Or the fact that everybody in Florida drives trucks? (I saw three Hybrids on my 9 day journey from Tampa to SF...seriously).

Companies are building solar panels, people are biking to work, Japan is making cars that can plug into an electrical outlet. AND THIS FUCKING IDIOT WANTS PEOPLE TO DRIVE MORE????

By the way, this is estimated to cost the government $9,000,000,000. Where will that come from? roads and bridges - great fucking idea.

Since driving is a NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY (econ 101), we should tax it MORE. The "struggling middle class" shouldn't have bought a goddam escalade in the first place. The people who are "really struggling" are not the middle class - it's the people who live in cities and take subways or on farms that drive tractors or walk.

Definitions

Elitist, I guess other might call me that. It is what the name of my folder in which I keep all the e-mails from my friends. One thing that I love about Ayn Rand is her definitions and the convictions in which she holds to them. For example an elitist to me is someone above and beyond in what ever realm you are speaking. But to another it might have more emotional swing to it, meaning pretentious, stuck up, or under tones of jealousy. That is why I love Ayn's books, she defines something and they speaks about it. I have many a heated discussions with my wife to find that we in terms are arguing for the same thing but our definitions are different, and many times drastically.

And speaking of perspective, I defiantly agree with you Tim in that experience makes life sweeter, or more bitter. Its all perspective, a person who has never know pain, would probably be incapacitated by a paper cut (I mean they do hurt though!), or a person who wanders the desert for 40 days and 40 nights will find that free flowing water to be the nectar of the gods (oh I love those religious fanatics). So where am I going with this, well it is one thing I picked up with hanging around my elitist friends experience, and trying new things is what makes life worth living and living is that price.

One question I have is why does America hate big business? Why do they hate the CEOs? Why do they thing those that make the most should contribute monetarily the most? (I say monetarily because if they actually defined contribution the light that is the common mans contribution wouldn't even be noticed next to a great business man's). I don't know if it is jealously, stupidity, envy, or for a sound reason? I mean everyone knows the proverb "don't bite the hand that feeds you", but citizens of the world have been taking the arm up to the shoulder not just the hand.

-Zachary

p.s. I think I'm going to start a hedge fund

Intellectualism

I know I've always bordered on the line of elitism (Zac and Perna crossed this line long ago...) but I think I've always stayed on the border. Recent articles, however, have really made me appreciate that certain things do and should come at a cost (cost of time/study/money). Can someone really appreciate Nietzsche without reading philosophy? Or enjoy a Mouton Rothschild without drinking a lot of wine? Or appreciate American Medicine without getting sick in Haiti? Or enjoy free speech without living in Tibet? Or appreciate walking across Newbury Street without living in Gaza?

An article by Eric Asimov of the NYT (Does Taste Have a Price) about wine made me take this to a broader perspective. There is no question that I appreciate math more in 11th grade compared to 4th or appreciated Literature more as a Senior than a Freshman. Maybe it does take a certain level of expertise to appreciate the finer/better/luxurious things in life...

T

Zac,
The T is public and run by the Governor (MBTA: Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority): Annual Budget

Wall Street Winners Get Billion-Dollar Payday
-NY Times 4/16

A close friend of mine sent me this link - and I'd like to give my response as a post since there is a lot of confusion regarding Wall Street and Hedge Funds.

What is a hedge fund? A hedge fund is an asset that people invest in to make money (similar to investing in a mutual fund or even buying a stock). The difference is, the managers of the hedge fund act in extremely risky ways - for example betting against the US economy or betting a stock will rise exactly 7.4% on the third Tuesday of every month. They use very complicated financial models and more than half of them lose a shitton of money (read about Long Term Capital Management of 2001).

Who can invest in hedge funds? Most funds will not allow investments less than $1 million. Usually it is investors with over $50 million of funds (i.e., extremely wealthy).

How do managers get paid? They take 10-20% of the profits they earn for their clients.

Now, regardless of whether you would invest in a hedge fund (no one on this blog is allowed to, because you have to be classified as a "savvy investor" with the SEC), it is clearly not a vehicle that further separates the rich from the poor. If anything, it increases tax revenue for the government since these investors and managers in the highest bracket.

Trading etc

For some reason it seems people have started to associate trade and use of foreign economics as not just bad, but almost as evil. I believe it sounds something like this, immigrants all taking our jobs, and our industry shipping out the work to another country, no wonder our country is in the decline. Sound familiar? For some reason there is an country misunderstanding that all that makes less expensive goods. But I commonsense, has been misplaced and people have been falling out of the stupid tree left and right, and hitting every branch on the way down.

I think the Dems are playing to this, they are giving the impression that they are all for America by not supporting anything else. That would be my guess, but hey I haven't fallen or climbed the stupid tree, well not lately anyway.

As for transit. I think a lot of it comes down to when things were built. Europe being a much older world, was able to put down much of the railways and subway systems necessary but at a time when labor was much cheaper, as well as materials. We (America) got started later, and now for us to put that kind of project forth would require a lot more capital comparatively. That is the only reasoning I can get? As to why there government is more efficient, I have no idea, but maybe it isn't its just a perception, you know the grass is greener and all that.

Here is one reason why I think our government does not do so well. Pay levels. This comes purely from a medical stand point so it is biased and not entirely encompassing. But the army pays its doctors on scale by rank and not compared to the private sector. For example I will make when I finish my residency around 120k to 130k. No if I worked that same job privately depending on my specialty of choice, I could make 4-8 times as much. That is why their retention rate for doctors is 13%. Just bad business. Again lack of understanding for economics. But that may be why our government sucks. Also quality control may be an issue, again I point to the big dig. Or the VA hospitals where a huge number of surgeons are being fired for gross negligence.

But here is where my argument can fall, I believe the T in Boston is a private company, and it seems every other week their head goes under water financially. But that could be due the the T union or regulations in fare charges I don't know.

-Zachary

Trade

Trade is good for everyone - first lesson of economics. Obama and Clinton have been shooting at NAFTA all year. They're both against the new proposed agreement with Colombia that was just pushed back by the dems in Congress yesterday. Besides the fact that Colombia is the only country left in Latin America that doesn't hate us, we're making a poor country poorer while making the US less competitive.

Does anyone have any logical reason for this? I really just don't get it. When did the democrats become so protectionist? Do people really not understand economics (or even countries in poverty)?

re: The Big Dig

There is a plan going through CA govt right now to authorize a massive train line linking SF to San Diego. If all goes well, I could get from SF to downtown LA in 2.5 hours (it currently takes 5 hours by drive w/out traffic). That's pretty amazing.

I go back and forth with trains. I look at Amtrak - the epitome of government incompetence and cry. Then I look at France, Germany, Belgium, and the UK and am amazed at how well their trains function (i.e., extremely fast, underwater, on-time, comfortable, quiet,...), truly a sign of brilliance.

It amazes me that it's much easier and faster to take a train from London to Paris than it is to go from NYC to Boston or SF to LA. And don't even get me started on our airlines....

France and Germany have a much more controlling govt than us - how come they do things like this so much better? .... and I won't even bring up health care right now.....

The big dig

Timmy,

I would have thought that growing up under the big dig, undoubtedly one of the biggest cluster fucks ever in public transportation that you would be more patient with the incompetence of fixing a highway.  Possibly higher on screwed up construction is that cool bridge that was the length of a harmonic and when the wind hit the bridge it blew itself apart.  But you know how efficient government contracts tend to be so are you really surprised about roadways?  

-Zachary

Forgotten Technology

So there has been road construction in front of my office for the past month. I don't know a lot about paving/destroying/repaving roads, but it seems to me that it's been relatively the same for the last 100 years. Houses can be built in a matter of days. We have thousands of different types of flooring. Why does it take sooo long to repair a road (and then it's shitty until the entire road is repaved). I live in one of the wealthiest places in the world and I swear, Route 101 is the absolute worst road in the industrialized world.

It's obviously an incentive issue (I assume govt contracts have something to do with it), but why hasn't a company developed a "new pavement?" How did pavement miss the boat?

On a similar note - WHY THE FUCK DOES IT TAKE 8-10 WEEKS to deliver the first issue of any magazine???? What are they doing? I call, tell them to deliver, it should be in my mailbox the next day - what are they doing for 10 weeks?? Could magazine companies really be that logistically fucked up? This one really pisses me off (more than the roads - although less frequently).

re: new generation

i can completely see how children are looking to make lots of money, but not do anything for it. not want to actually work or be a leader figure. these days when everyone is a winner, youth sports don't keep score. everyone gets a trophy. no one can be 'picked last' I think the self-esteem train is bullshit, and this is what kids are becoming as a result of it. If they've never had to work hard for any achievement in their lives now, its not surprising that they have those expectations for their futures.
p.s. i was on holiday in the virgin islands, so my brain is kind of still there...

An inherent flaw

I've been thinking on the U.S. and its problems (I know I know big surprise).  And I was wondering if much of the problems of today are due to an inherent flaw in the basic premises of our country.  That being, that we are all created equal.  The cold hard truth is that we are not.  We are not all equal in intelligence, opportunities, or physical prowess (which is to bad cause ole Sargent Gym would have had some bad ass pick up games in our days).  How do we correct for this I don't know, that will take more thinking and hopefully some responses from my other partners in excellence of this blog.

-Zachary

Communism under the red white and blue?

Obama is sounding more like a comumunist than a socialist in his economic plans

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23828234/

-Zachary

The new generation

I just read about a recent nationwide survey about how now the vast majority of kids do not want to be a leader. The want a world where everyone is a leader. Which sounds like a cop out to me. It sounds like the new generation of people are more tended toward sheep than our current generation, and that is saying something. What is happening? Is it that we truly have it to easy, that work is now looked upon as something disgusting? In addition the above these kids all say the want to make lots of money, suprise suprise there. Looks like the american dream has been twisted into something truly sinister, all expectations and thoughts of entitlement, with no willingness to lead or work. It disgusts me, it truly does. The old saying god bless america, looks more like a cursed america to me. The future looks bleak.

-Zachary

PS has everyone died? or brains still on holiday? In other words some post would be nice.

21 Accents

Although I work there, I've actually only been on YouTube once or twice in my life (I think 99% is useless shit) but this link is pretty cool - especially for my language/linguistics friends:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3UgpfSp2t6k

Finance Books

Zac has asked for some books on investing and finance. I've given some recommendations to a few people, so I figured I'd just post it for everyone (please jump in if you have others).

Rich Dad, Poor Dad - Robert Kiyosaki: gives a good overview on how to think about money. Should be everyone's first book on finance.

One up on Wall Street, Peter Lynch: the best finance book ever written in my opinion

The Motley Fool Guide to Investing, Mark Goodson: explains P/E ratios, etc

All three of these are relatively old which makes them better in my opinion because they held true before and after the tech bubble - which many books and theories didn't.

Periodicals: Financial Times, The Economist, Wired (for tech), and Fast Company

I also recommend reading Berkshire Hathaway annual reports. Buffett is truly a master of investing and any long-term investor should try to understand what makes him great.

And lastly, of course, the greatest words regarding finance were said by Francisco d'Anconia:

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality — the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?"

http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/danconiaspeech.htm

Rich in Health but Poor in Pocket

So the puritans are taking over again, does the mean there is going to be another pilgrimage to the states, and if so do they realize we are only two steps behind them?

Tim I know you may live longer with all that wine but if your in Briton than you'll being paying for deeply.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23619536/

-Zachary

PS Tim tell Google I still can't copy paste in Safari on a Mac

re: Harvard Racism

Zac,
I disagree with this one. I think it's great that Harvard is making a select gym for some of their members. I think the fact that they know their market and are providing a service to increase their profits is wonderful.

I've always disliked gyms that try to be "good for everyone." The fact is, most women (even non-Muslim) don't want to work out in front of ooglers like Hodge. And there are many men (myself included) that prefer places like Case over Fitrec because it was more of a testosterone-filled clubhouse.

If it was a public place or school - that's a whole new ballgame. But Harvard is just trying to make a buck and attract the best (most Muslims in American schools are very wealthy).

Racism OK?

Harvard can be agreed upon as one of the top five most prestigious schools in our country if not the world by most all people. And mabye as an icon for the american people. Not only that the average joe tends to 1 to 5 or 10 years later pick up habits that the wealthiest and most powerful do. Now when Harvard one of our wealthiest and most powerful decides that it is ok to have a gym that they are going to close down for certian times a week allow muslim women to work out is that ok? I know their are many arguments, well they can't be comfortable in their clothes they have to wear around men, or men ogglle them or this and that, but truth told they don't have to go to that gym. To me this is simply ridiculous, and going with the icon picture I tried to paint above I was curious if you all think this might move outside the realms of Harvard? I can't believe what is ok this country.

To answer Tim about the brainlessness of the world it is true that there are a select few how use most things to the best of their ability, but they are the minority and have been throughout all history. Not only that the population now has more people in it than ever lived on earth before in total. So it seems as percetage wise we are more in a bubble.

And Paternalism Government, it is not hard to see why we have and will continue to have this problem. People don't want the responsibility, they want to think that the big all knowing and helpful government will take care of them. But the government is made of people, no different than if there was way less goverment and the programs were run privately. But that would be stupid, I mean we'd have more liberty, more money, better and more efficent programs I mean that doesn't make any sense. People for some reason think its ok for the government made of people to take away liberties vs people in buisness to do the same. I guess the jokes on them, and us.

-Zachary

re: Age of Less Brain Power

Zac,

Great points - I agree that most people live in a bubble. But that's been the case for millions of years. Most Greeks and Romans had no idea what Pythagoras and Plato were up to. They barely knew what Caesar and Jesus were up to. Most people have always been ignorant and relatively useless in the grand scheme of things (although they are the ones who usually feed us and clothe us with manual labor).

The select few who are using the internet and all the current information for great purposes are doing amazing things though. For example, science, computing, and medicine have done incredible things that weren't even imagined 20 years ago. In the past few months, I've read that a company in South Korea is commercially cloning dead dogs ($30k) and there is a contest for entrepreneurs to fly to the moon ($5m prize). I wouldn't exactly label this age as "less brain power..."

Paternalistic Government

As a staunch supporter of freedom of choice and consumer rights, I absolutely DESPISE the fact that governments impose restrictions on private businesses. Some do have merit (such as FDA regulations), but I think they can be done in the private sector more effectively. In particular, I think forcing a bar to outlaw smoking is absolutely insane and a major disavowal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Drinking, especially when paired with driving, causes more deaths than smoking. Does this mean we should force bars to stop allowing patrons to drink?

Why can't we just let people do what they want? Some bars will allow smokers, some won't. Some restaurants will allow drinkers, some won't. Otherwise, people are forced to resort to acts like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7285808.stm

Age of less brain power

It is funny you brought that up Tim.  I think about trying to know everything quite often.  And I always ask myself; are we as a generation of Internet, and Google more informed and more widely educated than the generation of the newspaper and the black and white cathode ray tube.  Call it the pessimist in me but I feel that we are not, I feel our generation lives in a greater bubble than the afore mentioned.  We have all this information but it rarely, as I see gets used.  Our attention span is shortening and our apathy is growing.  I feel like we remember less, quite simply because it takes .006 sec to look up something in Google so why remember vs 20 years ago when it took you 30 minutes to look it up in the Britannica that the book sellers brought around every couple of years.  I think we live in the most exciting time there has ever been, stuffed with security, knowledge and freedoms that the human race had never even dreamed of, and I hope that we all take full advantage of it all and fight the apathy and blind sense of entitlement that is sweeping us all under water.

-Zachary

Age of Information

I remember reading a few years ago, in a book called "Uh-Oh," about this guy who used to drive his wife to work in the morning and spend the entire day at the library before picking her up. He used to dive into all sorts of subjects and wrote about the fact that there are hundreds of books published every day and how exciting he found it that he'd never be able to know everything - but it's fun trying.

I think about this excerpt (in fact the whole book) quite often, but I was reminded of it again when I heard today that every minute, 100 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube. Most of it (as well as most things written down) is useless shit - but much of it isn't. The magnitude of that number is astounding.

Sorry, this probably wasn't very coherent, but sometimes I just get floored by the amount of information in the world and how little we all really know...

This little piggy went to the market

Tim

As to my eating habits changing. I to have forgone the metrx bars, but I will still eat a zone bar as a snack. And I really had never forsaken pork, but when I did not have the ability to cook on my own, warren towers did not supply me large amounts of pork choices. But since my freedom from that disease trap at 700 commonwealth I have been eating pork once or twice each week. I love the flavor. In fact just last night, I made a slow roast french cut pork loin with a white wine reduction sauce, preceded by pop overs and honey butter and followed with a freshly made strawberry short cake.
But with my ability to cook my own food, I have turned much healthier, tending towards leaner recipes but trying never to cut flavor.
I guess long live wine is a fitting call, with your articles.

On a separate note, Nader is running again. No one has mentioned that yet so I figured I would. This looks good for me in that he should take votes from the Dems. which I fear the Reps. have very little chance of beating.


-Zachary

I'll Outlive You All

Moderate Wine Drinkers Less Likely to Develop Deadly Diseases
-Wine Spectator Online, Secondary Source

http://ang.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/6/689
-This is from the medical journal, Angiology, Primary Source

National Pig Day

Saturday, March 1, is National Pig Day.

I just found this out and I ended up giving it quite a bit of thought. This was especially so after I was reading Michael Pollen's follow-up to The Omnivore's Dilemma - In Defense of Food.

I grew up loving the lower quality pork products (i.e., hot dogs, sausages from the Sausage Guy at Fenway, and grilled bologna and cheese sandwiches). Ironically, I've never favored the "better" pork dishes like pork chops, etc. During college, however, I completely gave up pork after Dan-O showed me how unhealthy it was-which is true. Pork has a high fat content and low protein (for meat standards)...so the Case-gymers and I traded pork for baked beans, grilled chicken, and MetRx bars.

Now. It's amazing how quickly things change. I couldn't imagine eating a MetRx bar with all those faux ingredients and I rarely eat things out of a can. Grilled chicken is (and always has been) about as tasteful as tofu. Recently, I've found myself devouring pulled-pork sandwiches in New Orleans and anything full of "carnitas" in Mexican restaurants. In fact, I'd say pulled pork is my second favorite meat after a grilled steak.

It's a bit scary. I'm not sure if I'm following trends or I am correcting a mistake that I made during college. I remember "putting-up" with the taste of protein bars-but I don't ever remember preferring them. I also know that I gave up pork for nutritional reasons, not taste reasons. Who could actually prefer PowerBars over carnitas burritos at Anna's Tacqueria?

I'm curious if the other Case-gymers have had this same transition.

Health Care

This is an amazing step towards bring down health care costs.

Damn I love Google

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23274249

-Zachary

Grand Central

(shameless plug)

Google now has Grand Central in Beta testing (which means external people can use it. It's a pretty cool feature. You can call people for free and it stores all your voicemails on the internet (including work numbers, cell numbers, home numbers) and you can listen to them all in one place. It's also free. There are some other cool aspects to it too. Since some of you have about 5+ phone numbers (Scott), you may find it useful.

http://www.grandcentral.com/

America Needs a Mercy Flush

I'm not sure when this happened or how, but I'm going to look into it further. So America started in all it's glory with a bunch of religious exiles looking for new hope and freedom and turned into a country where the wealthy and productive made the decisions for the rest. We can argue about the validity of that as well as the ethical portions later. Then in and undetermined amount of time later the unproductive and non-movers started to gain power. Then mediocrity gained a toe hold and now fame. Now in schools kids don't get medals and trophies for winning, no everyone gets one regardless of how they did. All of the sudden it is a phrase that everyone loves, "everyone is special". Which translates to no one is. Schools are taught to the C student, not the A.

And here is the tie in, politicians don't take care of the people keeping the country and their campaigns afloat but to the mediocrity of the American public. That is what makes it ok for Obama to say what he did. Because the failing deserve their chance, regardless of what it does to the masses and the people who were innovative enough to makes things work in a system that ties their hands behind their back.

This is why I have to choke back bile every time I listen to debates and read about what politicians are trying to pull.

So some of you may be wondering do I think our business leaders should be running the world, maybe I do, and maybe not I am not sure. I think that the problem can be in two areas either government or people are innately flawed, or maybe we should just stop catering to the ones and governments who are (see Mexico in my last post, or see 90% of the American public).

-Zachary

re: Politics

wow, scathing indictments on politics by Hodgie and Zac. The matter-of-factness in both of your excellent points is scary though. As many of you know, I am not a staunch supporter of democracy - in fact Plato's "Allegory of the Ship" even came up in conversation tonight.

I must say, however, this acceptance of bullshit-politics, especially playing the game state-by-state (obviously, Obama did not mention this policy when he visited Google in November...) is sickening. For the sake of his pride, I hope he believes it is a good policy. Otherwise, how can we stand behind a "leader" who lies to get elected? Isn't that what we're trying to get rid of? Is lying about policies that much different than lying about WMD? Of course many more died in the latter, but Obama is depriving us of our sense of pride....

-Tim

The Dems

So both Clinton and Obama think it is a better idea to use high tech surveillance for illegal immigrants rather than put up a good ole fashion wall. How entirely like the democrats to spend way more money than necessary.

But then again, the America government thought it necessary to make sure it was ok with the Mexican government for us to put up a wall on our own damn soil. I mean what the fuck, we bomb the shit out of Iraq thinking we can get oil (by oil I mean get terroists and by get terrorists I mean get WMDs and by get WMDs I mean well golly gee my Dad started it with dem sonsa bitches so shucks I better finish it), and we get nothing from Mexico but we court them like the prom is next month and they are the pretties girl in town. But hey I guess that's politics and it makes no fucking sense

-Zachary

Politics

Obama's stance is doing what his positions tells him to do, play politics. I think he would support it if it gained enough momentum. And the scary part is it just might. Politicians may know economics, and probally most of them do but they want to win votes and to win votes means catering to the voters vunerablilty. And that is what Obamas is doing, and he is learning from history, Rommeny said he would get Michagans jobs back, which was a full face lie, and McCain said they jobs are coming back the truth and McCain got his ass handed to him there.

Also I saw this and thought some people might want to read it

Q. "Why can't the president be elected by popular vote? Why is the Electoral College still considered constitutional when it clearly undermines what a democracy stands for?"

The Electoral College is “considered constitutional” because it is constitutional.
The Constitution itself establishes the system of electors that we use. See Article II, section 1, Clause 2, of the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….”

Changing this system would require an amendment to the Constitution. It takes the agreement of three-quarters of the states to do that.

And the states with smaller populations (Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, etc.) are unlikely to agree to such an amendment, since the system established by the Constitution gives them a bigger voice in electing a president than they’d have if election through a popular vote were used.

-Zachary

ps Tim I will write about my one word soon

Re: Patriot Supporters

I think Obama understands that this is terrible economic policy. I think he also understands how a politician must compete in Presidential primary season if he/she wants to win the nomination. He needs to move to the left on many issues, including trade, to take votes from Clinton's base (especially in Ohio, which coincidently is one of the next states to vote) and that is what he is doing. I don't think you can take any of these ideas at face value until at least the general election competition is underway. Just watch, as soon as he gets the nomination, he will start moving way back to the center to compete with McCain for independents, which is the group that will decide this election. There is no way he would ever attempt to actually implement this policy.

Don't blame Obama, he is just playing the game.

Obama's "Patriot Employers"

Financial Times, 2/19, page 1: "Obama made an aggressive pitch to Ohio's blue-collar workers yesterday with a 'patriot employer' plan that would lower taxes for companies that did not ship jobs overseas..."

I 100% withdraw all support that I ever gave him. This is the worst piece of jingoistic rhetoric that I have ever heard of. I dare say, as protectionist as Ron Paul and republicans.

Why don't politicians understand economics? Why would you harm a company for attempting to decrease their expenses? Why would you harm SHAREHOLDERS who are already getting taxed beyond belief? Why would you harm all the blue-collar workers who hold PENSION PLANS and 401ks???

China and India are already far surpassing the US in many industries. Does he think this will change that trend? Does he think this plan will help GM regain market share from Toyota? Does he think anyone will be able to compete with Samsung, IKEA, and Sony?

How did he go to Columbia and Harvard and not learn this?

Leader

I must say, I'm highly anticipating the reasons behind some of the words posted. My first thought, also happened to be "happiness," but here's why I opted for "leader":

My idea of a personal mental nirvana doesn't exist in the English language (nor any others that I know of). Happiness/joy/glee/gaiety has become so arbitrary (along with love) that it has come to be the definition of much lower descriptions that cannot live up to the meaning that needs to be expressed. Happiness is nearly synonymous with contentment or more scarily, even apathy. A more desirable feeling would be ecstasy (intense joy or delight; rapture according to my dictionary), but this still doesn't capture what people really yearn for. As I am not trying to have a semantic argument based on this point, for clarity purposes I'll use "777" below to describe this non-word.

In my opinion, 777 cannot be just achieved whenever. [Yes, I know this is about to start an argument.] 777 needs to be earned. By this, I mean a person needs values and a philosophy on life in which to measure herself against. Without a solid system or understanding of one's own beliefs, desires, and passions - true 777 will never be achieved. "Happiness" can be achieved by hanging out on a beach all day or enjoying a nice glass of wine. While these things are wonderful and possibly deserve a close 2nd place, it isn't what we all live for. If it was, none of us would have gone to college or participate in careers.

Instead, it takes a "leader" to lead herself to follow her dreams, focus on the important things in her life, and succeed at those things; 777 is the feeling/thought achieved. Leaders can enjoy happiness that other forces or people have created (such as wine, beaches, nature, books), but will understand that the most important task is to create: create goals; create measurements; create solutions; create a life. Creation may mean creating happiness for others, wealth for oneself, literally creating a life for someone, or creating a solutions to bad beer or global warming. With any of these, the satisfaction attained could never be explained by, nor caused by "happiness" as we know it. It takes a leader to lead one's own philosophy and dreams, lead others to assist, and lead oneself to one's own personal 777.

belief

re: one word

i agree with zac and hodge...happiness

One Word

Love

One Word

I'm gonna have to agree with Zach on this one and go with happiness.

One Word

Happiness

-Zachary

re: one word

confidence

re: One Word

leader

One Word

ok - this is a bit of a survey, but I'm curious how many people are reading this and this is one of the hardest questions in the world - so I'm very interested in the answers.

What is the one word/characteristic/trait for a person that is the most important in life? NO explanations until others have posted.

re: Organic Food

Many people lump "organic," "local," "environmentally friendly," and "fair-trade" together. This is very, very wrong and I'd like to address points by Zac & Brian.

Organic food, which is over 90% of my diet, is a very confusing and misleading term which changes its definition depending on what type of food is being described. In general, however, we'll say it is food that is grown in the manner of our cave-men ancestors (or Adam & Eve - for Maura). In this, I mean - no hormones, no pesticides, and preferably no preservatives (but that means no asparagus for 9 months a year...which is where the 10% of my diet comes in).

On a selfish level, organic food is probably the healthiest. It is eating meat in the natural way that humans and other omnivores have traditionally eaten. E-coli, salmonella, etc are still possible (even likely considering I eat rare meat & vegetables), but you are still eating a "normal/traditional" diet, which does not include TV dinners, high-fructose corn syrup, and power bars.

As you noticed, I did not mention environmental reasons. There is a lot of debate on this and until organic food can be mass-produced in every location (good luck to Las Vegas & Anchorage), it will be more environmentally friendly to farm & ship in mass quantities (as current), than have millions of "Sweet Sara's Farm" watermelon shipped around the world. There's more to this, so if provoked, I'll go into further detail.

Environmentally-friendly food is grown by farmers who care about the land, etc (i.e., Native Americans & some organic farmers). This is great, but I think it should be an added benefit. We have many more environmental problems to worry about and this is very little compared to cars, deforestation, and Beijing.

As Hodge alluded to, fair-trade distorts economics. It encourages over-production, similar to subsidies, and should not be encouraged. The farmers should move to a different crop (perhaps wine?).

In summary, I eat organic because I think it's better for my body and I want to live as long as possible. I don't eat organic to save the planet or because it's "fair" or any other bandwagon reason. I wish all people would do the actual economic research on these things before waving their protest flags.

-Tim

PS.
On forced/collective farming: Many people buy "fair-trade" because the "non-fair-trade" farmers are usually paid shit and all of the profits go to some type of businessman/dictator. This is not a valid solution to this problem. I certainly do not believe in any type of forced (or unforced) socialism nor slavery. We should not try to "fight with our dollars." This only hurts the farmers under the current situation while helping the few "fair-trade." Have you ever wondered why these "lucky" fair-trade farmers don't have to participate in these slave-like collective farms that you're trying to boycott? Buying fair-trade is feeding the same monster.

The farmers should do the following: a) grow a different crop. If this isn't possible, they should b) move somewhere else. If this isn't possible, they should c) try to sneak into the US or France and collect welfare. If this isn't possible, then d) let natural selection take it's course and become fertilizer for the farmer down the street.

Organic Food and Environment

Hodge, et. al

This gives data, on organic farming, read it
http://eatwild.com/environment.html

Just make sure your hatred for organic farming is correct, cause well it may not be as bad as you think, or mabye better.


-Zachary

Re: Organic Foods

Alot of it can be chalked up to government subsidies as well b/c farmers will deplete land of nutrients by intensely growing crops that aren't necessarily suited to wherever they are farming b/c of the ridiculous govt subsidies for certain crops.

Also, I don't think you can argue for organic foods from an environmental perspective since it is also bad for the environment by encouraging deforestation. I'm not saying fertilizers are good for the environment but neither are organic processes. So then I guess we're fucked both ways, so who cares, lets go organic, the earth is screwed either way. There we go, now I'm on board.

Lets go Celts.

Organic Foods

This is another plug for organic foods

Over the last 50 years or so the USDA has been tracking nutrition values in some 43 different crops and the levels of nutrients have dropped in them. Specifically Vit C was down 20%, iron 15%, riboflavin 38%, and Calcium 16%, down 10% were zinc and selenium. Now this may not only be chalked up to fertilizers, but they most likely have been contributing to it.

So while it may take more land to produce organic food, you have to eat more fertilizer made food to get the same nutrition equavalience. And if this trend continues it will just get worse, not to mentions killing the environment in to process.

-Zachary

John McCain

Here is my list of problems with McCain.
1. He is trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and I know some of you say yes he is trying to return the power to the states. I agree that is good, but what it does is then make it illegal to travel from one state that doesn't allow abortion to another state that does to get an abortion. Bullshit in my mind.

2. Gay marriage. Who the fuck are we to say that marriage is only between a male and a female. It is unbeliveable to me that this is still an issue in american society, well ok not unbeliveable but pretty close.

3. Health care reform, I agree with him on many of thing things he wants to implement to help health care. But I do not agree with tax breaks to those who want health care. I do not believe health care is a natural right, and it is surely not in the constitution or its amendments so why are we pushing so hard for it. Secondly on the same note health care is a service and a trade, and no one can go into a grocery store and demand that food is given to them for free. But there is a perversion of thought and entiltment that allows people to say that health care should be given to them for free. And I can probally with out a conter argument from anyone state that food is more tied to survival than health care but no demands for free food are seen. Not only that the government through tariffs and subsidies makes food more expensive, i.e the sugar industry. Ass backwards is the title for thinking on health care in my mind.

Cheers
Zachary