Saturday, November 21, 2009

Goodbye.

The black and white photos are mine. They were taken at Pretty Place Church SC in 2003. The color photos were taken from Facebook. I wish I were responsible for the wedding photo at the bottom. To my mind it is quintessential Saule.

I find my own words lacking, so these poems will have to suffice. They merely remind me of my good friend and the long talks we often shared. Some may find my choices dark or bleak, but to me they speak to the beauty of Saule's ephemeral life. Perhaps they will make sense to those who (and I hesitate to phrase it so) knew her well enough. I will miss you more than I will ever let on.


I've seen a Dying Eye
Run round and round a Room -
In search of Something - as it seemed -
Then Cloudier become -
And then - obscure with Fog -
And then - be soldered down
Without disclosing what it be
'Twere blessed to have seen

- Emily Dickinson, #547




Sometimes I forget completely
what companionship is.
Unconscious and insane, I spill sad
energy everywhere. My story
gets told in various ways: a romance,
a dirty joke, a war, a vacancy.

Divide up my forgetfulness to any number,
it will go around.
These dark suggestions that I follow,
are they part of some plan?
Friends, be careful. Don't come near me
out of curiosity, or sympathy.

- Rumi, Sometimes I Forget Completely



Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Sartre and His Crabs

Sartre is one of my favorite philosophers, not that I know a damn thing about philosophy, but I do like a good quote or aphorism. Anyways, turns out he was stark raving nuts. In a lovable and endearing way of course. Jean Paul Sartre and his crabs. From Harper's:

"jean-paul sartre: At Normale, there were some ten of us who ran around together. The great thing about group activity is that the decision-making process is generalized to the group. So when we decided to take over a bar and that led to confrontations, yes, each of us was responsible, but it was a common act. Of course, there were some individual disasters too. Well, not disasters, I’m exaggerating, but when we decided to experiment with drugs, I ended up having a nervous breakdown.

john gerassi: You mean the crabs?

sartre: Yeah, after I took mescaline, I started seeing crabs around me all the time. They followed me in the streets, into class. I got used to them. I would wake up in the morning and say, “Good morning, my little ones, how did you sleep?” I would talk to them all the time. I would say, “Okay, guys, we’re going into class now, so we have to be still and quiet,” and they would be there, around my desk, absolutely still, until the bell rang.

gerassi: A lot of them?

sartre: Actually, no, just three or four.

gerassi: But you knew they were imaginary?

sartre: Oh, yes. But after I finished school, I began to think I was going crazy, so I went to see a shrink, a young guy then with whom I have been good friends ever since, Jacques Lacan. We concluded that it was fear of being alone, fear of losing the camaraderie of the group. You know, my life changed radically from my being one of a group, which included peasants and workers, as well as bourgeois intellectuals, to it being just me and Castor. The crabs really began when my adolescence ended. At first, I avoided them by writing about them—in effect, by defining life as nausea—but then as soon as I tried to objectify it, the crabs appeared. And then they appeared whenever I walked somewhere. Not when I was writing, just when I was going someplace. The first time I discussed it with Castor, when they appeared one day as we were strolling in the Midi, we concluded that I was going through a depression, based on my fear that I was doomed the rest of my life to be a professor. Not that I hated to teach. But defined. Classified. Serious. That was the worst part, to have to be serious about life. The crabs stayed with me until the day I simply decided that they bored me and that I just wouldn’t pay attention to them. And then the war came, the stalag, the resistance, and the big political battles after the war.

gerassi: When you tried to launch the so-called Third Force, anti–United States and anti-Communist?

sartre: Exactly. But it didn’t work. It attracted too many reactionaries who may have been against U.S. domination but for the wrong reason. And soon we understood, we had to choose. The basic question: Who was ready, willing even, to launch an attack on the other, to lead us into a new war that would devastate the planet? Obviously, it was the United States. So we had to abandon the Third Force and ally ourselves, albeit reluctantly, with Russia.

gerassi: So, during that period, no crabs? No depression?

sartre: Not until 1958. We had work to do. To push France out of NATO, to refuse U.S. bases, to stop selling our resources to U.S. conglomerates. There were rallies, demonstrations, marches almost every day. And our magazine had to lead the way. Then de Gaulle seized power and suddenly it dawned on me that my life would be totally absurd, that my generation was doomed to exist under his pathetic and ridiculous assurances of “la grandeur de la France.

gerassi: Unlike your previous depression, which was personal, that depression was social, meaning no crabs, right?

sartre: I would have liked my crabs to come back. The crabs were mine. I had gotten used to them. They kept reminding me that my life was absurd, yes, nauseating, but without challenging my immortality. Despite their mocking, my crabs never said that my books would not be on the shelf, or that if they were, so what? You have to realize that my psychosis was literature. I was poured into a world where there was a certain immortality, and it took fifty years to put all that into question, to go not from an ivory tower, but still, from a privileged state of the intellectual, to the contrary, challenging the role of the intellectual. I did that by writing The Words, by rereading Marx, by approaching the Communist Party, and by realizing that I had simply been protecting myself. Whatever happened, my books would be on the shelf, hence I was immortal. For all my anti–religiousness at the time, I was almost like a Christian who thinks that if he’s a nice guy he’ll end up next to God.

gerassi: And your social depression got rid of all that?

sartre: Indeed. My crabs had considered me important, or else why bother me? De Gaulle, the ridiculousness of the Cold War, America’s drive to conquer and control, all that made me realize that I was not and would never be significant.

gerassi: From the end of the war until de Gaulle’s coup d’état in 1958, you were haunted by neither crabs nor depression?

sartre: We keep calling them crabs because of my play The Condemned of Altona, but they were really lobsters.

gerassi: Even Castor occasionally refers to them as your crabs. Anyway, they were gone then?

sartre: Oh, yes, they left me during the war. You know, I’ve never said this before, but sometimes I miss them—when I’m lonely, or rather when I’m alone. When I go to a movie that ends up boring, or not very gripping, and I remember how they used to sit there on my leg. Of course I always knew that they weren’t there, that they didn’t exist, but they served an important purpose. They were a warning that I wasn’t thinking correctly or focusing on what was important, or that I was heading up the wrong track, all the while telling me that my life was not right, not what it should be. Well, no one tells me that anymore."

Crazy, but I really like the ending.

Here's a passage of his that always gets me. It is, of course, almost incomprehensible.

"A freedom which wills itself freedom is in fact a being-which-is-not-what-it-is and which is-what-it-is-not, and which chooses as the ideal of being, being-what-it-is-not and not-being-what-it-is."

Monday, November 9, 2009

TED Talks and Income Inequality

Note: It's always kind of nice to know that you can change your ideas based on better evidence. The combination of the first TED talk here and the accompanying two articles have altered the way I view perceived value and income inequality.

Ad man Rory Sutherland. Definitely a must see (after all this text).

The point of his that I found most interesting was the idea of perceived value. This is generally something I tend to bemoan the existence of. Perceived value is the idea that a good, say a purse, can be bought for $10 or over $1000 if it has the right label on it. I've written about it before but I'm bad at labeling my posts. Regardless, Mr. Sutherland purposes the rather simple, if not ingenious, idea that we essentially have two choices in this area. We can either have lots of stuff and be rich or have very little and be poor (if nothings getting produced no one has a job). The alternative is that we can own less but the goods we do own have an element of added perceived value. Think Europe.

The really interesting part is that this has already been noted by economists. We all know that income inequality has been growing in the US, but some economists have said it's really just an artifact of the way we measure the data. As Stephen Levitt puts it:

"Their argument could hardly be simpler. How rich you are depends on two things: how much money you have, and how much the stuff you want to buy costs. If your income doubles, but the prices of the things you consume also double, then you are no better off."

The study basically says that being rich got more expensive while being poor got cheaper (Walmart). This fact according to these economists can explain away between two thirds and all of the "growing" income gap. I feel dirty just saying that. Then on the Becker-Posner blog they collectively agree that rising income inequality is good because it means that people are securing more skilled jobs vie se vie rising higher education costs. It's a good read but a bit dry.



Dutch artist and engineer Theo Jansen makes... creatures.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Monkeys Participate in the Free Market

Or - I'm a right wing pundit.

Seriously though. From Aid Watch via NPR:

"In a recent experiment, a team of scientists trained a vervet monkey to open a container of apples, a task no other monkey in her group could do. She was well-compensated for this service by the other monkeys, who began to spend a lot of time grooming her (apparently, grooming is the monkey unit of exchange). Then, the scientists trained another monkey in the group to get the apples, and the “price” for the service (ie the amount of grooming the apple-providing monkeys received) went down. NPR Correspondent Alex Bloomberg explained:

[W]hen there was a monkey monopoly on the skill, the monkeys paid one price. But when it became a duopoly, the price fell to an equilibrium point, about half of what it had been. And this all happened despite the fact that we’re talking about monkeys here. Monkeys can’t do math.

What’s the point, other than research studies are really bizarre? Acquiring a sought-after new job skill leads to a higher income, even among monkeys. And, monkey markets can still set prices, even though the market participants can’t add, sign contracts, or talk. And, perhaps, complex markets can be the product of an unintentional, spontaneous order: Out of the chaos of many monkeys running around hitting one another on the heads, pulling nits off each other’s fur, following only the simple rules of monkey hierarchies and monkey appetites…a functioning market emerges."

Of course this serves my ideas which is why I'm drawn to this study. None the less, it is interesting supporting evidence for the existence of a market economy in the absence of any structured economic system. As I've said before - a market economy is what happens when nothing else exists to take its place. Although I understand the many downsides of capitalism, it is essentially brutal evolution after all, I don't understand the criticism. It's just what is. No one criticizes the water cycle or electromagnetism, so what gives? My hunch is that it's another case of people confusing/not understanding issues (as if I really do either). It's like getting mad at Muslims when really you're mad at extremist religions.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Science, Religion, and Human Trafficking

All in one semi-easy to read, hastily thrown together, and poorly edited post!

Let me begin as usual by lamenting about my inability to post due to grad school. Although, I finally figured out architects and why I don't fit in at school. Wait for it... people become architects because they like design. They are fascinated with the beauty of things more so than the average person. They become architects because buildings are the biggest things you can design. Essentially, they are artists with egos. This is why me and my ideas will never fit in here, but that's fine because:

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If they're original, you'll have to ram it down their throats." - Howard Aiken (he built one of IBM's first computers)

Bare with me here for a moment:

Recently there's been a mostly academic battle over global warming vis a vie some of my favorite economists and bloggers. Notably the authors of Freakonomics Levitt and Dubner and another favorite blogger, Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman.

It starts with this flame piece by Joe Romm, a respected environmental blogger, about the new book Superfreakonomics which prompts Paul Krugman to weigh in. Levitt and Dubner (authors of the book) realize what's going on and then reply which then sets off another two posts (1,2) by Krugman and the grand finale (great read) by Nathan Myhrvold; a man of which Bill Gates said “I don’t know anyone I would say is smarter than Nathan."

How do we understand such smart people essentially flinging poo at one another from their ivory towers?

I first saw Johnathan Haidt in a TED talk a few months ago. It was one of the best talks I've ever seen. Well now he's back with a Q&A on health care as it relates to his previous talk. Those are both must see/reads. Here he gets at what I want to talk about:

"I did say that in-group, authority and purity are necessary for the maintenance of order, but I would never give them a blanket endorsement. Rather, my message to secular liberals is, Don't dismiss these entirely. Be wary of them, sure; they can motivate violations of civil liberties and human rights. But we need them at times, and to a limited degree. Above all recognize that matters related to ingroup (such as immigration, or the flag), authority (such as crime and punishment), and purity (such as sexuality) are the ones that take on a kind of religious importance for most Americans, because they are about binding groups together around sacred values. Liberals often trigger outrage by ignoring these concerns in their pursuit of social justice, or of efficient policy."

In his TED talk one of the issues that Haidt speaks about is how liberal people will often view certain aspects of eating and exercise as an act of "purity." Think, Wholefoods, organic, spin class, yoga, and other stuff that's kind of nice minus the piles of bullshit you have to walk through to get to their real sustenance. Whereas more traditional people generally associate purity with sexuality, morals, etc. That is, to liberals (read: most college professors) certain issues generally outside of morality take on a moral meaning. Things like what you eat and global warming are increasingly no longer scientific discussions (although who really talks like that anyways). So when the authors of one book, who admit that global warming is a problem and are working on a reasonable solution, suggest that perhaps the current path we're taking to fight global warming is unrealistic, people - smart people, lose their damn minds because you've just touched something very dear to their psyche. Essentially, arguments take on a sense of religiousness.

Which brings me to the sex trade. I watched a movie tonight called Lilya 4-Ever (Hat tip: Vija via Todd). It was a good movie although I'm not sure I'd recommend it. It was sad to say the least, but it portrays the sex trade in a manner that is quite believable. In fact, I imagine that's more or less just how it happens.

Here's my issue. This is one of those subjects that elicits what I earlier termed the "PETA version of how a slaughter house operates." Is it true? Sure, sometimes, but how do most of these things really operate? In this case, I think the only people who know are those actually involved... and I'm not convinced that a lot of them are giving in depth accounts of their activities. Talk about lack of incentives on all sides.

My issue is this. I am in favor of legalizing a regulated form of prostitution. Do I know exactly how this will work or what the unintended consequences will be? Nope, my heads in the sky. It's my belief that it'd have a similar effect as would legalizing drugs. Drug dealers go out of business and people get a safer product at market prices. There are, of course, all sorts of downsides. I just think the upsides outweigh them in both of these cases. But if the positions in these newly regulated legalized brothels are filled by what are essentially slaves who are forced to have sex... yea. Not okay at all.

The argument I'm hearing over and over is that more or less anything to do with prostitutes, escorts, and strip clubs involves the sex trade. Most guys have been to a strip club. According to what I'm being told, many of those women are slaves. Really? When I think of human trafficking and the sex trade I think of a shady brothel or escort service run by scary men operating completely outside of any sort of law. Am I completely off base? I'm not saying this stuff doesn't exist. I know it does. My question is, to what extent is this true? I have no idea, but I'm just not convinced that other people know either. And again, if prostitution were legalized and regulated (so that no slaves could be "workers") wouldn't that serve to curb the sex trade?

There's so much to say here, and most of which I know little to nothing about. I just want some reliable data.

Picturequote

"Herodotus (and many other intelligent Greeks) always retained a great respect for Cyrus and the characteristically Persian qualities that he embodied... one day a rich and influential Persian came as a spokesman for the people... and suggested that since Persia was now the most powerful country in the world, it would be a good idea if they were to emigrate from their poor and mountainous country and occupy some rich and fertile lowland.

Cyrus did not think much of the suggestion; he replied that they might act upon it if they pleased, but added the warning that, if they did so, they must prepare themselves to rule no longer, but to be ruled by others. 'Soft countries,' he said 'breed soft men. It is not the property of any one soil to produce fine fruits and good soldiers too.' The Persians had to admit that this was true and that Cyrus was wiser than they; so they left him, and chose to live in a rugged land and rule rather than to cultivate rich plains and be slaves." (p 43. Bradford, Ernle. Thermopylae, The Battle for the West. Da Capo Press, 1980.)

That's why people live in Chicago.

This however, is the Brooklyn Brdige in NYC.


Saturday, October 17, 2009

Backlog of Readings

Now every time I post one of these obnoxious lists I'll point out the best article, or at least the one's that you can't skip.

Required Reading
- This is a great (and lengthy) article by Malcolm Gladwell on brain damage and football. Kind of glad I never played.

Google says they overpaid when they purchased YouTube to the tune of 1 billion (they paid 1.65 billion for the site). Best part, they knew they were doing it.

According to Krugman the Fed, even under really rosy circumstances, won't raise rates for at least 2 years.

Ever hear of Conservapedia? They're hilarious, but now they've outdone themselves. They're going to rewrite the Bible to "remove the liberal bias."

New York City made a law requiring restaurants to show calorie counts on menu items. Oddly, the new law doesn't seem to be changing the amount of calories that people purchase in any given transaction.

New theories on altruism vis a vie termites.

A Nobel in medicine this year went to three scientists who discovered telomerase, an enzyme that allows a cell to divide perpetually without dying. It has implications for future cancer research.

Krugman says healthcare reform will happen.

Google's Android OS is about to tip
. By the end of the year it'll be available on 12 phones.

Ugh, this wasn't even half of my list... more later.

Obama Wins a Nobel Peace Prize

Yeah, I'm a bit late on this one, but I'm busy enough these days that even taking time to do this is taking up time I should be working on some vague architectural assignment.

So Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I have to admit that it seems a tad premature. He did receive the nomination a mere 12 days after assuming office. Anyways, it seems to have made Fidel happy (as if that alone weren't reason enough... ha), and the right is pissed. Best comment (there's some other gems in there too) - Rush Limbaugh: "Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award

." Priceless.

This is Jesse Larner at the Huffington Post speaking of his confusion of Obama's win: "Maybe the more absurd and bizarre it is, the more of a kick in the pants it is to the Bush presidency, of late, unlamented memory. This is how much we hate you, George; anyone who comes after you will win the Nobel prize, just for not being you."

But then Foreign Policy (a great magazine by the way) spoiled the whole thing and listed what Obama had done in his first 12 days in office to deserve a Nobel.
  • January 21: Obama met with the ambassador to Iraq, commander in Iraq, and regional commander to receive a complete briefing on the war.
  • January 22: Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
  • January 22: Obama signed an executive order explicitly prohibiting the use of torture and ordering all U.S. forces to obey the Army Field Manual. He also ordered a review of the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, a detainee held on a Naval brig in South Carolina.
  • January 22: Obama met with numerous retired generals.
  • January 23: Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy, which had prevented nongovernmental organizations from receiving government funding if they supplied family planning assistance or abortions abroad.
  • January 23: Obama calls Prime Minister Harper of Canada, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, and Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations.
  • January 26: Obama announced his appointing of Todd Stern to the new position of special envoy for climate change -- recognizing the environment as a pressing foreign-policy concern.
  • January 27: More phone calls. This time Obama speaks with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, South African President Kgalema Motlanthe, and Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan.


But then Foreign Policy (a great magazine by the way) spoiled the whole thing and listed what Obama had done in his first 12 days in office to deserve a Nobel.

  • January 21: Obama met with the ambassador to Iraq, commander in Iraq, and regional commander to receive a complete briefing on the war.
  • January 22: Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
  • January 22: Obama signed an executive order explicitly prohibiting the use of torture and ordering all U.S. forces to obey the Army Field Manual. He also ordered a review of the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, a detainee held on a Naval brig in South Carolina.
  • January 22: Obama met with numerous retired generals.
  • January 23: Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy, which had prevented nongovernmental organizations from receiving government funding if they supplied family planning assistance or abortions abroad.
  • January 23: Obama calls Prime Minister Harper of Canada, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, and Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations.
  • January 26: Obama announced his appointing of Todd Stern to the new position of special envoy for climate change -- recognizing the environment as a pressing foreign-policy concern.
  • January 27: More phone calls. This time Obama speaks with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, South African President Kgalema Motlanthe, and Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

The Rule of 72... or 70, 69.3

If you have no idea what that title means then I guarantee (ironic global and personal events withstanding) that this is the most important thing you will learn today.

This is something my dad talked about constantly since I can remember, so when a lecturer at IIT today stated the "rule of 70" I chuckled to myself with my usual dorky demeanor. It was one architectural PhD talking to a bunch of other MA's and PhD's who don't know basic finance... which is of course why they design the objects that contain more of humanities combined wealth than any other profession by far. But that's not the point.

The point is that I wanted to know why he said rule of 70 and not 72. Upon further research I learned all sorts of cool things, and as usual Wikipedia and a subsequent Google search taught me more in fifteen minutes than I learned all day at my fancy school (sorry school, I still love you and your sweet sweet buildings and wood shop).


The rule of 72 is a quick and fairly accurate way of determining how long it will take an investment to double. Simply divide 72 by the interest rate and the result is the amount of time it takes the principle to double due to compounding interest. For example: if you are receiving an interest rate of 8% on $1 it will take 72/8 = 9 years for that dollar to double. Simple enough.

Here's the actual calculations (from Wikipedia):

Rate ↓ Actual Years ↓ Rule of 72 ↓ Rule of 70 ↓ Rule of 69.3 ↓
0.25% 277.605 288.000 280.000 277.200
0.5% 138.976 144.000 140.000 138.600
1% 69.661 72.000 70.000 69.300
2% 35.003 36.000 35.000 34.650
3% 23.450 24.000 23.333 23.100
4% 17.673 18.000 17.500 17.325
5% 14.207 14.400 14.000 13.860
6% 11.896 12.000 11.667 11.550
7% 10.245 10.286 10.000 9.900
8% 9.006 9.000 8.750 8.663
9% 8.043 8.000 7.778 7.700
10% 7.273 7.200 7.000 6.930
11% 6.642 6.545 6.364 6.300
12% 6.116 6.000 5.833 5.775
15% 4.959 4.800 4.667 4.620
18% 4.188 4.000 3.889 3.850
20% 3.802 3.600 3.500 3.465
25% 3.106 2.880 2.800 2.772
30% 2.642 2.400 2.333 2.310
40% 2.060 1.800 1.750 1.733
50% 1.710 1.440 1.400 1.386
60% 1.475 1.200 1.167 1.155
70% 1.306 1.029 1.000 0.990

72 is used because it's the multiple of many numbers and hence easy to use. The "appropriate", if that's the right word to use (pun definitely intended), number to use is 70 because ln(2) = 69.3; rounded up. Although it depends on what interest rate you're working with. For the numbers I tend to use, say... the real rate of return on an investment in the stock market which is about 6-7%; 72 works best. For small numbers use the others.

Use that link above and play with the stock markets numbers. I learned quite a bit. I did 1955-2002. My thinking was an era post-WWII and the boom afterwords and the period before we went totally nuts in the last few years. Average rate of return? About 10.6% (this is the geometric mean, not arithmetic - there's an explanation on the site and the number I give is far more accurate) and when it's adjusted for inflation the "real" rate of return is about 6.3%.

72/6.3 = 11.4 years

The take away from that is this. Say you have a kid and you decide it'd be nice if one day they had money to give their kids, you know, patience and forethought. Well, if when they were born you set up an IRA (savings account that doesn't get taxed) and put in a $100 bill by the time they could withdraw it at 59.5 it'd be worth roughly $40,000. Keep in mind this is already adjusted for inflation. So say you skipped buying that Acura and instead bought the Toyota and put the savings of roughly $15,000 in that account (over several years, you can only put in $6,000 a year currently) and they didn't withdraw it until they were 65.5 (using the 1871-2008 geometric mean of the average rate of return on the US S&P 500 adjusted for inflation which is 6.6%). They'd have $960,000 (again, in present value) tax free. That's a truly conservative estimate based off of the largest sample size available to anyone is the US that I'm aware of.

Capitalism may be brutal and inhumane, but over the long run it certainly doesn't have to be. Just think of how you live now - and the giant's shoulders we stand on to do so. The rich get richer because they know simple financial tricks like the rule of 72 that enables them to create a mental picture strong enough to allow them to invest in something that they will most likely never see come to fruition. But in the long run... $15,000? That was my tuition this semester. When we spend money in the present it has a great effect on the future that few ever give thought to. My decision to go to grad school is essentially me saying "with the knowledge I gain here I will effect the world in a more significant way than if I were to invest the money (3 years at over $30K per year) and bequeath to six people of my choosing one million dollars apiece in roughly 65 years." Understanding this relationship adds new meaning to these actions, or detracts it if you consider what most people spend their money on.

So yes, that's why I wear Hanes white tees and bring my lunch to class.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Picturequote

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule-and both commonly succeed and are right." - H.L. Mencken

Chicago lost its bid for the 2016 Olympics that Obama endorsed, so the far-right cheered gleefully. I don't even need to explain how childish and unfortunate that is. I thought we were all Americans after all. Anyways, that quote hit a nerve as I've noticed this repeatedly in recent years. It's just so selfish. It doesn't matter where you stand on the political spectrum. It's sad to watch our government in a self imposed gridlock that they use to sustain their own power at the expense of the well being of our nation and the world.

The context of that quote was that the founding fathers (as they're often called, but I really don't like the term) had quite the disdain for political parties... but started them none the less.

"[T]he worst enemy [of democratic governments], potent engines by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will... subvert the power of the people." - George Washington

"If I could go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." - Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the Democratic-Republicans; the predecessor of the modern day Democratic Party.

This is a photo I took the other week of the housing projects just south of 22nd St. on State St. (in Chicago) being torn down. I ride by them every day on my way to school and I anguish over the fact that I want to take more photos, especially at night, but shouldn't because it's just a stupid risk. there's a good chance I'd be mugged. On another note - this is part of the CHA's (Chicago Housing Authority) revitalization and rehab program that utilizes bailout funds (or so say the signs surrounding neighboring developments), so here's a look at how that's doing.



Edit: Chicago losing the bid for the 2016 Olympics impacts me very directly. This summer and over the next few years I'll be looking for an architecture internship/work. Being at IIT, the closest and most prominent architecture school to where the Olympic site would have been - I was more or less guaranteed work. Now I'm shit out of luck.

Also, my family owns an engineering business - Reed Engineering... we nor any of the other tradesmen we know will be riding that wave now. The Olympics would have brought more people into the trades in the Chicago area and given them the experience of working with the older skilled workers; creating a whole new generation of skilled tradesmen in Chicago. I knew a few people who were planning to pull a lot of overtime and take early retirement so that all the up and comers in the union could get decent work. I guess this is common practice. Now that won't happen and as a result Chicago's ability to build sound complex buildings will suffer. This is why the best architects go to Europe. There the skilled workers have years of training and they know their buildings will be built correctly.

This is a huge problem for the trades and architects and I've seen it first hand. The knowledge is disappearing and, because of what I feel is a general disdain for blue collar workers, it isn't easy/possible to gain back. Hell, I'm proof. I'm about half (that's just a guess, I figure it'd take me 7 years to learn most of what my dad does - I worked for about 3.5 years with him) way done with my steam apprenticeship that I'll never finish. Our work is specialized to the point that we can charge more than most doctors and lawyers if we so choose (we rarely do, why is a debate for another time). That ends a three generation blue collar family business.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Required Reading

Color-blind monkeys get gene therapy and are cured. That's insane. They did it by injecting a type of virus carrying a gene that essentially activates a protein that the monkeys are lacking in their cone cells. Wired and MIT.

Interesting video on tangible statistics. So fascinating...

More interesting food research by Brian Wansink. Short

More on high speed rail. It's so cool but just not cost effective for the most part. More on this later when I eventually talk about sunk cost fallacy.

Great article on entrepreneurs in Africa. Must read.

Cameras in London and cops driving around in cars in America are really expensive and both don't do ANYTHING to deter crime... (sarcasm) shocking (/sarcasm)!

Buzz Aldrin gives a Q&A on Freakonomics.

Well written piece about the future of cars, or rather; electric cars are taking over.

New Scientist puts out a list of 13 things in science that can't be explained. Here's round two.

Contact lenses that can monitor your bodily functions. They actually have a working model too.

Penn and Teller's show, Bullshit, covers The Bible. It's good but I wish they'd scream less and be a bit more objective. Then again, it's a show called bullshit.

Some college professors are giving money back to their students that they receive in royalties for required texts that they authored.

Some 9/11 Bush hate pieces. One by Barry Ritholtz of The Big Picture and excerpt of an article in The Atlantic (long) commented on by Chris Blattman (short), a professor of economics and political science at Yale who runs this insightful blog.

Finally, an explanation of why people who don't necessarily agree with Republican candidates vote Republican; they prefer their moral values and views on personal wealth. The strongest indicator? "Whether candidates view themselves as 'better than normal' human beings because of their wealth."

Think the Tevatron (ever notice that just about everything cool was either invented in Chicago [skyscraper] or resides near Chicago?) or Large Hadron Collider is huge? The US was planning one back in the 90's that was over twice as big as the LHC and actually started construction. Here's a photo gallery and story about what remains - yeah I'd totally live there. Here's a piece from Wired about how Fermi Lab's Tevatron is working around the clock to churn out ground breaking research before the LHC comes online.

A company has found a way to detect autism in children much earlier - 2 years old instead of the usual 5 to 6.

A university professor lands in jail for sharing research with Chinese graduate students... really? And apparently The State Department classifies satellites as munitions so that some cutting edge research done on them is considered classified. Short.

A 48 pound genetically engineered rainbow trout was caught in Canada. Just go look at the photo.

The highest resolution photo of Andromeda ever taken can be seen here. Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away and is the closest galaxy to our own Milky Way Galaxy.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Videos from The Onion

They're all oddly political and make their point quite well.


Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?


White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase


Obama Axes Pentagon Plan To Build Billion Dollar Tank In Shape Of Dragon


9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says