Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Back From the Heart of Texas

We just returned from a fun quick trip to Texas. We attended a wedding on Lake LBJ outside Austin, and then we took the chance to visit both Austin and San Antonio, along with touring some of the Hill Country.

So after spending some time in that region of Texas, I can definitely see the appeal. From the urban young feel of Austin and the University of Texas,


to the beauty of Lake LBJ and the Hill Country,


to the Alamo and the Riverwalk,


there's a lot to see there. So add it to your list if you haven't been.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Learning to Lie

New York Magazine recently ran a fascinating article on how we learn to lie. They observe how it is that kids grow up to learn to lie.

And their conclusion is simple. Kids learn it from their parents. Sobering.

Joe Carter summarizes,

Bronson's article contains a number of revealing tidbits, including:
1. Lying is related to intelligence. The smarter the kid, the better they are at lying.
2. On average, a 4-year-old will lie once every two hours, while a 6-year-old will lie about once every hour and a half.
3. Scholars have found that kids who live in threat of consistent punishment don’t lie less. Instead, they become better liars, at an earlier age—learning to get caught less often.
4. Children lie because they see their parents lie, and learn to imitate them. Adults inadvertently teach children that honesty only creates conflict, and dishonesty is an easy way to avoid conflict.
5. Permissive parents don’t actually learn more about their children’s lives.
6. Most rules-heavy parents don’t actually enforce them since its too much work.
7. Parents view arguing with their teenager as destructive to their relationship, while teens see it as strengthening their bond.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Toilet to Tap

There is little doubt that shortages of water are going to be a problem of the future. Recently, a new water purification plant opened in southwest California, which will allow reuse of wastewater after cleaning it. Of course, that is not sitting well with some residents. The mayor of San Diego attempted to stop the project. Some people are not okay with drinking what was formerly toilet water. Stephanie Pakalns explains,

That's gross!

I think this is completely okay, though. The process goes like this:

...the Orange County government [takes] sewer water and, instead of dumping it into the ocean after treatment, clean[s] it a second time using technology that renders the water almost distilled, exceeding all state and federal drinking standards, officials said.

The water then goes from the new $480 million water plant in nearby Fountain Valley to the drinking supply that lies beneath Anaheim—percolating many months through the earth into an aquifer serving 2.3 million people in 20 cities.

The process departs from the routine: Treated sewage typically is returned to the environment at large, such as in rivers and lakes, and after it dilutes in the vast bodies, the water is reharvested. The Orange County process skips the return-to-the-great-outdoors step.

Hmm, sounds clean to me. And really, steps like this are going to be needed to meet the West's and the world's growing water shortages. The New York Times recently had an informational rundown of the dire situation the American West is facing in regard to water. It notes,

...a lesser Colorado River would almost certainly lead to a considerable amount of economic havoc, as the future water supplies for the West’s industries, agriculture and growing municipalities are threatened. As one prominent Western water official described the possible future to me, if some of the Southwest’s largest reservoirs empty out, the region would experience an apocalypse, “an Armageddon.”

Take the time to read the NYT article as it will certainly make you think twice about the water you use. But most of all, it made me realize how valuable water is. So, I've decided to invest some money in 'water resources' stocks. Stocks from the sort of company who built this new sewage water recycling plant. Will people be willing to drink this water? Would you?

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Dr. Quantum

I just watched the documentary What the Bleep Do We Know!? in order to get some thinking on quantum physics in. The original documentary I watched is, in my opinion, forgettable. While discussing interesting ideas on particle mechanics and consciousness, the scientists sound a bit too sure of themselves, while leaving obviously apparent their empty spirituality. They're searching to fill a hole they feel, but their explanations are labored.

That said, in the follow up Down the Rabbit Hole edition, there are some pretty cool animations that do a good job of explaining some complex physics ideas. And I love thinking at the fringes of our understanding of our world. So tune in, and enjoy. Here's Dr. Quantum to tell you about the famous double-slit experiment that shows us the 'observer effect':



I think part of the reason that this documentary was so successful is that people are searching for the answers to the ultimate questions of 'Who we are?' and 'Where did we come from?'. And if nothing else, the show gets you thinking about questions that may answer questions we have about our world. But, and here I guess I'll just repeat myself, I think science will ultimately point to God. The question to me is whether people will admit that.

Friday, February 29, 2008

Pythons could squeeze lower third of USA

No burying the lede here. USA Today warns us,

As climate change warms the nation, giant Burmese pythons could colonize one-third of the USA, from San Francisco across the Southwest, Texas and the South and up north along the Virginia coast, according to U.S. Geological Survey maps released Wednesday.

The pythons can be 20 feet long and 250 pounds. They are highly adaptable to new environments.


Seriously, you might want to reconsider venturing outside if you live in the South. Don't say the USA Today didn't warn you...

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The Last Lecture



What would you say in your last lecture?

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Rush, Little Baby

This morning on NPR, I was listening to a story on Morning Edition on about self-regulation in kids. It was pretty fascinating. So continuing on the raising kids theme...

The story notes,

We know that children's capacity for self-regulation has diminished. A recent study replicated a study of self-regulation first done in the late 1940s, in which psychological researchers asked kids ages 3, 5 and 7 to do a number of exercises. One of those exercises included standing perfectly still without moving. The 3-year-olds couldn't stand still at all, the 5-year-olds could do it for about three minutes, and the 7-year-olds could stand pretty much as long as the researchers asked. In 2001, researchers repeated this experiment. But, psychologist Elena Bodrova at the National Institute for Early Education Research says, the results were very different.

"Today's 5-year-olds were acting at the level of 3-year-olds 60 years ago, and today's 7-year-olds were barely approaching the level of a 5-year-old 60 years ago," Bodrova explains. "So the results were very sad."

Sad because self-regulation is incredibly important. Poor executive function is associated with high dropout rates, drug use and crime. In fact, good executive function is a better predictor of success in school than a child's IQ. Children who are able to manage their feelings and pay attention are better able to learn. As executive function researcher Laura Berk explains, "Self-regulation predicts effective development in virtually every domain."

Basically, these researchers have shown that a main reason for this diminished ability to self-regulate is that independent playtime has been lost for today's children. They note that imaginative play helps develop a child's ability to function independently in the world today. The New York Times, in an extensive article on play, noted,

Yet for humans, pretend play is one of the most crucial forms of play, occupying at its peak at about age 4 some 20 percent of a child’s day. It includes some of the most wondrous moments of childhood: dramatic play, wordplay, ritual play, symbolic play, games, jokes and imaginary friends. And it is the kind of play that positively screams out for hyperbole when outsiders try to describe it.

At the same time as the recognition of the possible value of play grows, we live in an era where parents are pushing to give their child every advantage they can. In fact, it can probably be stated without hesitation that today's American parents care more about their childrens' success than ever before. Many claim that via the right developmental aids you can help give your child an advantage. And often, this 'pushing' comes at the cost of time spent playing. In a fantastic article, from which I took the title to this post, the Boston Globe reported on the overwhelming trend to provide your child with infant academic assistance. They state,

This desire on the part of many middle-class and affluent parents to help their kids get ahead is understandable. We've all heard the predictions about how, in the downsized and outsourced economy of tomorrow, our children may be the first generation of Americans to be worse off than their parents. Into this vat of anxiety, two forces have been poured that are turning up the heat even more. First, advances in brain research have offered tantalizing clues about the magic at work in our infants' gray matter. Second, market forces have exploited these tantalizing clues and used them to sell billions of dollars' worth of educational toys and programs, often by making claims wildly beyond the conclusions drawn by the scientists who did the actual research.

They go on to talk about the (sometimes subconscious) competition between moms of babies and preschoolers as they compare the advancements of their children. They note, however, that sometimes what seems worth bragging about may not be such:

Spend enough time in suburban preschools these days, and you're bound to hear one parent or another uttering a boast masquerading as a complaint about how they just can't keep the books coming fast enough for their precocious 3- or 4-year-old reader. Odds are, there's probably no reason to boast. Researchers who've been marinating in reading studies for years say a tiny percentage of children - maybe 3 percent, maybe a little more or less - can be classified as truly early readers. These 3- or 4-year-olds understand phonics and context, and they will likely keep up their accelerated reading pace throughout their school years. Bravo to those kids. Reading is the gateway to so much of life's important learning, so a few years more of it can't hurt them.

But most of the other early readers bringing smiles to their parents' faces aren't really reading at all. They're demonstrating merely that they've memorized lots of words by sight. Instead of understanding the discrete sounds and segments that make up the word CAT, and understanding that each letter in the word has both its own name and its own sound or group of sounds, these children - like our early ancestors - see it as just a whole symbol for the furry feline. Change the first letter to E, and they might still think feline, until they memorize the new word. Studies have demonstrated that the early reading advances these kids show typically wash out a few years down the line.

They continue,

A classic study in the 1930s by noted researcher and Illinois educator Carleton Washburne compared the trajectories of children who had begun reading at several ages, up to 7. Washburne concluded that, in general, a child could best learn to read beginning around the age of 6. By middle school, he found no appreciable difference in reading levels between the kids who had started young versus the kids who had started later, except the earlier readers appeared to be less motivated and less excited about reading. More recent research also raises doubt about the push for early readers. A cross-cultural study of European children published in 2003 in the British Journal of Psychology found those taught to read at age 5 had more reading problems than those who were taught at age 7.

Interestingly enough, I can possibly attest to this. As a kindergartener, I went to an elementary school that needless to say was not academically advanced. It actually ended up being one of the reasons my parents decided to move to another town. So I didn't learn to read my kindergarten year. That said, my parents were content to let me advance at my own rate. They didn't push me to read at home and entering the first grade at a new school, I didn't know how. I just wasn't that interested in learning yet. That changed the first day of school when I realized that all my classmates at the new school knew how to read. Literally, according to my parents, I learned to read in a few weeks. I was not going to let myself be behind these other kids, and that was all the motivation I needed. Those who know me can probably attest to the motivation that competition can be for me. I didn't turn back and quickly came to absolutely love reading. A love of reading that endures to this day. I devoured books throughout my youth, and continue to, as much as time now allows.

Did I love reading more because I wasn't pushed to learn and possibly learned when my brain was more optimally ready? I don't know, but I know I wouldn't change it.

They conclude the article, which appropriately enough was subtitled "How the push for infant academics may actually be a waste of time - or worse," by noting,

This doesn't mean that early exposure to learning isn't important for kids. It is vitally important. It should just be the right kind of learning, and the right kind of exposure. Study after study shows the best thing parents can do for their children is give them a nurturing, rich, vibrant environment, reading to them often and exposing them to lots of language in organic ways...

[But]...in fact, ...this heightened push for early learning might even slow down normal brain development through a phenomenon known as neurological "crowding," where information jams up the synapses in the brain that might best be reserved for more creative tasks in later years. Remember that in his early years, Einstein was considered just an average student.

All of this brings us back to that surprising brain study giving late bloomers cause for celebration. Researchers from the National Institutes of Mental Health performed periodic MRI brain scans on children and teens ranging in age from 5 to 19, tracking the relationship between the thickness of the brain's outer mantle, or cortex, with the subject's IQ. They found that the people whose IQ scores put them in the "superior intelligence" category had cortexes that matured much later than those of average intelligence. The cortexes of the smartest kids peaked by around age 11 or 12, whereas the average kids' peaked by around age 8. Jay Giedd, one of the lead researchers, says he and his colleagues were initially taken aback by the findings, but with more reflection they realized they made all kinds of sense. "By having this peak period of plasticity later," he says, "the brain is adapting to the 12-year-old world, which is more complicated, more similar to the adult world, than the 8-year-old world."

The idea is, patience pays off.

So, in an era where children are pushed more than ever to develop academically and athletically, it just may be that these efforts are backfiring. And ironically, these pushes may be stealing time from what a child may truly need. NPR summarizes,

It seems that in the rush to give children every advantage — to protect them, to stimulate them, to enrich them — our culture has unwittingly compromised one of the activities that helped children most. All that wasted time was not such a waste after all.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Adultolescents

Considering I have my own child now, I've begun to resonate more with articles on parenting and the issues parents face raising their children as I watch the news.

Thus, it hit me when I recently read two articles on the growing problem of children from affluent Christian settings not being ready psychologically or emotionally for adulthood. First, I noticed where John Piper wrote about "'adultolescence'—that is, the postponement of adulthood into the thirties." He references another work that defines further what this phenomenon entails. Then, he goes on to discuss how the Church should respond:

How might the church respond to this phenomenon in our culture? Here are my suggestions.

1. The church will encourage maturity, not the opposite. “Do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature” (1 Corinthians 14:20)....

He adds a total of 15 suggestions. Good stuff, and especially important to keep in mind if we're working with youth or college students.

It all reminded me of this post by Anthony Bradley I read entitled The Suburban Church: Ushering Kids Into Counseling In Their 20s and 30s. Anthony notes,

Raising church kids in the suburbs may be setting them up for psychological distress in their 20s and 30s. A few weeks ago at a youth group from a very large church in a middle class suburb of St. Louis, I asked the following question: 'What are your parents doing to you right now that will probably guarantee that you will be in counseling when you’re in your 20s and 30s?'

I knew about the nearly irreversible lacerations of divorce or the nuclear fallout when negative comments about appearance are delivered to daughters. I was shocked by the other laments. Here is just a small sample from that night...


He concludes,

Once this dam broke the youth pastor had to cut it off so he could give his talk about how the Gospel addresses all of their issues related to past pain. Many hands were still up in the air. It was sad. Dr. Madeline Levin, in The Price of Privilege: How Parental Pressure and Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of Disconnected and Unhappy Kids, summarizes new national data saying, 'America’s newly identified at-risk group is preteens and teens from affluent, well-educated families. In spite of their economic and social advantages, they experience among the highest rates of depression, substance abuse, anxiety disorders, somatic complaints, and unhappiness of any group of children in this country.' It seems that this is no different in churches of affluence. What happened?

And I think we can all wonder that question. The question for us as parents now, though, is how do we prevent this from being the case for us too?

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Sending out an S.O.S.

I've always been fascinated by the concept of people sending a message they don't know will be received. Although somewhat morbid, I wonder what note I would write if I were like a miner trapped in a mine after a collapse. Or how about the notes that people write to be placed in a time capsule? Today, I read a good story describing how NBA star Anthony Carter wrote to his future self a note in elementary school about how he would make the NBA. Pretty cool that he saw it fulfilled.

Similarly, sending out a message in a bottle is the ultimate in notewriting hopefulness. I was reading on the Kircher Society's blog and they shared a pretty crazy story in this regard:

The strangest [bottle voyage] case was perhaps that of Chunosuke Matsuyama, a Japanese seaman who was wrecked with 44 shipmates in 1784. Shortly before he and his companions died of starvation on a Pacific coral reef, Matsuyama carved a brief account of their tragedy on a piece of wood, sealed it in a bottle, and then threw it into the sea. It was washed up 150 years later in 1935 at the very seaside village where Matsuyama had been born.

Whoah, what a coincidence! So, if you could write a note to your great grandchild, what would you say?

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Evolution of Dance

Probably many of you have seen this before, but since I haven't posted it before, in case you haven't -- enjoy.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Pacifism on the Streets

So it's been about two years since I was held up. Thinking back on it, it's a life experience that's taught me a lot.

Today, I was reminded of the credo to 'turn the other cheek' while watching an episode of The Wire. You see, one of the kids was getting sick of being beaten up, and decided to take some boxing lessons. His instructor, recognizing that his goal was revenge, reminded him gently that even by gaining the ability to defend himself, he was not taking the target off his back. Trouble would just keep coming.

This marvelous story by Shane Claiborne hit home to me after my own experience. How hard it is to walk the violent streets, content to be used by the depraved if they so choose. Shane tells of walking with 11-year-old Cassim in the streets of Philadelphia and facing down a group of young toughs. After they've somehow left them be after a minor beatdown, Cassim asks,

Shane, why am I taking boxing lessons?

Shane responds by noting that using those skills would only have escalated the situation. He goes on,

I asked Cassim if he thought Jesus was happy with how we acted. He thought about it, and then nodded with a smile. I told him that, honestly, I wasn't sure exactly what Jesus would have done if he were in our place … but there are two things I know Jesus would not have done. He would not have fought. And he would not have run. I told him Jesus may have thought of something else, or he may have done something weird to throw them off, as he often seems to do – like drawing in the dirt with his finger (or writing on the road with sidewalk chalk, "you are better than this"), or maybe pulling a coin out of a fish's mouth (or pulling a piece of candy out of a pigeon's mouth). But I think Jesus was happy with how we acted, and that we were good representatives – good witnesses – of Christ to them. Cassim agreed, and then we prayed for them together. And finally, as he was leaving, Cassim reminded me that each of those boys has to go to bed thinking about what they did that day, and so did we.

I'm not sure about those other boys, but Cassim and I both slept well that night...

I wonder, would I have had the toughness not to fight back? I remember well dealing with the anger after losing my wallet. My gut wasn't to turn the other cheek but seek revenge.

Today I was reminded of that when I wanted the youngster in The Wire to fight back and win. Take out the evildoers by force--I wanted revenge for him. It's got me thinking...
I'm not there yet.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

How We Get the Odds Wrong

I thought this article in Psychology Today was pretty interesting. Basically, it points out that we as humans are terrible at analyzing risk. It notes,

Our brains are terrible at assessing modern risks. Here's how to think straight about dangers in your midst...

These days, it seems like everything is risky, and worry itself is bad for your health. The more we learn, the less we seem to know—and if anything makes us anxious, it's uncertainty. At the same time, we're living longer, healthier lives. So why does it feel like even the lettuce [with pesticides on it!] is out to get us?

The human brain is exquisitely adapted to respond to risk—uncertainty about the outcome of actions. Faced with a precipice or a predator, the brain is biased to make certain decisions.

The first item it points out hits home for me:

I. We Fear Snakes, Not Cars
Risk and emotion are inseparable.

Fear feels like anything but a cool and detached computation of the odds. But that's precisely what it is, a lightning-fast risk assessment performed by your reptilian brain, which is ever on the lookout for danger. The amygdala flags perceptions, sends out an alarm message, and—before you have a chance to think—your system gets flooded with adrenaline...Emotions are decision-making shortcuts.

As a result of these...emotional algorithms, ancient threats like spiders and snakes cause fear out of proportion to the real danger they pose, while experiences that should frighten us—like fast driving—don't. Dangers like speedy motorized vehicles are newcomers on the landscape of life. The instinctive response to being approached rapidly is to freeze. In the [past], this reduced a predator's ability to see you—but that doesn't help when what's speeding toward you is a car.

And sure enough, despite the fact that I work on roads for my occupation and know the frequency of accidents, I am I admit a bit scared of snakes. Never have I felt those same emotions getting into a car...

So here's to recognizing what's truly dangerous and not living in fear...

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Where I've Been

Continuing the tradition from last year, here's where I was in 2007:

Chicago, IL *
Cadillac, MI
Haines City, FL

Naples, FL
Fort Myers, FL
Greenville, IL *
St. Paul, MN *

Crookston, MN
Elbow Lake, MN

Hmm, shorter than last year. I suppose this might have had something to do with it...
How about you, where were you?

Criteria = One or more nights spent in each place. Those cities marked with an * were visited multiple times on non-consecutive days.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Our Fine Governor

The State of Illinois thankfully finally last week passed funding for transit. It was a contentious affair, that came with much lengthy political wrangling. In the end, the governor gave in and granted his own approval with the caveat that senior citizens ride free on transit. True to the weird form he's been holding, he added this priceless nugget of wisdom:

It's like the little boy with a pile of horse manure, I kept digging cheerfully in that and found a pony in there -- the pony is free public transportation for all seniors in the state of Illinois.

Seemingly, he can only be described as a scat enthusiast with a penchance for nursery tales nobody else has heard of. Illinoisans should be proud of their leader...

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Sanctity of Life Sunday

This Tuesday marks the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that led to the legalization of abortion across our country. Since then, nearly 50 million of our nation's children have been killed via this 'procedure'.

In reading about abortion this year, I found this interesting article that talks about who has abortions. I was pretty surprised actually. It notes,

In American pop culture, the face of abortion is often a frightened teenager, nervously choosing to terminate an unexpected pregnancy. The numbers tell a far more complex story in which financial stress can play a pivotal role.

Half of the roughly 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens. About 60 percent have given birth to least one child prior to getting an abortion.

Really a different category of people than I think I picture. It certainly is valuable to be familiar with what the face of abortion truly might be, especially as we consider it politically.

This year, due to the election, I'm sure abortion will remain in the news. As I've said before, it is my most important issue, and so I will certainly be watching closely to see how it is discussed in the campaign season.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Greening the Desert

They laughed and said it couldn't be done...



Wow, that's pretty cool.

Can we really "Fix All the World's Problems in a Garden"?
(ht: Where)

Monday, January 14, 2008

How to Read a Blog

Ever checked in here at IJAB hoping to find a new post and been disappointed? Probably (at least I hope so). As is obvious, I don't post as often as say, Kottke.

That said, there's no need to keep coming back to check if there's a new post up. Instead, use the technology available today, and have that post sent to you. Yep, no more checking blogs for new posts, just have any new posts sent directly to you. How can this be, you say? Well, all you need is a blog reader (aka: news reader, RSS reader, or aggregator).

Here, maybe this video will help:



So if you're anything like me, you enjoy reading quite a number of blogs. Now if you were jumping from blog to blog to check if there had been any updates, you're in for quite the time-wasting. No more of that.

There are a couple leading web-based readers, namely Google Reader and Bloglines. Either is great. Go sign up for your blog reader now.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Chicago - Home of Human Capital

As probably anyone reading this knows, I love Chicago. It's a great city. But why is it great? What about Chicago makes it a place we want to be?

Yes, probably some of it is the architecture, some the lakefront, some the good planning. But all those really lead into the last, which is maybe the biggest reason of all. Chicago is home to a group of young dynamic people, who are the sort of people who you want to live near and be sharpened by. This was reaffirmed by this recent article in Crain's Chicago Business:

Brains, bodies and beauty
Human capital — a buzzword among economists — simply means people. Think of it as raw material made up of bankers, traders, consultants, advertisers, engineers, artists and others who, through brainpower and creativity, turn ideas into money.
"The comparative advantage of cities is determined by how smart, how trained, how innovative, how entrepreneurial the people are in that city," says Edward Glaeser, a Harvard urban economist who advised the Chicago Council on Global Affairs' study group.

Chicago's human capital is strong. Among U.S. cities, Chicago ranks first in the concentration of young people (ages 25 to 34) living within three miles of downtown. It's second only to New York in the number of those with college degrees. Its universities are world class. The University of Chicago has been home to 20 Nobel Prize laureates, while both the U of C's Graduate School of Business and Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management rank among the world's best business schools. Chicago also has the quality of life that keeps people here — vibrant art and music scenes, restaurants, museums, parks and recreational facilities.

Here's to living in a world-class city like Chicago!

Monday, January 07, 2008

Gangs of LA

In honor of the last season of The Wire kicking off, I thought I'd pass on this link to a fascinating article on gangs in LA. Apparently they're still a problem. Did anyone really think they went away?

Perhaps as an addendum, I should point out that Steven Levitt may not fully buy that the problem is worsening.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

The World Without Us

Last year, Alan Weisman wrote a book called "The World Without Us." The book, based on interviews with scientists and other experts from around the world, describes what would happen across the planet if, for some reason, human beings were suddenly to disappear.

It's pretty fascinating stuff. I was especially struck when I saw an interview he did specifically on Chicago. He observes,

"The foliage in [Lincoln Park] will definitely be the seed source from which the forests will start succeeding down the streets and eventually inside of the buildings. Winds will blow all kinds of seeds out of the park.

Helping the process along will be squirrels throughout the city, taking up residence in bungalows, two-flats and high-rises. They'll bring in seeds of all sorts, and, pretty soon, trees will be growing out of living room windows.

Within a few decades you'll find a tremendous wild snarl of stuff growing over buildings, coming up from the streets. Just imagine, no one maintaining the streets anymore. And the plastic bags would be clogging the sewers, and you'll get all this leaf litter because nobody would be raking leaves.

Gone will be the cockroaches, which only survive in the northern climate in the comfort of our heated buildings.

Gone, too, will be the rats -- no garbage for them to eat, and a lot more raptors to prey on them.

On the other hand, you'll get wildlife coming back in here. Certainly there will be plenty of coyotes. They will outcompete the dogs. Eventually wolves will probably range all over America. They'll be eating deer. There's going to be plenty of deer. Whether moose will make it down here or not, it's a function of climate change.

The predators are going to get the cattle. As the cattle go, buffaloes should regenerate and spread."

Can you picture a herd of buffalo roaming through the Loop?

Thursday, January 03, 2008

The Campaign Officially Begins

And the winners in Iowa are...



What will this mean for the next political year?

Monday, December 31, 2007

New beginnings

I was very flattered when Westy first invited me to join IJAB as a co-blogger back in August 2005. In my view he had a neat blog going at the time, and it was an honor to be given a chance to contribute to it. I wasn't sure how long I'd keep at it, maybe six months or a year, but I felt it was worth a try.

Well, more than two years later I can honestly say it's been a fun ride. Not only have I enjoyed writing a variety of posts on many different topics, but I have enjoyed reading people's comments and other people's blogs. The blogging community, both local and global, is quite a place.

A few days ago I let Westy know that after two years, it's finally time for me to step down as an IJAB contributor. I'm not sure if or when I'll start up my own blog, but rest assured I'll still read and comment on this one.

Westy, as I sign off for the final time, I just wanted to say "thank you" for inviting me to be a part of this creative outlet. You've got a great blog going here, and I'm sure some of your best posts yet will be in 2008.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Do you see the GOP nominee?

Note: This post got long-winded. However, my campaign pledge to you is that I intend for this to be my last political analysis post on IJAB, or anywhere else, for quite a long while!

When I was 8 years old, I predicted to my mom that Howard Metzenbaum would defeat George Voinovich in Ohio’s U.S. Senate race that year. After my mom’s initial surprise that her little boy would offer an unsolicited opinion on such a topic had subsided, she asked me, “Why?” My answer was simple: I had seen a TV ad for both candidates and thought most people would like Metzenbaum’s better.

A few weeks later Metzenbaum went on to win in a landslide.

Now, I’m not sharing the aforementioned story to brag. After all, I was only 8 and based my prediction on a ridiculously small amount of information. Rather, I shared this story it to illustrate to you that I’ve been offering unsolicited, ill-informed opinions about politics for nearly 20 years.

Back in March I took a look at the Democratic presidential candidates’ chances at winning their party’s nomination, and at the time I said that I “might” offer up a similar post about the Republicans a few months later. The reason I was so noncommittal back then was because there were a few key variables that I wanted defined. First, I needed to know who would actually be in the race (as it turns out, Fred Thompson did hop in and Newt Gingrich didn’t). Second, I wanted to see which candidate would start to rally the Religious Right (looks like that’s Mike Huckabee). So I guess if I’m ever going to analyze the GOP field before the voting starts, it’s now or never…

Despite the national polls showing five Republicans still running strong in a fluid field, in my estimation the GOP race has essentially been narrowed down to three candidates with a legitimate shot to win their party’s nomination: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. But before I go much further, I should probably explain why John McCain and Fred Thompson are long shots.

In Fred Thompson’s case, he is a textbook example as to why all of the serious presidential candidates start running two years before the first votes are cast in Iowa. Most modern presidential candidates adhere to a formula similar to the following when launching their campaigns:

1) About two years before Iowa
  • Determine if you want to be president and if so, what experience and issues will you tout to rally people to your cause?
  • Do the necessary polling to see if your perception lines up with reality (i.e., if polling shows that only 17% of the people in your own state are impressed with your experience, then you probably should reconsider a presidential bid).
  • Go to the people who would campaign for you and only you, and see how much support they’re really going to offer. For instance, start with your spouse and gauge whether or not they’re on board 100%. If your spouse isn’t willing to sacrifice as much as you are to win, then it probably won’t work. Obviously, you then build out from here—talking to your kids and other close relatives and friends. Then go to your close professional/political relationships and see exactly who’s on board and how they can truly help. This is really the most important part, which is to find the core of your campaign, the inner circle of people who will stick with you no matter what; and this should be done about two years before Iowa.
  • Now that your inner circle of supporters is lined up, you start reaching out to other likely supporters, looking for money, advisors, potential endorsements, etc. At this early point, there are a lot of talented people in your party who would love the chance to be a part of a campaign but aren’t sure if they’ll get a chance. If you’re the first to ask them, then you’ve got a leg up. I am no expert on the nitty-gritty details of a presidential campaign, but it’s pretty obvious that most of the critical groundwork is set one to two years before the first votes are cast in the Iowa caucuses.

2) About one year before Iowa

  • a) You’ve focus-grouped every issue from every angle, organized your campaign as best you can, and lined up enough support to be taken seriously. Now it’s time to officially announce your candidacy.
  • Fund-raising goes into full swing. All of your preparation leading up to this point should begin to result in strong fundraising numbers within three to six months. If it doesn’t, then let’s face it, you’re not a frontrunner and need to re-evaluate either your message or your candidacy.
3) The three months leading up to Iowa (and the rest of the early voting states)…
  • Now it’s open political war. Not only are people paying attention to the debates in increasing numbers, but things really are heating up from a “skirmish” to a “war” mentality. At this point you must unleash both a strong ground attack and aerial assault. By “ground attack” I’m referring to precinct captains and others who are organizing and going door-to-door as well as making phone calls, etc. By “aerial assault” I’m referring to TV and radio ads. Two candidates might be neck and neck in the polls, but the one who has raised more money is likely to have the advantage at getting their message out effectively and organizing voters during those crucial last two days.
  • In the final push, having big-name endorsers actually go out on the campaign trail can make a difference, so long as it’s somebody who is truly respected by the voters you’re trying to court. If you’ll recall, back in January 2004 Senator Ted Kennedy, who is respected nationally by most Democrats, campaigned long and hard for John Kerry in the few days leading up to the Iowa caucuses. Furthermore, Kerry’s wife also campaigned vigorously in the few days leading up to the Iowa caucuses, visiting with voters in their homes and talking to them personally. In fact, Kerry, his wife, and Kennedy often campaigned separately in Iowa those last few days in order to cover more ground. Long story short, having a high-profile, respected person shake hands on your behalf with voters a day or so before voting takes place in a small (population) state can make a big difference. (Food for thought: You know Bill Clinton will be in Iowa on January 2. Will Oprah?)

By not following the conventional model outlined above, Thompson has put himself in a game of perpetual catch-up. Aside from being way behind in money and trying to ward off accusations of not having the required “fire in the belly,” one can only wonder how many thousands of Republicans working for Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney and others would have gladly worked for Thompson’s campaign had he only asked them first?


Okay, so how about McCain? There’s a poll out today showing him leading the GOP field nationally and running a strong campaign in New Hampshire which could see him repeat his 2000 victory. In fact, there’s a real chance he could come out of New Hampshire with the win and leading in the national polls. Shouldn’t he be considered among the top contenders to win the GOP nomination?


As much as McCain is respected both within the Republican Party and among Independents and Democrats, he is going to have great difficulty translating that widespread appeal into actually winning the GOP nomination. If one were to analyze the core values of the Republican Party (as difficult a task as that would be), McCain is just a little bit too much out of step on a few key issues to win the GOP nomination. In New Hampshire, Independents can vote in the Republican primary, so if McCain does win New Hampshire it will be on the strength of his appeal to Independents. However, after New Hampshire I don’t see his campaign gaining enough momentum to win the nomination.


All right, enough of the backgrounder stuff. Let’s examine the top contenders. In looking at what Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani must each do to win, this GOP race is turning into a complicated game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Each candidate has strengths and weaknesses in attracting certain types of voters, so this race could be all about the match-ups and, as the elder George Bush coined the phrase during an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 1980, “The Big Mo.”


First up, let’s look at the former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. He spent more than a decade as the governor, so he can tout a resume which shows executive experience. He also has a long record of being pro-life and has done the best job of connecting with the GOP’s Religious Right on a deeply theological level.


Overall, Huckabee has run a great campaign. That I’m even writing about him here is evidence of that fact, especially considering where he started out this year in the polls. However, with his surge in the polls comes increased scrutiny from both his competitors and the media. The biggest hurdle he’ll face with GOP voters is what many could perceive as being “too liberal” while governor of Arkansas.


Huckabee has a great chance to win Iowa, and if he does that, then he has a decent shot at the nomination. However, his campaign made an unforced error recently which could be their undoing. In the January-February issue of the journal Foreign Affairs, an opinion piece penned by Huckabee’s campaign under his name stated, "The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.” Such a statement actually could work to Huckabee’s advantage in a general election if Bush’s approval ratings stay low, but such a statement will do more harm than good as he tries to court GOP voters in Iowa. Despite the fact that Huckabee has tried to back away from use of the phrase “arrogant bunker mentality,” Bob Dole, who won the Iowa caucuses in 1988 and 1996, has written an open letter denouncing Huckabee’s criticism of the White House’s foreign policy. If Huckabee fails to win Iowa, pundits will point to that Foreign Affairs opinion piece as one of the key factors.


Next up is the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. Of all the GOP candidates, he has come the closest to running a “textbook” campaign. His father had been a fairly popular governor of Michigan back in the day, and he had also run for the presidency. So not only has Romney launched this presidential campaign in an efficient manner, he’s seen firsthand how it’s done before (and has presumably learned from some of his father’s mistakes).


Romney has raised a lot of money (and has much of his own to add), and he’s appealing to a wider spectrum of GOP voters than any of the other candidates, evidenced by the fact that he is the only one polling in the top two for each of the first five states to vote: Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. Although, Romney has not made the deepest inroads, which is why some national polls currently have him running fourth.


We can’t discuss Romney’s campaign without considering how his Mormon faith will impact Republican voters. As far as I can tell, most GOP voters will take Romney at his word when he says that he believes in the separation of church and state; although one negative for Romney’s campaign will be its inability to connect with the Religious Right on a deeply theological level.


Perhaps a bigger area where Romney will be attacked by his opponents is when he was running for office in Massachusetts both in the 90’s and 2002, he ran on fairly liberal platforms, including the fact that he was openly pro-choice. So while Romney has definitely tried to change his stance on many issues as he runs for the GOP nomination, his opponents are eagerly pointing out what his previously stated positions were. Although, one thing that Romney has in his favor on the issue of abortion is that he tells a rather compelling story, saying that as soon as he became governor and actually had to start making decisions of life and death, he changed his mind to always protect the unborn. (I’m not here to comment on whether or not his story is true, but rather that it is, on the surface, a compelling story. It’s reminiscent of George W. Bush saying that after a hangover from his 40th birthday party he finally decided to give up drinking and experienced a spiritual awakening. History shows that voters respond well to those types of stories, which also serve to inoculate the candidate from criticism of their actions during those prior periods. After all, if your opponent starts to criticize what you did in that past era, you can just say, “Yeah, that’s true, and here’s why I changed…” If it’s a compelling story, you come out ahead in that exchange.)


And then there’s former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has executive experience, a record of cleaning up crime and a high-profile name from his steady leadership in the aftermath of 9/11. Last year both Giuliani and McCain were considered the frontrunners, but naturally, the field has been changing.


Giuliani is a tough politician, which is a great asset both for dealing with public criticism as well as for formulating strategies to attack your opponents. Despite the fact that he’s not in step with much of the GOP on social issues, he’s been leading in the national polls for a long time and has been able to raise a lot of money. He will be a formidable candidate at least up until the eve of Super Tuesday (Feb. 5). In fact, if every state had to vote today, then Giuliani would win the nomination because he leads in many of the most populous states such as California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, etc.


But one curious thing about the Giuliani campaign is that not only has it been relatively absent in Iowa, one could make the argument that it hasn’t gone full force in New Hampshire either. When Giuliani is confronted with such criticisms about how his campaign is deploying its resources, his response is that he’s “running a national campaign.” If I’m not mistaken, his strategy is to let his opponents out-campaign him in Iowa and New Hampshire, states he feels he wouldn’t have won anyway, and he’ll out-campaign them in the Super Tuesday states where his high-profile name, ground organization, and massive TV and radio ad campaign will overwhelm and crush his opponents in one fell swoop.


And so the stage is set for Republicans to battle over the next five weeks, perhaps longer, for the soul of their party. Of the six contests before Super Tuesday, Romney could win all six. Huckabee could win five of six (it’s not looking good for him in New Hampshire), and Giuliani could win three of six (Michigan, Nevada, and Florida).


I have no idea who will win Iowa. It could go either way between Romney and Huckabee. Both need that state badly, but I’d say Huckabee needs it more because Romney’s still in the running for New Hampshire regardless. Funny enough, if Romney wins Iowa, the attacks on his campaign will reach a fevered pitch which could help McCain take New Hampshire.


While both Iowa and New Hampshire matter in terms of press coverage and momentum, the pivotal state for many campaigns will be Michigan. If either Huckabee or Romney wins Michigan, then that candidate will likely give Giuliani the biggest challenge on Super Tuesday. If McCain somehow wins Michigan, then that would likely just jumble the field more, giving Giuliani a bigger advantage on Super Tuesday. If Giuliani somehow wins Michigan, then he’ll be very close to wrapping up the nomination. With the exception of Giuliani, any candidate who loses the first three contests is facing dire odds at that point.


So who do I think will win the nomination? My brain tells me to stay out of it, but my gut does have a feeling as to who has the best chance to win the GOP nomination.


Back in 1980 when a little-known candidate named George Bush scored a surprise victory in the GOP’s Iowa caucuses, he told the national media that his campaign now had “The Big Mo” as in “momentum.” But do you know what happened? Ronald Reagan quickly stomped out that momentum by winning in New Hampshire.


So what about momentum? Is it real? Does it matter? Well, I don’t think that a state’s voters base their decision on how another state voted per se. But they do base it in part on how the media portrays the different campaigns. If you win a state, then the press is asking you, “Why did you win?” and they're asking your opponents, “Why did you lose?” In that sense, some (not all) of the press coverage turns to your favor. By winning a state, the perception is not just that your campaign did something well, but also that you the candidate did something right. On the flip side, if you start to lose too many states in a row in the early going, then a perception starts to build that you the candidate are doing something wrong.


Giuliani won’t win Iowa, and he very likely won’t win New Hampshire. The polling data isn’t looking good for him in Michigan either. If Giuliani loses the first three contests, which at this point is very probable, much of the media coverage he gets will be along the lines of, “How many states will he lose?” and “Is his campaign strategy incompetent?” The fourth contest is in Nevada where he’s currently in a dogfight for the lead, but if he loses that one too, I highly doubt his campaign will stop the bleeding in the fifth contest, which is South Carolina.


As former Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean could tell you, getting that first primary (or caucus) victory is the toughest. If you don’t get one early on, then you’re not sure if you ever will. That’s why I think Romney has the best chance at the Republican nomination. Even if Huckabee wins Iowa and McCain wins New Hampshire, Romney would still have a decent chance to pull out a close win in Michigan. Of all the candidates, Romney is the least likely to be shut out of the first three contests, and therefore, the most likely to have momentum break his way at the most important time, which will be for Florida on January 29 followed by Super Tuesday on February 5.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

A "No Bull" Cause


When Scott Skiles was fired as head coach of the Chicago Bulls on Christmas Eve, he told the Chicago Tribune: "Hardly a day goes by that I don't demand accountability and stress results. Today was my day to be held accountable."

It's that type of vintage Scott Skiles attitude that I'm going to miss. But I'm not surprised that it came to this (although I didn't think it would be this December). He is unafraid to let others know what he thinks, and that can be a blessing and a curse. For young players trying to find their way in the NBA, a no-nonsense tough guy like Skiles can motivate them pretty well. For a veteran player who thinks he's paid all of his dues, a guy like Skiles wears thin pretty quickly; and once a veteran is openly rebelling in the locker room, it doesn't take long for others to follow suit.

While John Paxson's patience with Skiles had obviously run out, there are rumors that Skiles had repeatedly let Paxson know that he was dissatisfied with what he had to work with on the roster. Based on my own observations of the Bulls this season, I wouldn't be surprised if Skiles had indeed complained to Paxson about his roster. After all, the Bulls do not have a single All-Star, lack a legitimate inside scoring presence, and they frankly have various match-up problems at every position (with the possible exception of small forward where Luol Deng is a solid player at both ends of the court when his back isn't hurting).

Last year I felt as though the Bulls were assembling the pieces of a team that could eventually compete for the NBA championship. However, now that I've seen how this season has started, it's looking like Paxson will have even greater difficulty acquiring the missing pieces without giving up too much. It will be interesting to see how the team plays from here on out, and I will be especially curious to see how Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha progress under interim head coach Jim Boylan.

As for Skiles, even though he is no longer a Bull, I think if he ever got another NBA coaching gig you could still count on him to bring that same "No Bull" attitude.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

IQ

In a fascinating article, Intelligent Life magazine tells us that,

Average IQs are rising sharply from generation to generation.

This is called the 'Flynn effect'. So are you smarter than your grandpa? Why? The article is based on a book called "What is Intelligence" by James Flynn, which

...sets out his explanation for a mysterious phenomenon that bears his name: the rise in IQ from generation to generation. Your IQ is likely to be higher than those of your parents, and your children's IQs is likely to be higher than yours.

Truly very interesting stuff. But if that isn't enough, Malcom Gladwell adds his take in the latest New Yorker. The relevance to the study of racial differences in IQ is high. Gladwell notes that according to Flynn,

The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from...years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person's mind but the quality of the world that person lives in.

Intriguing stuff. Basically it's the old nature vs. nurture debate. And if it's nurture, changing the environment might just have a positive effect...

Sunday, December 16, 2007

To Have A Home

Lance Freeman, assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University, recently commented on home ownership amongst minorities in our country.
Home ownership grew among white middle-class families after World War II when access to credit and government programs made buying houses affordable. Black families were largely left out because of discrimination, and the effects are still being felt today.

I was reminded of this reading an article called Forty Acres and a Gap in Wealth by Henry Louis Gates in the NYT. He noted,

I have been studying the family trees of 20 successful African-Americans, people in fields ranging from entertainment and sports (Oprah Winfrey, the track star Jackie Joyner-Kersee) to space travel and medicine (the astronaut Mae Jemison and Ben Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon). And I’ve seen an astonishing pattern: 15 of the 20 descend from at least one line of former slaves who managed to obtain property by 1920 — a time when only 25 percent of all African-American families owned property.

Unfortunately, blacks were still facing the full effects of racism in our country in the periods after both World Wars, times in our country's history when home ownership grew rapidly. Thus, a large proportion of their population was left out of this wave.

Home ownership is key to advancing in society today. The ability to tap equity in their home allows the owner to put the next generation through college and into their own home. There is a direct correlation between parents who own a home and children who attend college. Having a college degree enables people to have better jobs and perpetuates the cycle of success. This is evidenced by the information documented by Gates. As Gates says,
People who own property feel a sense of ownership in their future and their society. They study, save, work, strive and vote. And people trapped in a culture of tenancy do not.

I would say that based on this, initiatives to provide the opportunity for people in poverty to move towards home ownership are key. Would it make sense to turn Section 8 into some sort of rent-to-own program? Would it be more worthwhile to give people a home rather than paying their rent for years on end?

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Illusionary

So I thought it would be fun to walk through some optical illusions. It's pretty amazing the tricks our eyes will play on us. Without any further ado, here we go:

1) Let's start simple. Is this possible?
2) Now,
3) Okay, are the purple lines straight or bent?
4) Do you see gray areas in between the squares? Now where did they come from?
5) Next, you should see a man's face and also a word...
6) Now, if you take a look at the following picture, know it's not animated. Your eyes are making it move. To test this, stare at one spot for a couple seconds and everything will stop moving. Or look at the black center of each circle and it will stop moving. But move your eyes to the next black center and the previous will move after you take your eyes away from it.... Weird.
7) And finally,

Sunday, December 09, 2007

That DJ down the hall

In college, one year my dorm floor had a resident named Vince who lived a few doors down from me. He was a computer science major but his true passion was for music--or rather playing (and making) music as a DJ. I don't exactly remember what my first impression was of Vince, but it was probably one of "Man, I'm glad he's not my roommate." He had a turntable (is that what it's called, maybe turntable/soundboard?) that could barely wheel in through the door of his dorm room, and once it was in there it took up about 20% of the room's free space.

However, as I got to know Vince better, I started to really respect him. Sure he had a magnetic personality, but more importantly, he seemed to be genuine. He came across as liking people in general and being happy to talk with anyone. He was a just a cool dude.

And he happened to take this whole DJ stuff pretty seriously. He had told us that he previously had some DJ gigs back when he was in Chicago (which is where he was from), and I think he got some gigs in Chambana too. However, when he had free time during the day, he'd be working that turntable all the time in his dorm room, honing his craft. And I do mean all the time. (If I had a nickel for each time I came home at 2 in the afternoon wanting to take a quick nap but would instead hear Vince scratching weird new beats to otherwise good songs...)

Vince the person was cool, but I had an inner conflict with Vince the DJ. Let's just say that as I continuously walked by his door throughout the year, judging his practice sessions in passing, many different thoughts went through my head. Sometimes I would think, "That doesn't sound difficult to do" or "He's messing up a good song" or "That song is so bad there's nothing he can do to save it." But I'd also have thoughts like, "Wow, it would be cool to be a DJ" or "He's doing pretty good with that one" or "How'd he do that?"

At some point I realized that when it came to being a DJ, Vince was the expert and I wasn't. As such, even if I didn't like some of his beats, there was no point in me trying to critique his craft because honestly I didn't understand it at the same level he did. And besides, these were his practice sessions that I was listening to. He was working hard to get better, finding out what worked for him and what didn't. It was quite possible that I could be walking past that door thinking to myself, "This one ain't working" and on the other side of the door Vince might have been thinking the same thing. Regardless, day after day, week after week, month after month, he kept at it; and for that, it was impossible not to appreciate his passion for being a DJ.

At the end of that year Vince left U. of I.'s CS program and headed back to Chicago. The last time I saw him he was just about to leave Chambana for good, and that final conversation felt too short. I was disappointed to see him go, and perhaps he wasn't exactly happy with the circumstances in which he was leaving. However, even then, I had this sense that, one way or another, "Vince would be back."

Well, I lost track of Vince through the years. along with most of the people I went to college with. As frustrating as it is, you can't keep in touch with all of them. Things move on and people get pulled in different directions. That's just the way it is in today's society.

But a funny thing happened not too long ago. I was driving in my car on the way home from work and switched the radio station over to Chicago's Hits and Hip Hop, B96, which I rarely do. There was some dance mix playing, and sure enough I thought of that guy named Vince back in the dorms who called himself "DJ Flipside." A few minutes later on the radio they were talking to a guy named "Flipside" and I thought, "No way..." But when I got home and Googled him I discovered that not only was it really him, he's apparently been pretty busy recently. In September 2006 he got his big chance at B96's Summer Bash where he brought the house down to rave reviews, which eventually enabled him to launch his new daily radio show: "Flipside at 5."



Way to go, Vince.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Car Repair Troubles

I guess this is why it's important to have someone you trust repair your car. And why it's difficult to trust chains such as these...

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Family-Friendly Cities

The WSJ ran an interesting editorial espousing policies that would lead to more family-friendly cities. Due to an odd combination of high-priced homes and blighted zones or great schools difficult to obtain admission to and extremely poor schools, cities often struggle to retain families. At stake, though, is the very future vitality of the city.

There is a basic truth about the geography of young, educated people. They may first migrate to cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston or San Francisco. But they tend to flee when they enter their child-rearing years.

In San Francisco, for instance, the population of children living in the city has dropped by more than 33 percent since 1960 as families with children have moved out. Elementary schools have had to close. This is a problem because cities that don't have families tend not to experience economic growth. And losing families points to a problem.

In order to create a healthy vibrant city, the emphasis should be on retaining young people as they grow up, marry, start families and continue to raise them. In order to do so, cities must become more family-friendly.

The key is to work closely with local public and private schools, churches, and civic organizations to build up the support structures that might convince today's youthful inner city urbanites to remain as they start families. Looking at the parks, playgrounds, and schools that young families would use is paramount to convincing them to stay.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Washington on $85

I couldn't resist posting this...

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Taking Science on Faith

I read an interesting Op-Ed in the NYT this week. Entitled Taking Science on Faith, Paul Davies argues that scientists who insist science is faith-free are kidding themselves. He notes,

Science, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas” well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

The problem with this neat separation...is that science has its own faith-based belief system...

He concludes,

...until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Good stuff. It seems to be that almost no matter a person's views, there is some level of faith involved.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Disappearances

TrueHoop pointed me to this disconcerting summary of some strange disappearances basketball players have encountered.

Pro basketball has had some truly bizarre disappearances of several athletes over time. And I'm not talking about players just leaving the game or losing their talent at the drop of a hat. I'm talking about guys literally disappearing.

The most recent bizarre disappearance involves former Washington State University player Tony Harris...

It seems that Tony Harris has disappeared in Brazil where he travelled to play basketball.

This year he decided to return to Brazil to get a "financial cushion" before the birth of his first child with his wife.

[She] said her husband left Seattle for Brasilia in central Brazil on Oct. 31. She last heard from him early November...

The other disappearances cited are those of John Brisker and Bison Dele. Each story is very strange in its own way.

Now, news in the latest story involving Harris has come in and it is not good.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

How should America protect its borders?

Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas answers this question in his presidential campaign's first TV ad:

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Farm Bill Rancor

Right now in the US Senate, debate on the future of our farm bill is ongoing. The farm bill sets the policies for US agriculture. Not a big deal you say? Au contraire.

Time Magazine notes the bill is in fact important to all of us, even if only 1% of residents in the US are farmers anymore (down from 50% 130 years ago and while 36% of world residents are still farmers),

But farms still cover most of our land, consume most of our water and produce most of our food. If you eat, drink or pay taxes--or care about the economy, the environment or our global reputation--U.S. agricultural policy is a big deal.

Time writes that as always, bringing reform to the farm bill has been tough, but it's worth fighting for. The biggest issue is subsidies for our large cash crops, especially cotton and corn. So, I would encourage you to read this excellent article, and depending on your perspective, let your congressman know your thoughts. Speaking of which, do you have any?

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Friday, November 09, 2007

Sunday, November 04, 2007

War on Poverty

Anthony Bradley writes,

“There is nothing new under the sun.” The oft-quoted saying from the book of Ecclesiastes is especially true of John Edwards’ well-intentioned but misguided “poverty tour.” Edwards’ proposals to help the poor are nothing more than a remix of Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and, like those previous initiatives, miss the mark.

Government wealth redistribution schemes, larger labor unions, and expanded government social programming have never helped the poor in the past and will continue to fail the truly disadvantaged in the future.

Do you agree? If not these schemes, what is the best strategy for solving the problems of poverty within our country? How about globally?

Thursday, November 01, 2007

"Not My Job" Awards

Back in college, I first saw the below picture and I thought it was pretty classic. It was described as the winner of the "Not My Job Award" from ADOT in Litchfield Park, AZ 85.

How could this have possibly happened? Okay, maybe they overlooked it. And the actual source of this picture and the supposed award aren't clear. Regardless, not something that happens often. But then last year, I saw this.

It was described as the winner of the 2006 "Not My Job" Award. Hmm, I was beginning to sense a theme. First of all, what are the chances of this happening again? In this case, there was no argument that it wasn't noticed. Sheer utter laziness was at fault. Were these pictures real? The only references to so called "Not My Job" awards seemed to come with these pictures. Where were they from? Surely this sort of thing couldn't keep happening.


But yes, this fall, yet again some road painting crews have been caught. And this time the location was verified. Right here in suburban Chicagoland crews painted over a roadkill racoon. Yikes.

Any others out there?