What's in a name?

So truth be told, my mom wanted to name me "Jim." But apparently at least one person in her family didn't like that name, so the brainstorming continued. Finally, the name they all compromised on was "Greg," a name that nobody in the family was particularly crazy about, but everyone was at least "okay" with it--and they couldn't think of any obvious schoolyard taunts to which a "Greg" would be subjected. So it was settled. (Years later my mom told me that she was actually glad I wasn't named "Jim" because kids would have called me "Slim Jim" much like they had called her "Bony Joany.")

Anyway, I got my first psychological lesson in names when I was in the first grade. For some reason, my first grade teacher nicknamed me "Gregger." Due to her position of authority (and my general state of confusion at that stage of my life), I didn't question this nickname and always would answer to that. It became a way of life for me in that teacher's first grade class. However, slowly but surely, my fellow first graders started calling me "Gregger" too. This made me slightly uncomfortable, but still, I wasn't going to say anything. They weren't taunting me. For all I knew, some of them probably thought that was really my name.

Then one day as I was getting on the big yellow bus to go home, one of the girls in my class came up to me and asked, "Do you like to be called Gregger?" Now, even though I was only in the first grade, I do remember thinking something along the lines of, "This girl is pretty and she's smart. She can call me anything she wants." But those weren't the words that came out of my mouth. Instead, I simply said, "No."

Word must have spread fast, because my classmates soon stopped calling me Gregger; and once that year was over, it wasn't until later when I took a Spanish class ("Gregorio") and then some German classes ("Gregor") that teachers gave me nicknames again.

An article last year in Psychology Today, "Hello, My Name is Unique," talks about what parents these days tend to look for in names; and the article also explores to what extent a name has on our self-perception and success. The article opens:

Proper names are poetry in the raw, said the bard W.H. Auden. "Like all poetry, they are untranslatable." Mapping your name onto yourself is a tricky procedure indeed. We exist wholly independently of our names, yet they alone represent us on our birth certificates and gravestones.

Varying viewpoints on names and their importance are given in the article. Here's one of those views:

Children and teens either struggle to stand apart or try desperately to fit in. A singular name eases the former pursuit but thwarts the latter. If parents give a child an offbeat name, speculates Lewis Lipsitt, professor emeritus of psychology at Brown University, "they are probably outliers willing to buck convention, and that [parental trait] will have a greater effect on their child than does the name."

Of course a name matters to some degree, which is why many parents put much thought into it. However, at what point should the government get involved if a name is deemed inappropriate?

According to this Foxnews.com article, "Venezuela Seeks to Crack Down on Odd Baby Names,":

Venezuela is considering a bill barring parents from giving their children "names that expose them to ridicule, are extravagant or difficult to pronounce," or "that raise doubts about whether a child is a girl or a boy."

Earlier this month, a couple in China made international news by trying to name their son, "@". The parents said that they liked the name because it's in every email address, and because the phonetic sound "at" can be translated into "love him" in Mandarin. Sounds reasonable to me, but whether or not @ was officially approved as a name is unknown. What is known is that one of the government officials wasn't too thrilled, saying:

The name (@) was an extreme example of people's increasingly adventurous approach to Chinese, as commercialization and the Internet break down conventions.

So how about you? Do you feel your life has been impacted by your name? At what point should the government step in and ban certain names?

The Vick Ethics

As I've been contemplating it, and as the story has remained in the news, now that Michael Vick has pled guilty to the dogfighting charges he faced, I have a few more thoughts.

I think Gregg Easterbrook, who has the same type of dog I do, nails much of what my reaction is:

The disgusting thing about dogfighting isn't that animals battle and die -- after all, animals fight to the death in nature, tearing each other's flesh with heartless violence. The disgusting thing about dogfighting is that supposedly intelligent members of Homo sapiens add sadism to the natural equation by starving dogs to make them extra aggressive, filing their incisors to make the fights bloodier, and engaging in other acts unbecoming any man or woman of ethics. What Michael Vick confessed to Monday ought to disgust you, regardless of whether you are a dog lover. Include me. [My dog] -- a Chesapeake retriever, noble state dog of Maryland -- slumbers happily near my feet as I write this.

But the punishment expected to be imposed on Vick -- one to two years in federal prison, and perhaps never playing in the NFL again -- seems out of proportion to his actions and his status as a first-time offender. The situation is confusing because the federal crimes to which Vick pleaded guilty turn as much on gambling and racketeering as dogfighting; gambling and racketeering concern federal prosecutors because of their relationship to organized crime. Racketeering can lead to jail terms even for nonviolent first-time offenders not involved with drug sales, such as Vick. The NFL, for its part, has very strong reasons to detest gambling, and elaborately warns players they will be harshly penalized for associating with gamblers. Yet I can't help feeling there is overkill in the social, media and legal reactions to Vick, and that the overkill originates in hypocrisy about animals.

Thousands of animals are mistreated or killed in the United States every day without the killers so much as being criticized, let alone imprisoned. Ranchers and farmers kill stock animals or horses that are sick or injured. Some ranchers kill stock animals as gently as possible, others callously; in either case, prosecution is nearly unheard of. As Derek Jackson pointed out last week in the Boston Globe, greyhound tracks routinely race dogs to exhaustion and injury, then kill the losers, or simply eliminate less-strong pups: "184,604 greyhound puppies judged to be inferior for racing" were killed, legally, in the past 20 years.

Hunters shoot animals for sport. They do so lawfully, while the manner in which Vick harmed his dogs was unlawful. But from the perspective of the animal, there seems little difference between a hunter with a state game license zipped in his vest pocket shooting a deer as part of something the hunter views as really fun sport, and Vick shooting a dog as part of something Vick views as really fun sport. In both cases, animals suffer for human entertainment. The animal-ethics distinction between Vick's actions and lawful game hunting are murky at best. A first-time offender should go to prison over a murky distinction?

Much more troubling is that the overwhelming majority of Americans who eat meat and poultry -- I'm enthusiastically among them -- are complicit in the systematic cruel treatment of huge numbers of animals. Snickering about this, or saying you're tired of hearing about it, doesn't make it go away. Most animals used for meat experience miserable lives under cruel conditions, including confinement for extended periods in pits of excrement. (Michael Pollan, who enthusiastically consumes meat and fowl, describes the mistreatment in his important new book The Omnivore's Dilemma.) Meat animals don't magically stop living when it's time to become a product; they suffer as they die. One of Vick's dogs was shot, another electrocuted. Gunshots and electrocution are federally approved methods of livestock slaughter, sanctioned by the Department of Agriculture for the killing of cows and pigs. Regulations under the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 give federal sanction to shooting cows or pigs, or running electrical current through their bodies. Shooting and electrocution are viewed by federal law as humane ways to kill animals that will be consumed. Federal rules also allow slaughterhouses to hit cows in the head with a fast-moving piston that stuns them into semiconsciousness before they are sliced up. Being hit in the head with a powerful piston -- does that sound a bit painful, a bit cruel? It's done to tens of thousands of steers per year, lawfully.

Don't say "eew, gross" about how meat animals are butchered, then return to denouncing Vick. If you're eating a cheeseburger or BLT or steak or pot roast today, there's a good chance you are dining on an animal that was shot or electrocuted. You are complicit. You freely bought the meat, you did not demand Congress strengthen the Humane Slaughter Act. Livestock can be calmed and drugged before being slain. A few slaughterhouses do this, but most don't because it raises costs, and you, the consumer, demand the lowest possible price for your meal. Now about your turkey sub or coq au vin. Federal slaughter regulations apply mainly to large animals, leaving considerable freedom in the killing of fowl. Many poultry slaughterhouses kill chickens by slashing their throats rather than snapping their necks. Snapping the neck kills the bird quickly, ending suffering, but then the heart dies quickly, too. Slashing the throat causes the bird to live in agony for several minutes, heart still beating and pumping blood out of the slash -- and consumers prefer bloodless chicken meat.

Further, the Humane Slaughter Act exempts kosher and halal slaughter. In both traditions, the cow or lamb must be conscious when killed by having its carotid artery, or esophagus and trachea, slashed. The animal bleeds to death, convulsing in agony, as its heart pumps blood, which is viewed as unclean, out of the slashed openings. The delicious pastrami we consumed at a kosher deli, or the wonderfully good beef we could buy at a halal butcher, comes from an animal that suffered as it died.

Yes, Vick broke the law; yes, he arrogantly lied and refused to apologize when first caught; and yes, his actions before and after the dog killings indicate he is one stupid, stupid man. But Vick's lawbreaking was relatively minor compared to animal mistreatment that happens continuously, within the law, at nearly all levels of the meat production industry, and with which all but vegetarians are complicit. There is some kind of mass neurosis at work in the rush to denounce Vick, wag fingers and say he deserved even worse. Society wants to scapegoat Vick to avoid contemplating its own routine, systematic killing of animals. We couldn't all become vegetarians tomorrow: that is not practical. But American society is not even attempting to make the handling of meat animals less brutal, let alone working to transition away from a food-production order in which huge numbers of animals are systematically mistreated, then killed in ways that inflict terror and pain. We won't lift a finger to change the way animals die for us. But we will demand Michael Vick serve prison time to atone for our sins.

Legal note: Vick might be compelled to repay the Falcons a huge amount of bonus money, and will lose $25 million or more in endorsement income. I have no sympathy for his loss of endorsement income: Vick was hired to bring Nike and other companies he endorsed good publicity, and instead brought them bad. But think about the income loss in the calculation of overpunishment of Vick. One or two years in federal prison, and perhaps state prison time if state charges are filed as well; plus $25 million in lost endorsement income and, oh, $50 million in lost or returned NFL income. That's overkill! Often the indirect financial consequences of legal proceedings are worse than the official ones, in the same way that a speeding ticket might cost you $75 but add $1,000 to your annual insurance bill.

In effect, the federal indictment of Vick is resulting in him being fined around $75 million, which is far too much retribution. The legal hang-up is that since 1984, federal courts have been forbidden to consider monetary loss in private life as counting toward punishment. But a year of banishment from the NFL, a guilty plea with suspended sentence and probation (meaning the sentence is imposed if probation is violated), seems plenty of punishment for a first offense by someone who has not harmed another human being. Prison time and a $75 million fine? What Vick did was indecent, but now excessive punishment is being imposed, and two wrongs do not equal one right. Justice, after all, must be tempered with mercy. That's what you would think if you stood in the dock accused.

Here's what I think. Not only is the punishment Vick is facing an overreaction, but this is an illustration of the typical inconsistency that people have in discussing animal rights. In my mind the reactions to this Vick story are only a part of what is a larger societal discussion of the animal rights movement. And the saga got me thinking about it...

First, let's get a couple definitions out there. Animal rights is a broad term that really encompasses a couple items. Animal welfare is care that is given an animal such that it does not suffer unnecessarily. Animal liberation is a push to give animals equivalent rights to humans. Most animal rights 'activists' likely yearn for animal liberation while taking sometimes extreme measures attempting to push for animal welfare. Yet, animal welfare only focuses on the morality of human action (or inaction), as opposed to making deeper political or philosophical claims about the status of animals.

Truly, the perspective one has on what rights an animal has boils down to theology in my opinion. Is an animal the moral equivalent of a human or are humans in fact a special creation set above the rest of the animal world? This past Sunday in church, the sermon was actually on Genesis 1 and 2, in which God gives man dominion over all the animals. Thus, a Christian could not consider any animal as having equal status with man. That does not mean, however, that our actions to them do not matter. We are called to be stewards, and great care should be given to treat animals well--so that they do not suffer unnecessarily. This does not also mean that we imbue animals with special rights equivalent to what we as humans deserve. Do you believe animals were given to humans to use for work, food, and enjoyment?

With the perspective of your own moral basis, why do you treat animals the way you do? Do you consider the indirect actions your interaction with the products of animals may have? In establishing one's own position on animal rights, moral consistency is important. Do you think eating beef is wrong? How about eating horse? How about eating dog? What's the difference? If one is okay with eating meat from one animal, it seems they should be from another.

Don't be too quick to judge Michael Vick before we have contemplated our own actions. Learn where your food comes from, watch Fast Food Nation, and happily still eat meat, as I do, knowing all the facts. I would call all of us to judge what our own action or inaction says in regard to the issue of animal rights. Are we being morally consistent? What should we be advocates for in this discussion?

Pickup Basketball

Anyone who has played pickup basketball knows the characters.


11 Guys At The Playground -

Which one are you?

Underground Cities

I am frequently blown away by all that we don't know about our world. What's more surprising, though, is what we sometimes don't know about even the history of what we humans have built in this world. Often we've completely forgotten what the pinnacles of past societies were. Like in 1911 when Machu Picchu was rediscovered after being lost for centuries.

BLDGBLOG now points us to the underground cities of Cappadocia in Turkey. The ancient Hittites, who came to area from east of the Black Sea around 2,000 B.C., are believed to have begun the excavation of these cities. It is believed that these underground cities were enlarged during early Christian times to provide refuge for the Christians from invaders and persecutors.
He quotes Alan Weisman from The World Without Us,

No one knows how many underground cities lie beneath Cappadocia. Eight have been discovered, and many smaller villages, but there are doubtless more. The biggest, Derinkuyu, wasn't discovered until 1965, when a resident cleaning the back wall of his cave house broke through a wall and discovered behind it a room that he'd never seen, which led to still another, and another. Eventually, spelunking archeologists found a maze of connecting chambers that descended at least 18 stories and 280 feet beneath the surface, ample enough to hold 30,000 people – and much remains to be excavated. One tunnel, wide enough for three people walking abreast, connects to another underground town six miles away. Other passages suggest that at one time all of Cappadocia, above and below the ground, was linked by a hidden network. Many still use the tunnels of this ancient subway as cellar storerooms.

Did you catch that? Up to 30,000 people lived in this underground city!

And BLDGBLOG notes, it is likely there is more exploration of these cities waiting to happen. Another underground city, Gaziemir, was just found earlier this year.

What other crazy remnants of a past society are out there still waiting to be found again?

Wow

Once in awhile we get to see the future come. But most of the time, we don't even notice it. Here now, take a peek at it...



All I can say is, I don't think we'll ever trust pictures the same way again.

And so it begins...

In understated fashion yet another blog has begun. But this isn't just any blog...

It gives me great pride to announce a sister blog to IJAB. Yes, the Westy's have found another place on the web.

As most of you know, my wife and I are expecting a child very shortly. Inspired by that--and maybe to ensure we are able to keep the grandparents happy with plenty of updates--the many odd tales of the Windy City Westy's can now be found on her new blog.

Definitely check it out and watch for updates as our family grows.

Does College Secularize Students?

The problem with when what's considered a given hasn't been tested is that we often find out it's not a given.

For years the running assumption has been that higher education secularizes students. Christians have typically believed that secularization of the young results from the promulgation of a secular agenda, while those of a more secular bent have preferred the explanation that more education naturally exposes the irrationality of religious faith.

Like most people who haven't given it much though, I had usually accepted the conventional thought that college tends to be a secularizing force. Now, though, a study has been released that shows it might not be so.

A new study by Mark Regnerus, Jeremy Uecker, and Margaret Vaaler in the Spring 2007 issue of Social Forces suggests both sides are wrong from the outset. Their conclusion is that higher education doesn't secularize students.

It actually makes sense to me. Do you agree?

Random Movie Reviews

So this past week I caught up a little on my movie-watching, renting my first three movies of the year. (Previously this year, I had seen two movies at friends' places and perhaps two in theaters. So I guess this means I've now seen about seven movies total this year. Oh, and I saw "Happy Feet" on the plane. So maybe it's eight.)

Anyway, I might not see as many movies as the average American, but when I do, I really try to enjoy them. I don't get my hopes too high. I just want some small amount of entertainment where all I have to do is sit back and take it all in. If the movie indeed turns out to be more than that, well, then that's just icing on the cake.

The three movies that I rented and watched over the past week were Pulp Fiction (1994), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), and Signs (2002). I hadn't seen any of these movies before, so despite their age, they were "new" to me.










I got Pulp Fiction because Ving Rhames has been in the news recently, and all the media reports kept referring to him as "the Pulp Fiction actor." I got Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon because I've heard good things about it; and I got Signs because it just seemed like it might be my type of movie.

So without further ado, here are my three random movies reviews:

Pulp Fiction - Toaster scene. 'Nuf said.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - Have you seen this movie? Did you like it? Well, if you liked this movie, then please just skip to my Signs review.

Apparently Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (or as it's known in China, Wo hu cang long) won the Academy Award for "Best Foreign Film" of 2000. Now, this means one of two things: 1) The voting is rigged or 2) 2000 was a down year for foreign films.

First off, let's start on a positive. This movie was based on a novel by Du Lu Wang, which for all I know could be an excellent book. But I'm sorry, this movie was difficult for me to watch, mainly because I didn't connect with the characters and most of the action scenes looked corny to me (such as the many times characters were floating around awkwardly).

My biggest problem was with that Long chick (the one who steals the sword in the beginning and causes all sorts of mindless trouble throughout the movie). Seriously, this chick had major issues and about 20 minutes into the movie I was actively cheering for really bad stuff to happen to her. Toward the end when she used the Green Dragon sword to cut the older lady's arm (Yu Shu Lien) and then Li Mu Bai steps in and yells, "You are not worthy of that sword!" I thought, "Finally, he's going to decapitate her like the Highlander would." But no, they just float around the trees for a little bit and then when he gets his chance to show her who's boss, he goes back to wanting to train her again (even though she's burned every bridge 10 times by this point in the movie.)

And of course, this annoying ninja chick has a long lost lover from the desert named "Dark Cloud." Although, I think his name should have been "Clouded Judgment." He's a desert bandit capable of kidnapping and enslaving any chick he wants, but for some reason he insists on falling in love with this violent, indecisive, snobbish, back-stabbing daughter of a nobleman. At the end, the movie tries to make us believe that these two will live happily ever after in the desert. But come on, you just know she's going to change her mind not long after the credits roll. At the very least, there's no way "Dark Cloud" is going to be able to put up with her "thunder and lightning" for long.

Now, you might be curious as to why this movie is called Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Well, me too. I would have called it Crouching Catfights, Hidden Plot.

Signs - Okay, so if I had seen this movie in the theater without knowing anything about it, I probably would have really enjoyed it. Unfortunately, that's not how I went into this movie. Instead, I've seen the trailers and teasers repeatedly, as well as having heard some things through the rumor mill. I went in kinda knowing what to expect, which kinda defeats the purpose of this type of movie.

That being said, I did think that it was a good movie. Some parts were scary, some were funny, and some were thought-provoking.

In closing, I thought Pulp Fiction worked well as a comedy for me; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon belongs on Mystery Science Theater 3000; and Signs was worth the $5 rental.

Oh, and speaking of rentals. It looks like I have a $1.99 rental at Blockbuster that's good for another week. Do you have any movie suggestions?

The United Countries of Baseball

Pretty cool. Where do you live?

Stop Snitchin' Redux

CBS News' 60 Minutes last week re-aired an updated segment on the Stop Snitchin' campaign popularized by rappers today that's become a way of life in today's inner city.

As I told you about earlier, the reluctance to assist police in urban ghettos has led to a clearance rate in the single digits for murder in some cities. Geoffrey Canada observes,

You don't need someone destroying you when your own people are the worst messengers possibly. And this is what black people in America have not come to grips with. If we had a bunch a people in robes saying this stuff, there would be a movement all over America to shut this thing down. That it's young black millionaires, we are doing nothing.

Definitely watch the segment. (make sure to click through to the 60 Minutes videos to watch the entire segment)

What will it take to turn this credo around?

Clarity

Usually the articles I find enjoyable because they're pertinent to my job most people wouldn't.

This may be the exception:

Road signs first appeared in ancient Rome as stone markers counting the distances to various cities in the empire. In the age of the automobile, they began popping up on the side of the road a little more than a decade after the Ford Motor Company released its first Model T. Auto clubs and state highway departments placed the markings with little thought toward uniformity or consistency...

Dogfighting

As you probably know, NFL star Michael Vick is accused of financing and running a dogfighting operation in Virginia.

ESPN has an intriguing article on the situation. It begins,

A History of Mistrust
Having trouble understanding why so many black Atlantans see the Michael Vick case as a racial conspiracy? Try walking a mile in their shoes...

I thought the article does a great job of outlining the overwhelming role race plays in peoples' reactions whenever drama such as this plays out so publicly, especially in the south. One can quickly remember how quickly blacks sought to defend OJ a decade ago.

To be honest, though, I do wonder if the reaction is greater because Vick is black. Lang Whitaker points out,

Obviously, the food we eat — and yes, I am a world class carnivore — isn’t made to fight each other before we tuck into it, but is it any worse to electrocute a dog than it is to shoot a bolt into a cow’s head? Nobody cares that Brett Favre, the NFL’s golden child, spends his off-season in the wilderness hunting unsuspecting animals?

I too, though a dogowner, wonder if this issue is being blown up more than it should be. The Sports Guy notes,

Vick could have been accused of murdering a stripper, blowing up a shopping mall or funneling his Nike money to Al Qaeda, and people wouldn't have been even 1% as outraged as they are about the dogfighting allegations. You can get away with just about anything these days; just don't tick off dog lovers.

Is the dog worthy of more moral consideration only because it's domesticated? Is the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' discarded when the defendent is black? Tough questions, but worth asking.

The Slam

Height

This summer, average height data again confirmed a rather interesting trend. The United States is no longer the tallest country in the world, and is steadily losing ground. The average American's height is 5'9" for men and 5'4" for women. The tallest country in the world is Holland, where the men average 6'0" and the women 5'7". Since the 1950s, American height has plateaued while other countries' height has continued to rise and surpass our own. This trend is troubling because the most likely cause is some shortcoming in the way we nurture our children.

In reading about this further, I found this fascinating article on the phenomenon. Burkhard Bilger reports on the research of John Komlos, an economic historian at the University of Munich who was born in Hungary, grew up in Chicago, and has spent the last quarter century compiling data on the heights of nations.

His research shows that the height of a society is a strong indicator of its health. Throughout history, whenever a society improved its nutrition and general health, its height also grew. One of the things I found most interesting about this is that outside probably the African Pygmies, any population can grow as tall as any other. That means that any difference in average height between say Asians, Scandinavians, Americans, or Mexicans is attributable largely to their diet. While genetics still plays a factor in height differences within population groups, their composite averages are an indicator of their composite well-being.

This leaves us with the question, how could the wealthiest country in the world, during the most robust economic expansion in its history, simply stop growing?

Transit Dollars

As the Illinois state legislature continues to inch along towards a budget in a ridiculous display of government ineptitude, Illinois' transit leaders wait to see whether they will receive funding to allow them to continue operations without price increases.

John Norquist, president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, a Chicago-based organization promoting neighborhood-based development nationally, makes a case for spending our dollars for transit better than I had heard previously. As he points out, providing a world-class transit system for the Chicagoland area is the key to continuing to move Chicago towards being a world-class city worthy of hosting the Olympics.

Seriously, let's get this budget done, and let's hope it includes transit dollars.

Facebook is tipping

It's official, folks, Facebook is tipping.

In May, they released Facebook Platform, allowing developers to write applications that are integrated into people's Facebook profiles. This has accelerated the spread of Facebook amongst all segments of society. No longer is it a social network just for college kids, but it is growing into a powerful networking site. Robert Scoble notes,

They are continuing to move to a wider demographic than just college students, which should have been obvious to anyone who is following their moves over the past year.

Rapid adoption of Facebook as the social network of choice in Silicon Valley has cemented its likely continued future success. Scoble writes,

What other reasons are there for Facebook now?

Quality of people on the network. When I say my Facebook contact list is like a who’s who of the Tech Industry, I’m very serious.

Adulation has poured in. It's been called "the most important thing that's happened on the Internet in the past five years, possibly the past ten..."

Personally, I think it's a pretty cool site. I love the clean format and the ways it engenders keeping in touch with friends. I wish it had been around when I was in college because I think I'd be in touch with more friends from there now. If you haven't joined yet, I would say now is the time.

And I have to say, I'm excited about what the future holds for Facebook. I think there are a lot of possibilities for further growth. Cleaning up the associations amongst 'friends' you have is likely high on the list.
I hope Facebook buys LinkedIn and Geni. Then, after incorporating them into Facebook, you would have an option to link to someone as a business associate, family, or just as a friend. To me it feels like a natural extension.

Then, soon, Facebook will be accessible via your wireless phone. Your location will be tracked (if you so desire) and you will be able to see which of your friends are nearby.

What future additions and/or changes would excite you?

NBA will be A-OK

This NBA season when you look into the stands and see a fan holding a sign that reads something like, "I fixed this game," just remember that the fan paid the NBA good money both for his ticket and the jersey he's wearing of his favorite player.

My guess is that the interest in the NBA going into this season will be near an all-time high, which will be good for profits. And besides, this whole thing with NBA officials not being fair is nothing new. It's been pretty obvious for some time that they have been, to some degree, playing favorites.

This is gonna be great theater.

The laws of physics being rewritten?

On July 4, the long awaited demo from London of Steorn’s new Orbo device, which supposedly creates a steady stream of energy from magnetic fields, was to be unveiled.

Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely.

The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form.

Because of the revolutionary nature of our claim, not only to the world of science but to the world in general, Steorn issued a challenge to the scientific community in August 2006 to test our technology and report their findings. The process of validation that has resulted from this challenge is currently underway, with results expected by the end of 2007.

Could Steorn have found a way to rewrite the laws of physics? Maybe not.

Hate is a waste of time

Across the ocean, in a bigoted Irish town, little girls ask other little girls, "Coke or Pepsi?" It is a veiled, mean question -- because the wrong answer can get a little girl's home firebombed. This is a story about the right answer: a basketball game. A game arranged, in part, by one man who's a Coke and one man who's a Pepsi …

Last night at the ESPY's, Dave Cullen and Trevor Ringland won the Arthur Ashe Courage Award for their work with Peace Players International in Northern Ireland. Their story is a powerful reminder that we are only a generation away from peace if we can reach the children caught up in the conflicts this world is so full of. Video outlining the project can be found at ESPN.

Link of the Day- Ideas from the EDGE

Despite being so overtly a branded experience, I thought this site does have a good rundown of "new destinations and experiences" with a nice map interface.
If you're headed to any of the featured cities, I'd definitely encourage you to check it out.

The NL "Comedy" Central?

If you follow Major League Baseball, you've probably heard the NL Central referred to as "the worst division in baseball." It's a commonly held view, and in fact, I've never heard anyone challenge the notion. To the contrary, I've even heard people say it's "the worst division in all of sports."

Granted, the NL Central hasn't always been considered the worst in baseball, but I'd say this view began shortly after McGwire retired in 2001. (Previously, the NL Central had been fondly known as "Home Run Central" with Sosa, McGwire, and Griffey.)

So why the fall from glory? How could one division in baseball go from being considered the crown jewel of MLB entertainment to the laughingstock that gets no respect? Is the NL Central really the worst division in baseball? Well, let's take a closer look...

Right off the bat, when judging the quality of any division in any sport, I would take a look at how its representative(s) perform in the league-wide playoffs at season's end. After all, this is when the best teams compete under the most pressure for the ultimate prize. When applying this standard to the MLB's NL Central, we quickly find that this division actually produced the MLB's grand champion last year--The St. Louis Cardinals.

Obviously, everyone knows the Cardinals won the World Series last year; and just because they did well doesn't mean the NL Central isn't the worst division in baseball. After all, a division should be judged in total by the performance of each of its teams, right?

Well, one curious fact about the NL Central is that it's the only division in baseball with 6 teams, which is more than any other division. Most divisions only have 5, and the AL West only has 4. In the MLB, any team that wins its division gets into the playoffs, so statistically speaking, it stands to reason that it's tougher to win a 6-team division than a 4-team division. Sure, it depends on the quality of teams too, but over the long haul you'd rather be competing against 3 teams than 5.

But what else can we deduce from a 6-team division? Well, with that many teams it's more likely that you'll have at least one that's really good or one that's really bad. It also increases the likelihood that you'll have two that are really good--or two that are really bad, which I think brings us to the problem.

Last year, while the Cardinals won the World Series, two other members of the NL Central, the Cubs and Pirates, had the 3rd and 4th worst records in baseball respectively. Go back to 2005, the Pirates tied for 2nd worst record in baseball. In 2004, the Brewers tied for 4th worst in baseball. In 2003, the Brewers tied for 5th worst and the Reds for 6th worst. In 2002, the Brewers had the 2nd worst record in baseball.

However, over the same 5-year span, 2002-2006, let's look at how the NL Central performed in the playoffs:

2006 - Cards win World Series.
2005 - Astros top Cards in NLCS, but lose in World Series.
2004 - Cards top Astros in NLCS, but lose in World Series.
2003 - Cubs lose to Marlins in NLCS.
2002 - Cards lose to Giants in NLCS.

Over the last 5 years, the NL Central has had 7 teams make the NLCS, 3 teams make the World Series, and 1 team win it all. For comparison, here are the numbers for all 6 divisions in baseball based on LCS appearances/WS appearances/WS championships:

AL East - 4/2/1
AL Central - 3/2/1
AL West - 3/1/1

NL East - 2/1/1
NL Central - 7/3/1
NL West - 1/1/0

You'll notice that over the past five years, the NL Central has sent more teams to the League Championship Series and World Series than any other division in baseball. Furthermore, the NL Central's one World Series championship is as many as any other division in baseball since 2001. (Interestingly, over the past 6 years, each division in baseball has won the World Series exactly once.)

So my only point is that, based on the numbers I've seen, the NL Central seems to hold its own with the other divisions (especially in the playoffs); and I wouldn't be surprised if yet another NL Central team advances to the NLCS this year. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Time will tell if the NL "Comedy" Central gets the last laugh (again).

Tetrachromat Females?

That is just a fancy way of saying some women seem to have four color receptors in their eyes rather than the usual three. Who knew women can see better than men?

I would imagine this would explain why women are so much better men at properly matching clothes. And if you're redecorating your home's interior? I would imagine you should go with your wife's color recommendations.

Brain Man

Meet Daniel Tammet, a 27 year-old math and memory wizard.

How children lost the right to roam

Do you remember those carefree days of summer when we were kids? Roaming around the neighborhood enjoying what we could. Are those days lost for kids of today?

When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere.

It was 1926 and his parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without adult supervision.

Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward enjoys none of that freedom.

He is driven the few minutes to school, is taken by car to a safe place to ride his bike and can roam no more than 300 yards from home. Even if he wanted to play outdoors, none of his friends strays from their home or garden unsupervised.

The contrast between Edward and George's childhoods is highlighted in a report which warns that the mental health of 21st-century children is at risk because they are missing out on the exposure to the natural world enjoyed by past generations.

Is the fear that is keeping our children tethered to home costing them more than just the right to roam? The report's author, Dr William Bird, believes children's long-term mental health is at risk. Is knowing this enough that parents will let their children roam free? If not, why not? What do they fear?

Obama's Political Hoops

This article on one of Barack Obama's hobbies is pretty fascinating. It turns out that Obama is a member of a group of guys who love to get together and play basketball. It just happens that this is a remarkably influential group of guys. And those connections indicate the breadth of Obama's own political growth.

Some of those he plays with include Arne Duncan (CEO of the Chicago Public Schools), Alexi Giannoulias (Illinois State Treasurer), Martin Nesbitt (Chairman of CHA), Craig Robinson (Brown's basketball coach and Obama's brother-in-law), and John Rogers (founder of Ariel Mutual Funds, the largest African-American owned mutual fund company). Interestingly, Duncan hails originally from Harvard, IL and played basketball at Harvard and then professionally in Australia and Rogers and Robinson were basketball teammates at Princeton. Duncan and Robinson were also members a couple years ago of the national Hoop It Up 3-on-3 basketball champion team sponsored by Rogers.

Some familiarity with Chicago politics allows us to see that with Duncan's connections to Mayor Daley, Rogers' connections to Jesse Jackson and Bill Bradley, and Giannoulias' connections to Governor Blagojevich, Obama has quite the network via these pick-up basketball games.

True Christianity

As American Christians begin attempting to get a grasp on this year's presidential field, the question for many evangelicals seems to boil down to one major underlying one. Who should a Christian vote for? The candidates' own faith is a big part of answering that question.

On Monday, the three leading Democrats participated in a forum on Faith, Values, and Poverty; it featured John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Although all three are Protestants, they represent three discreet traditions. Edwards, born Southern Baptist, left and returned to personal faith; Barack Obama articulated the prophetic hope of the African-American church, himself an adult convert; and Hillary Clinton has been a mainline Methodist all her life. Edwards spoke easily of Jesus, Obama extolled the vision of “the beloved community,” and Clinton confessed that she is “private” when it comes to faith and finds it awkward when others “wear their faith on their sleeve.” In one short hour, they modeled the three great families of American Protestantism: evangelical, African-American, and mainline.

On the Republican side, inclusion of Mormon Mitt Romney and the likely addition of former Senator Fred Thompson to the field has cause questions to be raised about his and his opponents' faith. Focus on the Family's founder, James Dobson, said recently that Thompson does not appear to be Christian.

The fact that neither Thompson nor any of the top-tier Republican presidential candidates claims to be a born-again Christian raises broader questions in the race for the GOP nomination. One is, simply: Who do evangelicals consider to be Christian? Another is whether a candidate being considered Christian is a prerequisite to winning evangelical support.

Which frontrunning Republican candidate will be able to capture the evangelical vote has become a much-discussed question. But to the voter, it may come down to who they regard as a 'real' Christian.

There's a lot more than semantics at play here. In fact, the question of what makes a Christian has set the evangelical movement apart from other Christian traditions from its inception in the 18th century. Early evangelical theologians such as John Wesley and George Whitefield introduced notions of "true religion" to distinguish their followers from "traditional" or "routine" religion.

"Evangelicals have always had a pretty narrow understanding of who is a Christian in the proper sense of the term," says University of Notre Dame historian Mark Noll. "Catholics and most Lutherans and Episcopalians would say that anyone who has been baptized is a Christian, but most evangelicals would not agree. They see baptism as an initiation ceremony that may or may not indicate the presence of true faith."

That explains why it's commonplace today to hear evangelicals use the word "Christian" to refer exclusively to fellow evangelicals, as opposed to Catholics or members of mainline Protestant churches. Indeed, when asked whether Focus on the Family considered 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, a Catholic, to be Christian, Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger said he'd rather not answer...

In recent decades evangelicals have begun discerning true Christians from mere professing believers less by denomination and more by religious commitment. Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says,

It's a question of the heart: Has someone turned away from his own works to put his trust in Jesus Christ and does he believe in the Jesus that the Bible portrays? If so, that person has been born again.

For voters, the question is, who amongst next year's candidates is?

Lost in translation

From the "I'm not making this up" department... Read here. View here.

Inequality

I have previously touched on some of the research Roland Fryer is accomplishing. His work is also cited in the book Freakonomics.

He now has a new web page that details his research. There is a bunch of fascinating research available there, and I'm excited to see what more will come. Definitely check out the American Inequality Lab. What findings outlined are most interesting to you?

Math

What you know about it?

Sidewalks

As some of you know, I tend towards being pretty urban-centric. One of my biggest reasons for enjoying city life is the fact that it is a very walkable community. That's because there are sidewalks on every block. I enjoy being able to walk to the drugstore, the grocery, or a restaurant.

One of the biggest problems with many suburban subdivisions, in my estimation, is their lack of sidewalks. I think it cuts down on community connectivity and is detrimental to health. Studies have shown that suburban residents tend to be more obese.

Never did I think, though, that suburbanites were actually opposed to sidewalks. I always figured that they weren't there due to poor planning by villages or cheap developers who didn't want to foot the extra cost. Turns out I was wrong.

Says Northbrook resident Hubert Frank,

We came here for the green grass, we came here for the suburban environment and for the schools. I think we have a beautiful street, and sidewalks would take away that beauty.

The kids in the neighborhood walk to school via the street. Safety first, you know. The article notes,

Some say sidewalks could disturb trees and landscaping, and others fear who might come sauntering through their neighborhoods.

Sidewalks, it seems, represent some of the things people move to more rural-feeling subdivisions to escape: Foot traffic. Noise. Concrete. Taxes.

Yes, the miscreants that sidewalks inherently bring are insidious...

Divorce

What more needs to be said about the state of marriage in our country? The consumer's 'pursuit of happiness' knows not the boundaries that would bring it.

In the real world...

...getting bit by a spider doesn't give you super powers.

Or does it?

The Art of Parenting

What will mean success for our children? So many in America today tie their own success to their children's. What if your kids are not able to go to the prestigious university you set out for them to?

Would it matter?

The NFL Draft Twilight Zone

So I just got back to my apartment and went online to check the NFL draft thus far. At the moment, I see that Brady Quinn is still undrafted and Miami just took Ted Ginn, Jr. with the 9th overall pick. (For all of you who predicted that the Lions would pass on Ginn but he would still be picked before Quinn, please comment below.)

I think the NFL draft is the most interesting among the major sports. It's deeper than the NBA draft, but not as overwhelming as the MLB draft. (Do the NHL or NASCAR even have drafts?)

Another thing I like about the NFL draft is that one player does not a franchise make, even though some GM's keep acting otherwise. History has repeatedly shown us that when a team starts trading away multiple assets to move up in the draft, it usually backfires:

• Would you rather have Mike Vick or both Drew Brees AND LaDainlian Tomlinson? (Nice one, Falcons.)
• How about trading Shawne Merriman and Philip Rivers for Eli Manning? (The Giants essentially did.)
• Mortgage your franchise's future just for the rights to Ricky Williams? (Da Coach should not have also been Da GM.)
• Nor is it an historically good idea to trade away multiple draft picks for an established star. (Don't click here, Westy.)

The last point actually brings me to my next point, which is the constant over-valuing of running backs. No matter who you are and no matter which NFL team you root for, if I were to become the general manager of that team then I would NEVER draft a running back in the first round. (Unless, of course, you are the owner of that team and would require that I do so, which in that case I probably would just to keep my job.)

But seriously, at running back you don't need a great player. You just need a player who can do "The 4 Basics":

• Be durable
• Follow your blockers
• Hang onto the football
• Pick up the blitz

Sure, it might be a nice bonus if they can catch the ball too, but let's not get greedy.

The thing about any one running back is that they don't make that big of a difference in playoff games when they're up against real defenses. And they get hurt. That's why RB's drafted in the first round often hold out for every last dollar during signing bonus money negotiations. History says that it will be the only "big" NFL pay day that they get.

When Reggie Bush started to "go off" last year and put up some big numbers, people started mocking the Houston Texans for passing up on him for defensive end Mario Williams. However, let's see how things play out over a 10-year span. With Williams, the Texans were making a relatively safe pick--getting a guy who was nearly a lock to be an above average DE for a decade. If things go well, he might become a great DE for a decade. With Bush, even if he is the best running back who ever lived, it is unlikely he could consistently remain an "elite" RB for a decade.

Oh well. I'm sure teams will keep taking RB's in the first round and doing other odd things like packaging five draft picks for "that one guy who can change everything." But I really shouldn't complain about this--it makes things interesting.

Wanna get away?

Stop Snitchin'?

Earlier this month, Don Imus embarrassed himself by referring to the relatively high achieving Rutgers women's basketball team as a bunch of "nappy-headed hos". Eight days later, he was fired.

Snoop Dogg, when asked to compare his own use of similar lyrics with Mr. Imus', explained,

It's a completely different scenario. [Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about hos that's in the 'hood that ain't doing s***, that's trying to get a n**** for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha*****s say we in the same league as him.

Mr. Broadus thus argues it is ok to refer to actual hos as hos in the service of artistic expression.

In working with young boys from the inner city, though, I know all too well the impact that gangster rap and hip hop music has on them. When women are treated as objects and materialism glorified in every famous singer you see, its influence cannot be ignored.

Then, yesterday on CBS' 60 Minutes, the rapper Cam'ron said there is no way he would cooperate with police. He says,

Because with the type of business I'm in, it would definitely hurt my business. And the way that I was raised, I just don't do that. I was raised differently, not to tell. It's about business but it's still also a code of ethics. ...There's nothing really to talk about with the police, I mean, for what? ...If I knew the serial killer was living next door to me? No, I wouldn't call and tell anybody on him. But I'd probably move… But I'm not gonna call and be like, you know, 'The serial killer's in 4E.'

Cam'ron notes that it is important he maintain his 'street cred'. And street cred is not maintained by helping the po-po.

60 Minutes describes how over the last decade the fascination with being anti-police has grown and now represents the mainstream of thought in inner city America. "Stop snitchin'" has become a catchy hip-hop slogan that embodies and encourages this attitude. T-shirts with this slogan are bestsellers. Carmelo Anthony participated with drug dealers in making a DVD passing this message on. More than ever, the level of cooperation between inner city residents and police is at a low. And it's a self perpetuating cycle. As residents become less cooperative, police become more defensive, and sometimes harsher. As police become harsher and more physical, residents become less cooperative. And it goes on...

There is no doubt that the 'cool' factor in being above and outside the law bred in rap of the '90s has contributed to this slide. But since when is it more credible to hide the identity of a serial killer next door than cooperate with the police?

There is thus no doubt in my mind that rappers need to be held to a higher standard. Their influence seems obvious. In a recent summit, rap executives have begun to call for the removal of certain volatile elements within their productions. At the same time, though, artists have chafed at this 'censorship'. Some of them claim, as Snoop did, that they are only reflecting and singing about true life.

The question is, does art imitate life or does life begin to imitate art?

The fight for life

The 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography.

The Chase

"Why are these guys so fast? Everybody says the same thing. You know what the tale is?"
-- Bobby Bowden

Drive out there. Get off the interstate, put Palm Beach, Orlando or Miami in your rearview and keep going until the road ends at the horizon and the telephone poles sag like old cypress trees. Roll down the windows. Listen to the eerie silence of the Everglades, a seemingly endless run of fields landmarked only by the railroad tracks, the dike along Lake Okeechobee and the state penitentiary. Race past sugarcane field after sugarcane field until it feels like you're not moving at all. Then stop at the gas station with no gas by the convenience store with no name. Don't worry, you can't miss it -- there at the crossroads of the place they call Muck City...

I highly recommend this article on the art of the rabbit chase. Earlier this spring, my wife and I found ourselves driving through central southern Florida. In stark contrast to the beaches not so far away, there are not many poorer places in the country.

Sports are often seen as a way out for children from the street or the swamp. While statistically they're often aiming for poor goals, we forget how sports stars are born "out of hunger, and courage, and desperation, and community, and hope. And how sometimes they're played in spite of everything else."

How far have we come?

Photojournalist David Turnley took a six-week trip, over 8,000 miles, through the back roads of Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, to photograph life in the South, the better to grasp and to try to show how far the United States has come 40 years after the high-water mark of the civil rights movement...

How far have we come? How far do we have to go?

Stressed Priorities

What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare.

-- from "Leisure," by W.H. Davies

So, a coyote walks into a...

No, it's not the beginning of a "the bartender says..." joke. Yesterday a coyote walked into a sandwich shop down the street from my office. Yes, into a Quizno's in downtown Chicago.
We certainly aren't used to thinking that wildlife more typically found in the country might still inhabit the city. The coyote was an easygoing fellow and proceeded to lounge in the drinks cooler while the customers finished up their sandwiches. Sadly, he didn't find what he was looking for.


Apparently in the spring when it's mating season, the male coyotes are prone to wander around a bit in search of that special someone. Anyone observing partiers at spring break probably would note that the coyote isn't the only species prone to such desperate efforts.

Black exodus?

In today's Chicago Tribune, a side article on the feature story about the typical migration from city to suburb to exurb had a bit of interesting information.

You may or may not have heard that recently the Census Bureau released data saying that Cook County lost the third most population in the first five years of the decade (behind New Orleans' and Detroit's counties). But as it turns out, this is not white flight from the city. In actuality,

African-Americans, once constricted by racism to certain areas within the city, now are leaving Chicago for the suburbs and beyond, in numbers double those of whites.

Is this a positive sign? Are suburbs becoming more welcoming to minorities? According to the authors, it would seem so. They note,

African-Americans are accepted today in many more suburbs than in the past.

They do observe, though, that continued change is needed.

But not everywhere. When...settlement patterns [are mapped] across the region...about a third of all suburbs have fewer than 25 African-American households each -- and, in some cases, none at all.

"Things aren't as bad as they used to be," notes Northwestern University geographer John C. Hudson. The authors conclude,

However, the remaining effects of racism, less overt than they once were but present nonetheless, continue to limit African-American housing choices. As a result, blacks, particularly working-class and low-income families, still don't have the same freedom of movement as whites.

Burger Bests

If you know me, you know I love burgers. A movie I want to see is the documentary by George Motz called Hamburger America. To be honest, I would be happy eating a burger almost every time I go out to eat. That being the case, my wife and I when eating out are almost always on an unofficial quest to experience Chicago's best burgers. And Chicago has a lot of good options.

Now Time Out Chicago has helped us along in that process by releasing their list of Chicago's 55 best burgers: It's patty time!

And wouldn't you know it, I guess I'm too late, because someone's already made it their goal to eat all 55. Where's your favorite burger found?

March Madness Prediction

I think I have a love-hate relationship with politics. On one hand, I undoubtedly hate the bad side of politics. But on the other hand, I do enjoy watching the execution of clever campaign strategies, consolidation of power, mud-slinging, betrayal, and promises of a better tomorrow play out before my very eyes in the media. In truth, national politics is my favorite bloodsport.

This time around, the race for president is historic in the sense that it's the first time in 80 years that neither an incumbent president nor vice president is seeking the office. So in that sense, the race is wide open.

However, for the purposes of this post, I'm going to focus on the Democratic Party. (I might analyze the Republican field later in the year.)

For the Dems, the field really only has two serious candidates at the moment: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

For Hillary, her biggest positive is that she's got the best political machine in place. In fact, one of her key strategies is to give the sense of "inevitability" that she will win the nomination. Her fundraising so far has been stellar, and no Democrat will come close to raising as much money as she will this year. When you have the most powerful contacts and are raising the most money and lead in the national polls, people tend to start falling in line. For a politician, that's a good place to be.

However, money isn't quite everything in politics. People, to some degree, care about where you stand on the issues. For Hillary, many Democrats aren't happy that she voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. In reality, that vote is one of the biggest obstacles she has to winning the Democratic nomination.

Enter Barack Obama. He's youthful, smart, and charismatic. For people who want a fresh start, he's "the next big thing." He's drawing crowds, raising money, and gaining momentum. In contrast to Hillary, he will argue that his view on Iraq has never waivered. Furthermore, being from Illinos, he will challenge Hillary on turf that she had hoped to claim as her own.

But Obama has a big hill to climb. His resume is thin, and he's up against an establishment political machine that will eat him for lunch if it has to. I think his best chance is to keep the race close through December and January and hope things break his way when people actually start casting votes in the primaries.

I do think Obama would have an edge in the debates with Hillary, but that point could be moot. Hillary will at least do one debate before Iowa, but it's hard to say if there will be any others. If she gets through that debate okay and maintains a safe lead, then why debate further? (Remember, Jimmy Carter strongly considered not debating Ronald Reagan at all. In the end, Carter agreed to one debate--and it resulted in Reagan leap-frogging him in the polls and into the White House.)

Some of you reading this might be wondering how much longer I can type on this subject without mentioning "The Bill Factor." Well, wonder no further. Honestly, I think Bill Clinton was a Catch-22 for Al Gore in 2000, but he will be a positive for Hillary in 2008 if he wants to be. My theory here is one that you probably haven't heard bef0re--I call it "The Grandpa Clinton Theory." In short, I think enough time has passed that people's view of Bill has changed to where he's not quite as polarizing. He's older, had major heart surgery, and reminds many Democrats of a simpler time. If he chooses to campaign hard for Hillary, he'll be an asset in the primaries.

As for John Edwards, I've always viewed him as a long shot in this race. His only hope was (and still is) to win Iowa and catch fire from there.

And then there's Al Gore. Will he or won't he run? Well, in some ways, I think that he's already running. He's gotten great publicity for winning an Oscar earlier this year, and he has a new book about his current political views coming out in May. My guess is that his people are constantly doing internal polling and if Gore thinks there's any chance of him competing for the nomination, he'll jump in the ring.

So what if Gore officially runs? What then? Well, I think Hillary's path to the nomination would become a tougher row to hoe. After all, if Gore's internal polling shows that he would make it easier for her to win by him jumping in the race, then he's not going to do it. (Remember, back in 1993 Hillary took Al's White House office for her own. There's a lot of bad blood between those two.)

My gut tells me that Hillary will effectively minimize the political damage of her 2002 Iraq vote and hang on to win the nomination by emphasizing past achievements of which she's proud and the ideas she has for the future. For her V.P. choice, she won't pick anyone who challenged her in the primaries, so you can forget Obama and Edwards. I'd bet on New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson--he's a trusted Clinton person who would balance out the ticket geographically and demographically quite well.

Racial Relations

This spring, I have the opportunity to participate in a class called BUILD (Breakthrough Urban Institute of Leadership Development) offered by Breakthrough Urban Ministries in Chicago. A majority of the class is based on discussion of topics facing urban areas today on which we read. Obviously much of the discussion touches on the challenges of seeking racial reconciliation and looking at the systemic injustices contained within the city. One of the great things about the class is that the members are truly racially and economically very diverse and therefore the discussion is rich.

As a result of taking part in this class, my antennae have been tuned even more than usual towards interesting items covered by the media that directly or indirectly focus on these issues of social injustice. So, partly in order to help myself keep track of them, I thought I'd plan on sharing some of these as I come across them. I hope you also find them fascinating.

the story of Mary Smith: On March 10, a blaze on the north side of Chicago killed three young men and a woman who was the mother of a 4-year-old boy. It was set by Mary Smith, a homeless woman. How did her life unravel to the point she caused the deaths of these young people? Which system failed her?

Black immigrants: Which ethnic immigrant group do you think average the highest educational attainment? African-Americans.

Answering the Big Questions

A fascinating online feature from Wired magazine asks and attempts to answer some of the "big questions" buzzing around the world today.

Have you ever wondered why we sleep or whether mathematicians can solve the Riemann hypothesis? If so, go no further.

The Achievement Gap

Why aren't African-Americans achieving all that they could? American blacks are twice as likely to be in poverty as non-blacks, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and they make nearly $5,000 a year less, on average. What exactly is standing in their way?

Thus begins a fascinating article by Tim Harford, auther of The Undercover Economist. Delving into research by Roland Fryer on 'acting white', some very interesting tidbits are contained.

What do you think is to blame? Lack of education? Lack of personal responsibility? Discrimination?

The Benefits of an Urban Life

Say one empty-nester couple who find urban life an improvement over their former suburban one:

This has had a profound effect on how we interact with people. We realize now that the cocoons of our cars kept us well insulated from the people around us. Our genuine interactions were with family and coworkers, the only people who saw us stripped of the metal that clothed and protected us. Our neighbors, we discovered, were virtually strangers. Now, we stand face-to-face with people in our building's elevators, at our corner hangouts, and on the sidewalks. We chitchat and pet our neighbors' dogs. We exchange 'good mornings' with the people we pass everyday on our way to work. We've developed friendships with several proprietors and servers at our favorite restaurants.

Granted, I'm biased--and of course, your relational networks are somewhat what you make them--but I have to agree that my impression is that urban life fosters increased interaction.

(ht: Kottke)

Link of the Day - The Town The Law Forgot

From "Boss" Tweed to Al Capone to today, the days of cities being run by gangs are undoubtedly far from over.

For a fascinating description of the chaos that results, I'd point you towards this column from the LA Weekly.

Why are Vladimir Putin’s opponents dying?

Having studied abroad in Russia during college, I have continued to pay attention to the politics in Russia. In the last five years, there is no doubt that control of the nation is being tightened within the Kremlin.
What Putin's plans are for next year after he is supposed to leave office are a mystery. But for now, this fascinating article called Kremlin, Inc. does a great job of running down the status of Russian politics. Worldwide consequences based on the leadership of that nation are certainly at stake.