Twits Tweeting

So, I am not a fan of tweeting.  I don't really give a shit if you found a deal on a pair of shoes or just took a major crap.  So anyway I remember a year or so ago at the state of the union address there was a big splash made of the congressmen who were tweeting during the address.  I find this insulting.  You are there to do the entirely difficult job of writing laws for a diverse and complicated country.  While I agree that the state of the union has become a pep rally for the majority party, tweeting during the address, come on.

Anyway, I haven't thought much about it until I came across this article on newsweek.com.  As you know I am a big fan of factcheck.org.  I wish more people visited there.  I think it will help a lot, however it involves reading so that is out for 90% of the populace.  However maybe there is an app for that... that tweets... while you are reading... on the toilet...

Anyway, apparently congressmen are still tweeting.  The article goes into several 'factual difficulties' our 'intelligence impaired' congress have had, recently, on both sides.  What is difficult for me to understand is this: legislating is difficult, do you really think 140 characters is enough when the health care bill was like a million words long?  So you can't craft a bill that people can actually read but you feel like tweeting 140 characters is enough to explain the problems with health care reform or the motives of the opposition?  Come on people.  I would actually prefer if you all spent your time writing simpler laws rather than tweeting, leave that to the unemployed.  If you continue to tweet hopefully you will join them in 6 more months.

Take two shots and call me in the morning

To start out with I would like to say that a lot of time is wasted in documentaries by people walking in hallways, talking on phones, or typing on computers.  I mean these aren't hard things, why do I need to watch someone do it.  The more hilarious part is that the people are trying not to laugh while doing it.

(I would like to say at the start that I am discussing the content of the video only and not information that was not contained in the video.  I personally would choose to vaccinate my children as I have seen no scientific evidence to the contrary.  However this does not have any effect on my discussion of the validity of the arguments presented.)

Anyway, so Frontline had a new video this week about vaccines.

As always I love Frontline, I don't always agree with the way they present material nor the material they leave out but in the end I feel like Frontline is in general a productive thing to watch.  This video is worth watching even though I am going to tear apart a couple of things here.  (The Wikipedia article on vaccines is here.)  The video is about people who don't want to vaccinate their kids and the reasons for it.  (Wikipedia article is here.)

I have to say, and this is a common complaint about all people throughout all time, is that people do not understand logic, statistics, and rational argument.  I don't want to specifically say person X is an idiot, I mean these are not simple topics to master however the lack of skill in these areas are causing significant problems in society.  For instance take the mom in the Frontline video from Oregon who is trying to rationalize not vaccinating her kids.  I will say that she has a valid question, 'When is the disease gone so that we can stop vaccinating against it,' however this is her justification for not vaccinating her kids: 'There hasn't been a case in X years in the United States.'  However during this time thousands of people die outside the United States.  This is an example of an illogical conclusion, this is like me saying no one ever gets hit by cars because I have never been hit by a car.  Additionally this more complicated due to the herd immunity populations in the United States has had in recent years though pockets of problems are popping up.

I also want to directly attack a common problem with cause and effect.  It is common today (and in the video this is pointed to early) that science and the benefits thereof are subdued or wrong if the discovering party makes money off the discovery.  In the video the Doctor who discovered the 'R' in the MMR vaccine was directly questioned about this.  I don't think he did any favors to himself by dodging the question however the question is stupid to begin with.  The vaccine is provided to children because the NIH, CDC, FDA, etc. say it is safe and prevents disease.  Does the profit motive matter here?  Does the fact that he made money from it mean the vaccine doesn't work?  No.  Now some people may dislike the idea of paying someone a profit on something that is 'required' for life but in reality you do this all the time, food, shelter, etc.  Don't think your landlord is a charity organization.  Luckily this was quickly glossed over as I feel like it was a general distraction.

Next we are looking at a statistical problem in the video.  The video spends a lot of time discussing the link between autism and vaccines (specifically Thimerosal and Mercury as possible culprits).  Now here is the problem, and it is stated later in the video about minute 35:00.  It is stated that parents noticed their children regress at this specific time, when the vaccine was given.  The guy was like, science can't tell us why this happened though non-scientific evidence from the parents said it happened because of the shot.  Well this is what the scientific method is for, to prove both positive or negative outcomes.  The research showed there was no or significant evidence against a link between the vaccines and autism.  I think the video states it pretty clearly that there is an average age when autism is diagnosed and that happens to be during the time that a lot of vaccines are given.  Correlation does not equal causation, it is that simple, you have to prove causation (and correlation).

I feel like a lot of problems and poor communications could be cleared by a more effective understanding of these principals of rationality, logic, and statistics.  It seems pretty difficult to have a functioning society without these and so many people lack them.  I feel especially blessed that I have a solid understanding of those but it also took many years to develop a good grasp of any of them.

So now I will discuss briefly (after tearing into the anti-vaccine camp) the positive points they made.  Yes, it is important that these concerns are studied.  Yes, it is important that we spend resources to identify problems.  Yes, (my opinion is) you should have choice in determining what happens to your children, however, I do not feel you should assume you can know everything just because 'you read something'.  I would say challenge your doctor by asking important questions however remember to practice intellectualism and defer to the person with the most expertise in the area.  It is sad when children have bad things happen to them but we need to as parents, and as a society look at the problem through a scientific lens and find out what the real cause of the problem is, half-guesses and assumed omnipotence are counter-productive.

(I strongly suggest watching the video and surfing through the Wikipedia articles as the discussion is very interesting.  I would also add the discussion on the Frontline website is interesting.  It is obvious that not all information could be presented in 55 minutes and some people bring up valid points and additional information.  I think both sides should remember that we are all looking for the answer we just may have different paths to get there.)

Unbelievable

Here is a video on Anderson Cooper 360 which is incredible.  These people just walk by as a man is dying.  What is amazing to me is that the women didn't call for help.  What is also surprising is that it took the authorities 1 hour to arrive at the scene of the crime (if in fact she was the one who called).  This is incredible.  I actually watched a cop car hit a kid this last week.

Why didn't these people help him?  He was homeless, could that be it?  I have to admit I would think twice before approaching someone on the sidewalk after dark.  It could be a trap.  Criminals are getting more innovative all the time, playing on the good Samaritans is common.  So I can kinda understand walking by.  However I think I would still call someone.  However I can't believe the groups of people walked by.  Pretty incredible.

I have to say that I think the guy in the video is mostly full of crap.  I don't think the 'whatever he called it' is the reason people walked by.  I think it has more to do with what I said.  Also I feel like even if you are just helping the police the amount of time you spend and such is overwhelming.  I don't know if that would prevent me from helping someone who was bleeding, however I may think twice about calling in a bum sleeping on the sidewalk because it just isn't worth the effort to move the bum.

I have to say this is crazy, the people who took pictures should doubly be ashamed of himself.  Just ridiculous.

Update on GS v. SEC and public opinion

So I posted recently about what the content of the case was against Goldman-Sachs.  I wanted to weight in on the case (I know, surprising).  (For reference here is another article which stands closer to my opinion.)

So here is my thing, these were not average investors.  These people involved in the deal had the sole job of vetting and buying/selling securities of this nature.  They should have known that there was danger.  See here is the issue that most people don't understand: The buyers (all people in these transactions have a seller and a buyer) didn't care.  They were betting that the housing market would go up forever and they just wanted a steady income stream from Paulson for free (since the market would go up).  The bigger issue is that they didn't charge enough for the risk.  If the buyer had charged enough then Paulson would likely have not entered into the transaction either.  I mean Paulson was betting heavily against the grain, almost no one was betting that way at the time, that is why the Synthetic CDO was so cheap and thus why Paulson took it (in an economic sense).  If there were a lot of people betting against the housing market then there would have been more demand and less supply which would have raised prices (i.e. Paulson would have paid more every month to the buyer).  There was little risk to them but a large reward and they were betting it would pay off.

Now look at this the other way.  If the world was different and the market didn't crash then Paulson would have been out a lot of money (well not a lot but out money) and we wouldn't be talking about this.  The issue is that due diligence was not done by the buying party.  As a society we don't like people who bet against stuff.  For instance, take an opposing bet on a craps table and see what happens, you will get a lot of stares.  Why?  Because as a society we want to go long.  Bet for something rather than against so when someone makes money against something we as a society get mad.  I feel like there is a lot of that here.  I mean look at how often congress wants to ban short-sellers.  This is a huge problem, without the ability to bet against a security all the securities will be over valued and the market will be more bubbly and more people would lose money.  We need people to bet against securities and ideas when it makes sense.

Is Goldman-Sachs at fault of anything?  No.  They brought together a buyer and a seller.  They didn't want to hold the buyer's side.  Does it matter than some people bet for and some against in the same company?  No.  Each area is responsible for their own money making and you can bet if the short sellers lost a lot of money they would all be gone just like those who made the securities lost their jobs when the short-sellers were right.  I mean the biggest problem is that people were buying stuff just because it was from Goldman-Sachs, the reputation meant that no one thought about what they are buying.  This is like you going into a store and t he clerk saying you should buy X and then you just buy it because if they sell it it must be good.  Now reputation is a good thing and allow people to make decisions with less information.  However I hope that in the future people will look at that less.

One outcome is that people will be more likely to do their due diligence when buying non-traditional securities.  This can only help us.  The market works best when all people work in their interest and if you don't know what you are buying then you can't do that.

I will say that one hopeful outcome of this is that complex instruments will eventually have smaller disclosure documents and simpler reporting.  I mean who is going to read thousands of pages?  I feel like a standardization of securities in this market would do a lot to help reduce the paper and help the individual buyers and sellers make a better choice.  (If you have money and want to invest in a start-up I have a fabulous idea for a company who can address the importance of derivatives and the transparency needed to create a market.  There is a market and non-government solution to these problems and I know what it is.)

Island of Solitude

I love surfing the travel sites, knowing that I will never see many of these places unless I win the lotto.  (Come on 1-2-3-4-5-6-(7) make me rich.)  So I came across a really neat page which is the remotest islands you can get to and what is there.  So awesome.  Wish I didn't have to work so I could just explore this world while I am still young and could enjoy it.

Here is the slide show.

A Hilarious Clip about Religion

So in case you didn't hear (who hasn't), the south park guys have been threatened with death threats from an American Muslim group in America.  Well the Daily Show had a fabulous video (and song) to all people who get mad about politics and religion and the differences people have in that arena.  Hilarious.  Make sure you get to the end, the song is hilarious.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
South Park Death Threats
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

That Park is going, going, gone

I just have to say I love maps, and that the New York Times and Newsweek always have really good ways of putting together information.  Well here is something I ran across sometime back and I thought you would all enjoy this.  Here is a map of places that are likely to radically change due to climate change.  This is like a who's who of things to see.  Make sure you drive your 6 mpg hummer to these places.  If not you may not make it.  :-)

Its a really neat page, totally check it out.

Jesus Saves

While I was researching other blog posts I came across an interesting post on seekingalpha.com about saving in China.  I thought I would provide it for reference since a lot of people seem to think economics is black magic (which a lot of it is).  I mean economics is the science of saying why your prediction yesterday was wrong.  However this does a good job of explaining why savings and interest rates are correlated in the US and then goes to provide anecdotal evidence of why the reverse is true in China.  Mostly (IMHO) this is due to the larger safety net in the US and the longer history of 'things working out' in general.  China on the other hand is newly free market and so many people still save like crazy to pay for things that the state doesn't provide.

Alphabet Soup of Goldman-Sachs

So, for those who live under a rock, last week the SEC (those guys who fell down on finding Madoff, ya them) have brought charges against Goldman-Sachs.  Now I know it is common to bash Goldman-Sachs for making money these last couple years especially while everyone else is losing tons of money, however it is important to know that not everyone there is evil.  However it does look like questionable things were happening inside the company.

So what are the charges about?  Well I have collected a couple of interesting links for your review:

• Article from the Huffington post.  I would strongly suggest starting here.  This article is fairly accessible and does a good job of reviewing the case against Goldman-Sachs and what they did.  I think in general this article is slightly more 'they are evil and meant to be evil in their actions' than this is 'just unfortunate as a product of doing business' article.  I, in general, do not like a lot of the HuffingtonPost.com articles but I thought this did a good job of explaining the problem.
• From CBS about the breakdown between GS and the SEC.  What I find most interesting is that the commission was split 3-2 on party lines.  Come on people this isn't a partisan issue.  Your job is to protect investors, I really feel like this party lines thing has gone too far when it influences whether or not the SEC brings actions against companies.
• Europe's Response.  You know when blood is in the water more sharks circle.  Governments always want escape goats especially when they were complacent in the problem to begin with.  With so many problems in Europe (think Greece here), it seems like everyone attacks at the same time.
• Overview from a blog at seekingalpha.com.  (If you have never been to this site and invest you are doing yourself no favors.)  This site is mostly people blogging about investing and markets so as you can imagine there has been a lot of postings about this.

It will be interesting to see how this all settles out.  This is a major problem for the markets, trust.  If you can't trust the counterparties then markets breakdown (though you can buy insurance against that).  Your broker should have your interests at heart.  It looks like Goldman-Sachs may not, not that this surprises anyone.

I have not decided if on any level either of the options (GS is guilty or not) is a preferable option.  I think it is terrible that some companies are so big that the government can't police them because they don't have the resources to force compliance (it is well known the SEC 'talks' with large companies to find solutions when they cause problems and not sue them since the SEC doesn't have the resources to win).  No one should be above the law but in the US we seem to be ok with the government not policing the largest companies.  This is a good step in the correct direction.

Update:  Had to add a daily show link for this.  :-)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
These F@#king Guys - Goldman Sachs
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Musings on Conferences

So I have a couple of thoughts on conferences I would like to air out.  I think there is a lot of problems in the current structure as I have seen in my research career.  Some organizations put on better conferences than others, this is not in doubt.  But the general quality of a quality conference is slightly unnerving to me.

1. The publishable delta is larger than you know.  There is a lot of thinking that the smallest publishable delta should be published (and sought after).  I have problems with this model as it encourages people to do trivial uninterested research in general.  Additionally the smallest publishable delta is larger than most people think.  It is obvious that some institutions are publication machines without any thought on the quality of the research.
2. Most people give terrible presentations.  This one probably wouldn't surprise most people as a lot of people in general give poor presentations.  Most colleges have a public speaking class that is required, I know I did.  The course was a joke honestly.  This is however a very important skill and it is one that I actually did take away from graduate school partly from my advisor whom I left.  It is important to be able to explain your research to anyone and it is important to describe it clearly.  Most people I have seen recently fail at both of those.
3. Most people can't write coherent papers.  I am amazed at the poor quality of writing that is accepted in a lot of journals.  I have been an editor a couple of times now and there are occasionally good co-editors, however in general I feel like the reviewers just rubber stamp most work.  Additionally I feel like reviewers should not know who wrote the paper because it biases them.  I mostly feel like my time is wasted when I review papers because my work is larger ignored or unnoticed.  There are good papers and better journals but most are just full of crap (including the 'premiere' journals).
4. All because you can make a graph of your work doesn't make it interesting, research, or publishable.  I can't tell you how many presentations I have been to where the presentation was just talking about an experiment and not results.  Or some stuff which results with one graph.  Amazing.  There is no peer review of the academic merit there.  Not everything should be published.  While I agree that no result is a result you have to have some reason for someone to care beyond 'I need to publish for my career'.
5. Fifteen minutes is not long enough for anything.  The common thread I have seen in a lot of conferences is to allow for 15 minute presentations.  You know that isn't enough time.  I really feel like 30 minutes is what is needed (however 15 minutes is more than enough to bore the hell out of me).  No one ever gets done in 15 minutes and no real information can be transferred to the audience in that time.
6. This follows from the previous one but posters and WAY better than presentations.  I know everyone thinks that presentations are better and more respectable than posters but I love posters both as a presenter and as an observer.  I like talking about the material, being able to move forwards and backwards through the material, not having a time limit, the amount of questions you can address, etc.  I just feel like it is a more effective way to get information across.  However I will say, there are a lot of REALLY bad posters.  If your poster has over 200 words on it you are probably doing something wrong.  I once saw a poster with, I kid you not, 5000 words on it.  Could not believe it, needless to say I didn't read it.

This all comes on the heels of an interesting discussion on slashdot.org about Chinese papers and employees.  I don't actually have any direct experience with the material talked about in the discussion but my experiences with outsourcing are less than glowing.  What is happening to research?  Perhaps I was spoiled because I went to a big name university where I met and interacted with really, really, smart people.  I know people who did interesting and compelling research (though not all).  Perhaps the majority of research is this search for the smallest publishable delta and they fall short.  Seems like a bad thing if it is.

Porn is Art

Gotta love this article.  How is nude people art?  I am not really that down with modern art especially like this.  I have been to many art museums and taken a lot of art classes but I still don't get it.  Anyway this article struck me as the old 'but stripping is an art form' debate.  :-)

Gotta love awesome pictures

Quick Post, look at these pictures.  Wow.  Pictures.

Nominate me for the Supreme Court

So I am reading this article which states that Patrick Leahy is planning to ask:

"Do you share our concern about the fact that the court always seems to side with the big corporate interests against the average American?"

Here is why I should be nominated because I would answer the following:

"I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.  The court's sole purpose stated in the constitution is to decide the constitutionality of laws passed by congress, and interpret the laws passed in the U.S. code.  If it seems that the court always sides with corporate interests then perhaps you should ask yourself why congress keeps making laws that favor corporate interests.  Do you share my concern that congress seems to side with big corporate interests against the average American?"

Now this would never get me nominated and this would be labeled as a decidedly conservative response, which it isn't.  This is a constructionalist response.  I would love to see someone get up there and say that.  I totallly would.  Unfortunately I will never get my chance...

Interesting Conversations

So I had an interesting interaction on a plane.  So I am sitting in an exit row and enjoying myself reading my book (The Princeton Companion to Mathematics).  I come back from the bathroom and the lady behind me across the aisle ask me a question.  It is obvious she had been wondering for a while and wanted to ask: "Is that a textbook?"  So I was like, 'no', I mean it isn't a textbook.  How do you though say what it is.  So I said it was a tour-de-force of the modern mathematical research at the end of the 20th century, which I think is mostly an accurate way to look at it.

So but here is the thing.  The number of people who actually read this book is slim and there is an exceedingly small portion of the population which could even understand the 'review' chapter.  So I felt extreme pride in telling them what I was reading.  I mean it is quite something that I can read it and understand the majority of the concepts (thought I don't honestly get the insanely complicated ones, I am still having trouble with buildings (there isn't even a wikipedia article on it)).  So is it right to feel proud of myself?  I mean I am trying to improve myself by doing more than just reading people magazine.  Or is it wrong to feel that way?  You know in my opinion it is ok because this is complicated and advanced and I can understand it and I should feel good.  I am sure most people will disagree that it is valid to feel proud that you can do something well or at all but I completely disagree.  Now it isn't like I was standing up on the plane and being like, 'I'm better than you because I can read this' (that would have been inappropriate).  However it is important to know your strengths and nuture them, additionally (and I will write more on this later) humility is not the lack of pride in yourself it is the proper amount of pride and the self awareness to know where that line is between your abilities and where your abilities are not.  Anyway.  All of that went through my mind so I thought I would write about it.

I would add that no one else can judge whether you have the proper amount of pride in your abilities.  They might think they can but they cannot mostly because people always remember the one time you were wrong instead of the other times where you were not.

I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday

So you may have noticed a lack of postings recently.  Well, last Friday about 3 minutes before I was to grab my bike and go home I get a call from a high up person.  So to make a long story short I was on a plane last Sunday to visit a customer and I just got back a day or so ago.  This required me to work all weekend to set-up my laptop so that I could get access the materials I needed to do all of the things I required while I was away.  So I lost Saturday.

We flew the red-eye on Sunday and then I worked straight until about 9 pm the next night.  Followed by a long Tuesday and then a half-day on Wednesday which I followed up with a long flight that was delayed by an hour.  That was my last week.   Couple of lessons in general for those who are likely to interact with customers.

1. If your customer's company is non-American then expect to spend lots of times with misunderstandings.  I wasted most of Monday because we couldn't communicate with the customer effectively.
2. Make sure your support staff at your home office are available and will help you.  We had a lot of problems because we could not get in contact with the people at home.
3. Expect your customer wants to own every aspect of your product regardless of whether or not they should.  My area is completely automated and self-configuring and the entire trip was about the customer wanting to tweak things in the system.
4. Make sure you bring a program manager or someone with you.  Program managers are people and relationship managers.  This is important because as a technical person I didn't have the time nor the energy to take care of that aspect and I really appreciate my coworker who went with me as he did a great job of keeping the entire process on track, documented, and productive.

Anyway I have more posted about the trip I am sure though they are for another time.

One carry-on please

So I am flying a lot in the next two weeks.  It is really easy to criticize airplane travel.  Airlines never seem to care, people are rude, I will probably be stuck in a middle seat which will suck major ass.  (My company didn't book the flights nor tell me until late on Friday.)  One of my biggest pet peeves is people's carry-ons.  No one ever carries on the appropriate amount onto flights.  I can remember flying back from Las Vegas and watching a couple put 5 bags in the overhead.  They were not like purses we are talking carry-ons, and they didn't even fit.

So I can actually understand Charles Schumer.  He wants to prevent airlines from charging for carry-ons.  I don't want to pay either (though I want people to follow the rules which they never do).  Recently I heard that representatives would like congress to enforce the carry-on policies of the airlines.

Well here is my take.  I don't fly airlines that charge baggage fees unless I have to and usually someone else is paying in that case (and reimbursing me for the charges).  However I would fly an airline that charged for carry-on luggage if the ticket was significantly cheaper than other airlines.  Here is the thing, if airlines would like to distinguish themselves by only having you pay for what you need then I say go for it.  If Spirit Airlines wants to charge 45$ for a carry-on but lower the ticket price by $40 then that is fine.  I am sure there are people who don't fly with carry-ons that would like a cheaper ticket.  Only pay for what you use, I like that.  I think the biggest problem is that most people think everything should be free.  Is this possible, no.  You don't have to fly one airline you can fly any of them so choose the ones you support instead of the ones you don't.  Southwest is doing well because of exactly this.  I don't think I should have to subsidize other people's perks while flying.  Paying for carry-ons actually make sense in this respect (however the airline should reduce the cost of the base ticket which they never do but that is the post for another day).  Also I feel like ticket prices quoted should always reflect all fees and surcharges.  I mean it isn't like I can buy the ticket without paying those fees.

Also, congressmen stop flapping your pie holes about fairness.  Government has no place in this discussion besides to make sure all of the fees are disclosed at purchase time and easily readable.  Even then the reasons are dicey because people could just not fly airlines with hidden fees.  However I will allow the government to step in and make sure the fees are disclosed.

Smart, S-M-R-T

Your reading for this post, the recent article on the reason about Washington D.C.'s public schools.

Most people know I am not a huge fan of the status quo in American education.  I have spent over 10 years after high school in my quest to learn stuff (I still teach myself a lot, look at my reading list to see how this is going).  I have a lot to say about all levels of education, everyone does.  I have a lot of friends who are teachers, everyone does.  I think it is wrong to say, 'If you don't have a solution, you can't criticize the current situation,' which is just a stupid thing to say.  Anyone can look at a stock portfolio that is down 20% and realize there is a problem when everyone else is only down 10%, doesn't mean we all know the answer to fix the former.

Anyway, this article is a very engaging piece.  We need major reform in primary and secondary education.  Let me start by saying that I don't know what the answer is and I don't know if what Rhee is doing is correct, but at least she is trying.  The article is about this change.  I don't know if the decidedly libertarian/pro-voucher/anti-union bias of the article is needed though.  However I would suggest those with a little bit of time give it a read, it is slightly long.

I very much applaud Rhee for trying something in Washington D.C.  It is all too common for people to look towards the federal government for answers.  I think this is a mistake with education (I also think it is a mistake in general but I leave that to another post).  At least with more experiments in more districts we can find what works.  That being said it is not obvious that the changes in Washington D.C. are hurting the kids which is a hurdle most programs must pass for most people.  We need more localized initiatives to fix education.  On a local level people are invested in their schools.  If a school board says, 'We are going to try this' then you know the public will help watch over the program and vote for change locally if things go south.  One a national level you have no such immediate concern for grass-roots efforts.  Additionally you have big money buying votes in congress.  Additionally if education is returned to the local areas then they can copy the things that work from other districts and remove the bad things when they find them.  If someone above you is dictating your policy it is hard to change.

In my opinion education is too important to be left to the federal government.  I am going to follow this post up in a few days with a post about Arne Duncan (the current secretary of education, a department which I do not really like) since he was referenced in this article.  I think it is important to know what he has been doing since assuming office.  If anyone has any reading for that post feel free to post below and I will review it.

Amazing

So, little change of pace.  I fell off my bike the other week.  I was going home early from work because I felt terrible.  So there are two high school girls walking down the path.  One on a skateboard the other walking.  So they are walking exactly 1/3 of the way across the path from both sides of the path.  So I start ringing my bell.  (It is really dumb to be walking the way they were, and dangerous.)  So they don't move until I am almost on them and what do they do?  The leave the skateboard in the middle of the path and each jump to their own sides.  So what does my bike do?  Hit the board and fall over scrapping my knee on the ground.  The girls were all like 'oh we are so sorry are you ok?'.  I wanted to be like, 'are you a doctor? No? Then go away.'  Instead I just said, 'Next stay on the right side' and rode off.

So anyway my knee is messed up and scrapped up.  So this leads me to my post (no the story wasn't it).  Isn't it amazing that the human body can heal itself.  I know everyone is saying something similar to 'No Shit'.  But think about it.  My body was dragged across the ground, skin tore off, blood coming out and somehow my body will be as good as new in about 3 more days and in like 7 days you won't be able to tell what happened.  This is amazing.  I mean I could describe for you all of the processes that happened to heal my knee but that seems to deaden the really amazing part.  I know it is completely possible to hurt yourself beyond repair but for a fairly major injury (compared to what any other thing we humans can make) and I am healed.

I was just musing about that this week.  It is so incredible, life is amazing.

Just a spoonful of sugar...

Most nannies are nice, some are overbearing.  Well the reason.com has a monthly video with their nanny of the month.  It is depressing to watch them all because then you know how stupid most Americans are.  Anyway the feed is here and the most recent one is embedded.

Have you meet 'TED'?

So I am sure many readers of my blog know about TED.  The Wikipedia page is here.  Basically the website is a collection of people talking about things.  :-)  I know sounds boring but the people are really engaging and innovative with their talks in general.  I have added TED to the list of videos to watch with this post.

So today I want to talk briefly about a video staring Philip K. Howard.  He is a long time lawyer and advocate of fixing the justice system. It is a provocative lecture about what is wrong with the current system and what it should be like in theory.  It is interesting.  I think there is a very interesting discussion there and I may go out and buy his book.  It is interesting to think of the difference between the intent of justice and laws and the implication of justice and law, as compared with current justice and laws.  I think there is a real area where things can be improved here.  This is an area I haven't blogged about a lot, usually I blog about reducing overhead of laws and taxes because it infringes on liberties and is counter to productive economic growth.  (Everyone knows I am a fan of less intervention.)  So this is from a different view and is more ethereal, what should it looks like and how do we get there.  Anyway, well worth the 18 minutes to watch.

Updated: Added 'TED' label.

Bathroom Mystery

So, Men's room behavior has been a furtile ground for jokes over the years, at least between guys.  I have never heard the prolific amount of jokes and comments from girls about the ladies room.
So anyway at the end of the work when I work late I will go into the bathroom and there is an interesting sight, a strand of toilet paper hanging from the top of the door.  There is nothing intersting about this strand of TP.  There was no writing or anything on it.  So of course I had to figure out why this TP would appear on the door at the end of the day.

So this week I figured it out.  Someone is afraid someone might see them through the crack in the door and so they put TP over the crack in the door.  Now first of all, TP is really really thin.  If you goal is to stop people from staring at you I don't think TP is the best way to prevent that.  Additionally I know no one who goes into the bathroom and stares through the cracks in the doors.  So someone comes in every day so paranoid that someone is going to stare through the crack and so that put toilet paper over the crack.  So anyway, my office mates and I have had a lot of laughs at this person's expense.  The world is a weird place.  I have often wondered if I have any weird habits like that that people find funny behind my back.  I would hope my 'quirks' at least make sense though...