Tinkers to Evers, any Chance?

“Winter, slumbering in the open air, wears on its smiling face a dream . . . of spring”
- Phil Connors
Groundhog Day

Most years by about late-July (or sometimes, like last year, much earlier) you can hear Cubs fans across the country utter the now-famous cliché “What till next year!” It is simultaneously an expression of both utter despair (because the season is over) and of defiant hope (because there will be another season and another chance). So here we the Cub faithful find ourselves yet again; at the start of another season daring to once again wonder if next year is finally here, or if this will be just another chapter in the same season that has gone on for the last 98 years. As of right now, Carlos Zambrano appears to be the only one claiming to know the answer to that one (http://tinyurl.com/25dev3).

I have often described being a Cubs fan as an illness or a disability (and I know my wife would agree). I’m not sure how I got it, I don’t ever remember not having it, and I know I’ll never be rid of it. One of the unique aspects of being a Cubs fan is that when you meet someone and find out they are also a fan you can say “I’m sorry to hear that” and more times than not they will not find it an odd comment or take offense at all. That just goes with the territory when your team has a bad century. You can also walk into Wrigley Field and almost immediately divide the crowd into one of the following 5 groups:

The Optimist – This person firmly believes before the start of every year that the Cubs are definitely winning the World Series this year. There is no doubt in their mind and they will probably accuse any fan who is not as optimistic as them as “not being a real fan.” When they are at a game, they will always be convinced that the Cubs will win today, even if they are behind 15-0 in the bottom of the ninth inning with 2 outs and Neifi Perez is batting with a broken arm and his shoelaces tied together against a 2003-version of Eric Gagne.

The Pessimist – This person is essentially a masochist. They expect horrible things to happen at any and all times and thus can never really enjoy the good moments because they are constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop. Yet they still will get very angry when misfortune does strike. Often, this is someone who used to be “The Optimist” until one day they just snapped.

The “Cubs Games Are Fun” Fan – The fact that there is a baseball game going on is incidental to these people. They have essentially paid a $20 - $50 cover charge to hang out, drink beer, and/or talk on their cell phone during the game. They are easily spotted when they give themselves away by cheering loudly during routine fly balls or occasionally cheering for the wrong team. About the only thing The Optimist and The Pessimist can agree on is that this type of fan is ruining the Cubs.

Sox Fans – Why do they come to Wrigley? Who knows, but they do. For some extremely strange reason there is a large contingent of Sox fans that follow the Cubs more closely than they do their own team, just so that they have the pleasure of rubbing it into the face of each and every Cub fan they see whenever something bad happens to the Cubs. Let me be clear that I am not generalizing about Sox fans here; just the ones that come to Wrigley (and not during the annual Cubs-Sox series). I’m talking about the Sox fans who, 5 minutes after their team won the World Series, decided that the best way to celebrate was to go onto various Cubs forums and message boards and rub it in. I don’t know why we are so important to them, but apparently we are.

The Die-Hard – This person knows the whole Cubs active roster, knows how they did yesterday, what time they play today, and who the starting pitchers are. At almost all times during the year could guess the batting average of almost every Cubs player within 20-30 points. Probably also knows what stats like VORP and PECOTA mean as well. Because they know so much about the team, they tend to be the most realistic of all the fans. They do not expect a career .200 hitter to suddenly hit .300 like the Optimist, nor do they expect the Cubs starting pitcher’s arm to fall off at any given moment like the Pessimist. It should be noted here that the Pessimists and Sox fans have scored decisive victories in recent years in the cases of Kerry Wood and Mark Prior.

As you probably have guessed I see myself as part of the last category, although at various times I have dipped in the other ones as well (except for the Sox fan). Most years I start out a little more optimistic than is usually warranted, and by August I’m convinced they’ll never win another game, and if I have any tickets remaining in those years I’m likely to go to the game and not care too much about it. But I try to stay on a pretty even keel. While the season is still competitive I’ll be pissed for about an hour after they lose a game, more if they lose in a particularly nasty way. And on days when they win, no matter what else bad happens to me that day I know I will go to bed that night thinking “at least the Cubs won today.”

In any case, with that as a backdrop I present my preview of the 2007 Cubs:

Starting rotation:
Carlos Zambrano (R)
Ted Lilly (L)
Jason Marquis (R)
Rich Hill (L)
Wade Miller (R)

For the first year in the last 5, the Cubs go into a season without expecting the names Wood or Prior to appear here. Which is good, considering they are once again hurt and/or pitching terribly. Big Z is obviously the ace and anchor of the rotation, and the Cubs can’t hope to make any kind of playoff push unless he wins around 18 games and has a sub-3.50 ERA. I think this is the year he finally turns the corner and becomes one of the games elite pitchers.

Honestly, overall I’m pretty happy with 4/5 of this group with Jason Marquis and his ridiculously high ERA and even more ridiculously priced contract being the lone exception. I especially don’t see him as a #3 starter, but after a couple turns through the rotation it shouldn’t really matter. The thing that really bothers me about his contract is that he will be given a longer leash than he deserves because no one wants $7 million per year rotting away at AAA. Supposedly the Cubs pursued him because they spotted a flaw in his delivery that they believe they have now corrected, but from what I’ve seen so far this spring he looks like the same old pitcher I’ve seen before. I’m thinking he will end up with 4-5 really good games, 4-5 really horrible games, and about 15-20 games where he does something like give up 4-5 runs in 5-6 innings. He may end up with around a .500 record if he gets bailed out enough by the Cubs offense.

But enough bitching. The guy to get really excited about in this list is Rich Hill. If you didn’t watch the Cubs past June last year (and there really wasn’t much reason to) you would be forgiven for not understanding what reason there is to be excited about him. After all, a combined 6-7 record with a 4.17 ERA doesn’t exactly scream “excitement.” But the key is to look at the story behind the numbers. Hill is still a pretty young guy (just turned 27 this month) and last year was his first real season in the majors. His inexperience really showed early as he compiled an 0-4 record with a 9.31 ERA in his first 4 starts before being sent down to Iowa. About the only memorable thing he did in the early part of the year was get himself blasted by Ozzie for criticizing Pierzynski after his brief impromptu boxing match with Michael Barrett. But after Hill got sent down he got really focused and started kicking ass at Iowa and just kept doing it once he made it back up again, this time going 6-3 with a 2.93 ERA in his final 12 starts. There always seems to be a big leap for young pitchers when they first get called up. They seem to be too excited about finally “making it” (not that I blame them) and aren’t able to execute the little things that got them there in the first place. It seems that it takes them experiencing failure (many for the first time in their lives) before they get that chip on their shoulder and want to prove to themselves and everyone else that they belong here. I look at Hill now and I can’t help but think about Zambrano. I was at the double-header in 2001 when Z made his major league debut. He got shelled. 2002 was his first “real” season in the big leagues and he was very hit and miss with a 4-8 record and a 3.66 ERA but showed off a lot of his potential. By 2003, it was obvious that he was a major league pitcher as he went 13-11 with a 3.11 ERA and helped the Cubs reach the playoffs. I see the same kind of thing for Hill in this his second “real” year. I project him to be around the 13 win mark with an ERA in the mid to high 3s. 15 wins is a stretch but is not out of the question.

Just a couple quick thoughts on the other two starters. For me the jury is still out on Lilly. I’m hoping he experiences the same success that other starters have experienced in moving from the AL to NL but only time will tell. He has the potential to work out extremely well or to be a complete disaster. And finally the best word for Miller is “serviceable”. Provided his injury woes are behind him, he should take the hill every 5th day and keep the Cubs in the game through the first 5 innings, which is exactly what you want out of your #5 starter.

Bullpen –
Bob Howry (R)
Ryan Dempster (R)
Michael Wuertz (R)
Angel Guzman (R)
Scott Eyre (L)
Will Ohman (L)
Neil Cotts (L)

Not much to say here, since little has changed since last year. That’s actually a good thing since for once the Cubs had one of the better bullpens in the league. That doesn’t include the closer role, as Dempster had an awful year (9 blown saves in 33 opportunities, 1-9 with a 4.80 ERA). While I don’t excuse his performance, it certainly wasn’t helped by the fact that the Cubs were able to get him opportunities maybe once or twice a week at most. Howry, Wuertz, Eyre, and Ohman all had solid years last year and I expect them to do so again. New addition Neil Cotts I have not at all been impressed with; he was outstanding for the Sox in 2005 and absolutely abysmal for them last year. So far he looks more like last year’s version, but given that the Cubs have 2 other solid lefties to turn to it shouldn’t be that big of a deal. The other addition is one-time uber prospect Angel Guzman, who is still projected to be an eventual major league starter. He will fill the long relief role to start the year and will probably also be the first to step into the rotation should anyone go down (and since this is the Cubs, you know someone will. Damn, there’s the Pessimist in me coming out).

One final note is that the astute of you may have noticed the lack of mention of Kerry Wood in the above. As of yesterday he will officially begin the year on the DL (surprise, surprise) and no one knows when he will possibly be ready to pitch in the majors again. As far as I’m concerned, he doesn’t exist for the Cubs right now. If he ever gets over his plethora of arm issues and comes back looking anything like his former self, that would be fantastic. But at this point I’ve got to view the odds of that happening as being only slightly higher than Illinois getting into a BCS bowl game next year. Anyone want to buy a used Kerry Wood jersey?

Infield –
Michael Barrett (C)
Derek Lee (1B)
Mark DeRosa (2B)
Cesar Izturis (SS)
Aramis Ramirez (3B)

I can’t possibly express how ecstatic I am that the name “Neifi Perez” no longer appears in the above list. Addition by subtraction if ever there was a case. I actually won’t say much about Derek Lee and Aramis Ramirez. Good years from them are expected and will be absolutely essential for the Cubs to have any form of success. Lee’s looked great so far this spring and shows no lingering ill effects from his wrist injury last year. Michael Barrett is as solid as they come as a catcher from an offensive standpoint, provided he has also recovered from his injury (if you don’t remember what his injury was, click here and prepare to wince http://tinyurl.com/yryr57). Last year mid-season addition Cesar Izturis will be the man at SS this year. He is generally light hitting but a gold glove caliber defender. As long as he hits in the 8-hole and gets his career average (.259) I’ll take it.

That leaves the only bona fide newcomer of the group in Mark Derosa, and he is the x-factor. The Cubs signed him to a larger-than-expected contract (a trend they continued throughout the off-season) to be the starting second baseman. He has generally been a part-time utility player for most of his career before having a very nice year with Texas last year. The question is whether the player the Cubs got is going to be who he was last year (AVG/OBP/SLG of .296/.357/.456) or the player he has been over the course of his career (.273/.331/.404). The former will make it a decent deal for the Cubs; the latter will make it close to a disaster. The good news is that he just turned 32 last month, so he should still be in his prime. I think he will end up closer to last year’s numbers than his career ones, and it will turn out that the Cubs overpaid for an average to slightly above-average player. Considering the Cubs past history of horrid contracts ($24 million for Todd Hundley comes to mind) that would actually be a pretty good outcome.

Outfield –
Alfonso Soriano (CF)
Jacque Jones (RF)
Matt Murton (LF)
Cliff Floyd (LF)

And now we come to the $136 million dollar man, Alfonso Soriano. Will he be worth that obscene amount of money? Hell no! Because no one is worth that money! In the best case scenario the Cubs will get 3-4 good years out of him and then manage to trade him to some team that’s desperate at the trade deadline. Worst case scenario is he becomes mired in mediocrity from the get-go and thus becomes untradeable and an albatross on the Cubs payroll for the next decade. Regardless of the long-term implications, it certainly is exciting to have a player of his caliber on this year’s team, even if the Cubs are forcing him to learn his 2nd new position in as many years.

In almost every way, Soriano is the opposite of last year’s CF Juan Pierre. Pierre hits mainly singles (only 47 of his 204 hits were for extra bases last year), hardly ever strikes out, plays gold-glove caliber defense, and homers about as often as we in the northern hemisphere witness a lunar eclipse (12 total HRs in his career, which dates back to 2000). Soriano, on the other hand, has half of his hits go for extra bases (89 out of 179 last year), will strike out quite frequently as well as butcher balls in CF, but also has averaged 35 HRs per year over the last 5 years (and hit 46 last year). For similarities, both are leadoff hitters with good speed (Soriano had 41 SBs last year; Pierre had 58).

I want to make it clear that overall I am much happier with the composition of the OF this year versus last, with one caveat. This defense is going to be terrifyingly bad to start the year; especially on days when Cliff Floyd starts over Murton. I don’t blame Soriano for struggling in the field. He only has one year of OF under his belt and is already being asked to switch positions. With his speed I think he will eventually turn into a solid if not spectacular CF but there will most definitely be growing pains that will cause great wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the Wrigley faithful.

Cliff Floyd, on the other hand, really is a first class butcher in the outfield. There have been questions (and almost certainly there will be more over the next couple months) about why Floyd chose the Cubs (and vice versa) when at this point in his career he is clearly better suited to DH in the AL, but that’s irrelevant right now. To be sure, Floyd can most definitely still hit, and it is my hope that we will see him mainly in a PH role this year, but that will probably be determined by 1) his health (he had surgery on his heel in the off-season) and 2) how Murton plays.

Speaking of Murton, he himself is no wizard in the field but is not all that much of a liability either and I am excited about him this year. He was one of the few bright spots for the Cubs last season, finishing with a .297 average and .365 OBP. While the knock on him was his lack of power (only 13 HRs from a left fielder, which is typically a power position), he actually improved on that quite a bit in the second half of the year (.379 SLG prior to the All Star break, .522 afterwards). If Murton gets the majority of the playing time, I think he can hit .280 this year with over 20 HRs, and I have no problem with that. That just leaves Jacque Jones, and there’s not much to say about him. You pretty much know what you’re getting: a guy with power who strikes out a lot. He actually had a very nice year last year and, although I was one of those that severely criticized Hendry for signing him, I really think he got a raw deal from Cubs fans and deserved better. I hope he gets it this year. All in all, this is a very solid OF offensively, and a very bad OF defensively. All we can hope is that they hit in more than they let in, as they say.

Bench
Daryle Ward
Ronny Cedeno
Henry Blanco
Ryan Theriot
Murton or Floyd (whoever doesn’t start)

I actually am quite pleased with the Cubs bench this season, even if it does contain two players (Ward and Floyd) who are next to worthless in the field. Ward was an underrated pickup for the Cubs this year. He is a niche player that has stuck around in the majors by developing into a PH specialist. In 62 Abs last year as a PH, he hit .355 with a .674 SLG. That’s a real good option to bring in off the bench in clutch situations late in the game. Ryan Theriot will play the role of the super-sub this year, and I’m pretty excited about him too. I don’t think he will ever become a starter in the majors, but I see him having a long career anyway due to his speed and versatility as long as he can keep the average up. Cedeno was a big disappointment last year as the starting SS, and now he sees himself relegated to the bench behind Izturis. Having to fight for a roster spot this spring really seems to have lit a fire under him, and he seems to have turned a corner. He’s already walked 11 times this spring (in 55 Abs) after only walking 17 times during the entire season last year (in 524 ABs). And the fact that his spring average is .327 (versus the .245 he hit last year) means that he’s not just being more patient, he’s seeing the ball better. As always though, spring training is one thing, and he’s gonna have to prove it during the season. Still, having him waiting in the wings should push Izturis, and that can only help the Cubs. Henry Blanco (aka Hank White) is the Cubs backup catcher. There, that fulfills my obligation to say something about him.

Manager
Lou Piniella

Many would say that the removal of Dusty Baker was the best move the Cubs made in the off-season, and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree. I think that in general the effect a manager has on his team, while important, is vastly overrated by fans. Still, it has been truly refreshing this spring to not have to worry about cringing at the truly ignorant things that would come out of Dusty Baker’s mouth (example “Walks help. They do help. But you aren't going to walk across the plate, you're going to hit across the plate.”). By all accounts, Big Lou has run a solid spring camp and it is probably the most positive camp the Cubs have had in the last 3-4 years. Lou also got me even more optimistic about him when he just announced the opening day starting lineup and has Murton hitting 2nd (and Izturis 8th). I also really look forward to seeing him kick dirt on the umpires and get tossed from a few games. I know that’s not always productive, but I figure since Cubs fans are so passionate we ought to have a manager who’s passionate as well. Overall, I don’t think Lou is the savior, but I also think he is a great improvement over his predecessor and I am optimistic that I won’t have to witness bizarre late inning substitutions (i.e. double-switching for no reason aka the Dusty Baker special) or just flat out bringing in the wrong pitcher in a given situation. I just hope Lou is enjoying his honeymoon period, because as Jacque Jones and Dusty Baker can tell you, this town can turn on you in a hurry.

Final Thoughts
So with all that being said, how is this going to translate into Ws and Ls? Well, your guess is as good as mine (though I like to think mine’s better). The Optimist in me says that the Cubs have all the pieces in place to make a charge for the division and a deep run in the playoffs. The Pessimist in me says that the starting rotation is lackluster at best and the OF may set a new record for errors. Then there is another part of me that is so sick to death of this Chicago winter that I am just looking forward to drinking beer in the sun at Wrigley. So what does the Die-Hard fan in me say? Well, he says that there is a case to be made that the Cubs will win 90, and a case to be made that they will lose 90. So where does that leave me? Eh, what the hell; I’m feeling optimistic today.

The Cubs will win 92 games, then end 98 years of futility, the billygoat curse, and the memories of Durham and Bartman by marching through the playoffs and capturing the World Series.

(Are you really surprised?)

2 More Down, 2 to Go . . .

Just finished with my latest 2 classes (both A's, thank you very much) in pursuit of the elusive MBA, which not only means that I should have some more free time available now for blogging and other life-related activities, but also that I have just 2 more classes to go until graduation. I still don't really know what the hell I am going to do with my MBA once I get it, but then again I had no idea what I was going to do with my undergrad degree either and that has worked out alright. The plan has been to start studying for the CPA exam after taking the summer off, but honestly right now the thought of studying upwards of 500 hours and taking 4 exams over the next year fills me with an overwhelming feeling of nausea. Hopefully that will pass after I have the summer to recharge.

Of course, baseball season and the Cubs are right around the corner so pretty much any free time I have gained is going to get eaten up by that on a regular basis. Speaking of which, I have been collecting my thoughts on the Cubs chances for the upcoming season and will be presenting that next week some time. I would characterize my overall attitude as cautiously optimistic.

The rest of my recent time recently has been spent enjoying the greatest annual sports spectacle; the NCAA tournament! While I do think that Super Bowl Sunday is the single greatest sports day of the year, the collective awesomeness that is the first 4 days of the tournament (and especially the first 2) overtakes it. I think the real thing that separates it from the other sport playoffs is the extremely brief amount of time between rounds. In football, you have to wait a week (and sometimes two) between rounds. Same thing in baseball. And I won't even get started on the NBA playoffs. Whoever decided that the problem with the NBA was that the playoffs weren't long enough and changed the first round from best-of-5 to 7 should be summarily executed without trial. But in the NCAA, particularly if you're like me and take Thursday and Friday off, when you watch a team win in the first round you know the only thing between you and seeing their next game is 2 days of drinking beer and eating various greasy food that will be delivered to your door. And even I can handle an agenda like that. Then of course there is the matter of the bracket pool, which is one of the rare opportunities where even non-sports fans can cross over to our world and live the roller coaster of vicarious joy and anguish that is being a sports fan . This year, as I seem to do almost every year, I sit here on the last day of the Sweet 16 still mathematically alive but needing a series of increasingly improbable events to all occur in order to take home the title. And even though my rational brain knows that the combination of events I need will never all happen, I will nevertheless suppress that rationality and sit in front of my tv all night tonight watching every minute of the games and rooting for the extremely improbably to happen.

In other news, I recently finished Barack Obama's latest book (The Audacity of Hope) and can highly recommend it to anyone interested in politics and current events. You will not find any revolutionary ideas or step-by-step instructions on how to solve today's complicated problems. What you will find is an honest book written by a man that gives a lot of thought and weight to the issues facing the country and makes a genuine effort to understand where both sides are coming from. For me at least, that is what I am looking for in an elected official. Election after election seems to boil down to how the candidates feel on a handful of issues, and then whoever gets into office only gets around to implementing maybe 1 or 2 of the main issues they campaigned on. And most of the time it isn't because they stop caring about them, it's just that they don't have the political support or other, more pressing issues arise. In addition, candidates know that there are so many "hot button" issues where if you say the wrong thing a whole group of emotional voters will never vote for you even if they agree with the other 99% of what you say. That's why I think it's more important to look at a candidate's thought process on an issue instead of the conclusion they reach and espouse ad nauseam in countless speeches. I want to know that the person I help elect is going to spend time understanding and contemplating the issues I don't even know I'm concerned about yet. So, anyway, although I haven't decided if I would even support him in a general election I am definitely going to be supporting Obama as the Democratic candidate.

One final note on Obama. He really has achieved "rock star" status for the moment. I read while out in public all the time, and I rarely have anyone make comments about it. However, whenever I was out reading his book without fail at least one person would stop by and say "I read that, isn't it great?" or "I'm thinking of reading that, is it good?" Granted my perspective is a little skewed being from his district where he is well known, but it even happened to me while we were in Phoenix.

I think that's all for now. Have a good weekend everyone and may your brackets do well as long as they don't kill mine!

Thought Smorgasboard

Just have a number of (hopefully) quick ramblings for today. The biggest of which is probably this story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070307/ap_on_re_us/abortion_lawsuit) that I read a few days ago. A woman from Boston got pregnant in 2004 and attempted to have an abortion, only to find out several months later that it was performed incorrectly and she was still pregnant and by that time it was too late to have an abortion. She is now suing a planned parenthood clinic and 2 other doctors (who failed to identify that she was still pregnant a few weeks after the failed abortion) for the cost of raising her child, who is now 2. Honestly, I don't know exactly how I feel about if her case has merit or not because I just can't get past the idea that she is in essence suing people for failing to kill her child. Assuming that the kid is eventually going to find out about this, how in the hell will they ever manage any sort of normal relationship? How is she ever going to be able to look him/her in the eye and tell them "I love you"? I could definitely understand her case if the child had ended up having a birth defect because the mother, not realizing that she was still pregnant, had continued drinking, smoking, etc. But that does not appear to be the case. Of course, the other thing that bothers me about this is that I can see it being used as fodder for the more revolutionary right-to-life groups, and for once this is an argument that I won't be able to automatically dismiss out of hand.

Moving on . . .

Christy and I had a great time in Arizona last weekend. Time in the sun was desperately needed after a particularly miserable February in Chicago. Seeing three baseball games has me very keyed up for the season and very anxious for it to start, but at least I have the NCAA tourney to tide me over. We stayed at a very nice place (The Scottsdale Plaza Resort) that I would highly recommend to anyone. Rather than a hotel room, you get your own little villa and they have 5 heated pools and jacuzzis throughout the complex that are all open 24 hours. I even managed to get out and run twice to keep up with my marathon training. It was a great change of pace to be able to run outside instead of on a treadmill. Can't wait for it to warm up a bit more so I can run along the lake here.

Last Friday I saw two pretty good movies: 300 and Zodiac. Judging by the fact that 300 took in over $70 million this weekend, there's probably not very many people left who are going to see it that haven't already. In any case, it was everything it advertised itself as; stylized, ultra-violent, and epic (as well as keeping with the gladiator tradition of being unnecessarily homo-erotic). It's also another film (like Sin City and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow) where almost all of the settings only exist digitally. I can't get over the fact that all three of those films manage to look twice as convincing as any of the new Star Wars films at about one fourth the budget. Zodiac was also very good, although since it's based on a true crime story that remains unsolved, it lacks the nice neat wrap-up that we've come to expect from most films in the thriller genre. Also, at 160 minutes it requires quite a bit of patience to get through and, while I can't think of anything in particular that should have been cut out, I'm certain that if some tough decisions had been made to trim it by about 20-25 minutes the result would have been a tighter, better-paced film. Still a good film overall for anyone who likes the thriller genre.

Speaking of the NCAA tourney (well, 2 paragraphs ago I was), as of today I've got Oregon, Ohio St., UCLA, and Georgetown in the Final Four with UCLA winning it all. That's liable to change about 4 or 5 times between now and Thursday though. Of course, last year my "lock" of the first weekend was Michigan St. over George Mason, which I was just a bit off on considering George Mason went on to become the lowest seed to ever make a Final Four. Just goes to show how much I know. In any case, Go Illini!

Marathon update: I'm up to being able to run 4 miles without stopping at just under a 12 minute pace. Trying to do that 5 days a week. I'm hoping I will be up to 5 miles by April 1st; at that point I might cut back to 4 days a week. I don't see much reason to run more than 20 miles per week.

It's Official: I'm Running the Marathon!

Well, I suppose it's not really official till I'm downtown in the middle of 45,000 people on October 7th, but at least financially speaking I am in for sure as of today. I guess loosely speaking you could say that I have already started training, though mainly the workouts I have done so far have been geared more towards losing weight than increasing endurance. I started about a month ago doing about 30 minutes on the elliptical machine 4-5 days per week. I got myself up to about 50 minutes and then last week finally graduated to the treadmill with the intention of running 3 miles without stopping. The first time I attempted it I ran a little over 2 miles and walked 1, but the past 3 times I have been able to do it without walking. Now I am by no means setting a blistering pace for myself (average about 13 min. miles) but I'm still quite pleased with my progress so far. The plan for me is to get up to 12 min. miles and then start stretching myself out till I can do that for 5 miles. I'll try to do that at least 4 times per week so I get my total mileage up to at least 20 miles.

I'm still looking at various marathon training programs but the one I'm leaning towards right now is a 16-week one. Fittingly, if I follow that one my first official day of training will be June 18th, which is the day after I am projected to graduate with my MBA. So really it's just jumping from one marathon into another.

I also decided while signing up that if I'm gonna actually do this, I might as well try to do some good in the world at the same time, so I will eventually be looking for people to sponsor me in the name of some charity (I haven't decided on which one yet). Probably won't start pushing for that one, though, until I get farther along and my feet and/or determination haven't given out yet.

Anyway, wish me luck everyone and I will periodically try to update my progress on here!

In other news, Christy and I are escaping the cold for a few days and heading out to Phoenix this weekend. I'm very excited not only for the warmth and relaxation but also because it will be my first trip out to Spring Training! On tap is 3 afternoon Cubs games and then a lot of sitting by the pool and relaxing. I can't think of anything I'd rather be doing.

I Give the Public What It Wants: More Graphs!

So I have been pondering what to write about next for about a week now, and I have to admit that at the present time the cupboard is kind of bare. I'll chalk it up to the fact that my mind has been pre-occupied with the seemingly endless amount of schoolwork I have this quarter. You'd think that somewhere within the 4-5 hours of reading and writing I do every week that I'd eventually hit upon something worth writing or discussing, but I must sadly report that none of it is in the least bit interesting.

Actually, there is one thing (which, by the way came out anecdotaly during class and had nothing to do with the topic of the night) that I did find pretty interesting, and it concerns the country of Singapore. They have a pretty interesting idea of population control. I don't know all of the specifics, but the gist of it is that they try to encourage highly educated people to have more children and discourage those with lower educations from having kids. It works basically like this. Everybody is permitted to have 2 kids. After two kids, if the mother has been college educated she receives a tax credit for having additional children in addition to the normal tax deduction you are entitled to for having an additional dependent. Not to get too technical on the accounting side, but for those who don't know the difference between a credit and a deduction is that a deduction lowers your taxable income, while a credit directly offsets the amount of tax you owe (or directly increases your refund). If that doesn't make sense, just know that credits are much better than deductions. Anyway, if the mother has not been college educated not only is she not entitled to the credit, but she also does not even get to claim a deduction for the child as a dependent.

I have had to think a lot about how I feel about this. On the one hand, this is certainly better than China where they explicitly limit the number of children you can have. And wanting to populate your country with children born from people with college degrees (and thus presumably higher incomes) seems like it would be beneficial to your country in the long term. And I have caught myself looking at a large family walking around a state fair who look like they might not even be able to afford a trailer to live in and wanted to ask them "do you really think having 6 kids was a good decision?" Of course, on the other hand I don't like the idea that the government is in effect further stratifying the population; making it easier for the affluent to become more so while further burdening the lower class from ever being able to rise above their class level. In the end, I think that for a small island-country like Singapore that has essentially no natural resources, this kind of policy makes a certain amount of sense, and I can't really say I am against it. That being said, I also would not want to see this policy spread to this or any other developed Western country. Does that make me a hypocrite? Well, wouldn't be the first time.

OK, since I have no other original thoughts I will recycle one I previously had. A little over a month ago there was an e-mail circulating on a Friday afternoon discussing getting together for a Happy Hour. Someone suggested getting together at 5:00 and one of the responses was "we're too old to start drinking at 5:00". This led to a discussion about what time was acceptable to begin drinking. This was my contribution to the discussion:

I too have wondered about what time it is acceptable to drink and if it changes with age. I have conducted an exhaustive and highly scientific study on the matter and I refer you to the attached graph for my results.



As you can see, the acceptable drinking time begins to drop significantly from age 15 till 21. There are no data points for 21 and 22 because it is both acceptable and encouraged to be drunk and drinking for the duration of those 2 years. After that there is a distinct rise for the next 10 years until it levels off at 7:00 PM. It is always acceptable to drink from 7:00 PM onward. The curious thing is that after 50 it starts to come down again. This is mainly because you no longer give a shit what other people think is acceptable and they realize this and don't bother you anymore. Finally, once you crack 65 you figure you're lucky to have lived that long anyway and might as well spend the rest of your life shitcanned.

But more to the point, the last time it is still acceptable to be drinking at 5:00 is when you are 29. That is why turning 30 sucks. However, we are still safely within the margins. In fact, as it is now 3:51 I can safely begin drinking in 9 minutes, which is about how long it will take me to get to the bar. . .

Have a good weekend everyone and if you find yourself within the acceptable time range of drinking, go grab yourself a cold one!

FYI, the opposite of gay is safe . . .

Who knew? Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a link to this site (http://www.lovegodsway.org/). On it, among other propaganda they are spouting, is a list of "gay bands" and a list of "safe bands". Now, if you actually take these people seriously (which, by the way, they would like you to) you could find yourself getting pretty pissed at having to share the same hemisphere with freaks like this. However, taken from a purely comedic standpoint, it is absolutely hilarious. If you have time, scroll through some of the "gay bands" and see which ones jump out at you. These are some that I thought were particularly amusing:

Eminem - Yes; clearly Eminem is advocating a gay lifestyle and all his lyrics really support this. It confirms my theory that groups like this will look at the headline "Eminem under fire from gay rights groups" and just see the words "Eminem" and "gay".

Boy George* - I just love that it has an asterisk next to it, and absolutely no explanation for it.

Elton John (really gay) - I can't tell if they are using this to mean that he's "actually" gay or to mean that he is "extremely" gay. Either way it's hilarious.

Cole Porter - Can't say I'm surprised by this one; you write a song called "Anything Goes" and you're gonna make this list. But here's a newsflash for parents: if your child finds himself drawn to Cole Porter tunes, he's probably already gay.

Some ones that are just really strange are:
DMX
Kansas
Frank Sinatra
Barry Manilow
Phish

I personally think DMX is on here because some dude felt attracted to him with his shirt off in a video and therefore decided that DMX must be gay.

I also love at the end of the page they have this:

"The response is overwhelming. You guys know of a lot more Gay Bands than I do. I can't keep up. Hopefully soon we'll have it so you can add them by yourself."

Now, what is perhaps even more amusing is that on the list of "safe" bands they have Cindi Lauper. Now, I know that she's not gay but with her "punk" image (albeit a very watered-down, poppy punk) in the 80s this seemed a strange choice. So, I looked her up on wikipedia and found this:

"Her fifth album, Sisters of Avalon (released in Japan in 1996 and everywhere else in 1997) brought her back into the limelight. With subject matter even more adult than before, it was quickly embraced by the gay community everywhere for its dance and club stylings. The topical themes of the album also contributed to its "pink" appeal: the song "Ballad of Cleo and Joe" addressed the complications of a drag queen's double life, "Brimstone and Fire" painted a portrait of a lesbian relationship, and "You Don't Know" tackled the thorny issue of coming out. The album's singles were remixed to great acclaim, and Lauper began performing as a featured artist at gay pride events around the world"

So not only do they completely miss the boat on labeling a bunch of people as being gay and having gay message that aren't and don't, they also mislabel someone who actually does. At least they are equal opportunity jackasses.

I reminded of an expression I once heard from author Elbert Hubbard (not to be confused with L. Ron Hubbard): "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."

The Top 5

Let's just get right to it:

#5 - Blink by Malcom Gladwell
Most people have heard of Gladwell's book The Tipping Point which examines how trends often begin very small in a localized area, and then suddenly exponentially explode all over the place. I also read that book this year, and if I were to expand this list to my top 15 or so, it would appear. But I enjoyed this book more. This is a fascinating look at how much information the average person processes within the first two seconds of observing it. He includes both experimental and anecdotal evidence to show how right now the human mind actually processes information faster than any current computer, even though we're not consciously aware of it. Of particular interest is how this often gets exploited and manipulated by both other people and big business. Advertisers and politicians spend billions of dollars every year just to make sure that the message they send appear "pleasing" to you, even if on a conscious level you detest the actual message content. This is why it is so difficult to overcome a bad first impression of someone. When the conscious mind goes up against the unconscious, consciousness rarely has a chance.

#4 - The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman
This is an excellent book for anyone interested in modern business but is still very accessible to the average reader as well. Friedman analyzes how technology has largely rendered geographical distances moot and brought people and businesses together in a way that is unprecedented. He uses different businesses as case studies and analyzes how specifically they applied new technological advances to revitalize or even reinvent their business. Most of the studies are businesses that everyone is familiar with (UPS and Wal-Mart for example) but chances are there is a lot about the logistics going on behind the scenes that you've never thought about. One of the other interesting parts that he touches on is the dark side of this technology. Mainly that it is not only the "good guys" that have access to it. Terrorist cells are now able to recruit and organize more effectively and carry out attacks on a scale that was unimaginable 10 years ago. This topic is kind of glossed over towards the end of the book, and it would have been nice if he had gone into more depth. Still, it helps in making the reader appreciate the wonders of the information age and still keeping a balanced perspective on the dangers involved as well.

#3 - No God but God by Reza Aslan
I realize that it will look like I intentionally engineered this here so that the previous comments would be a good lead-in but I assure you I did not. This is a book about the history and evolution of the Islamic faith by a Muslim. So much has been thrown around since 9/11 about what Muslims really believe and there are enough different sects that misinformation tends to be the norm rather than the exception. This book is an excellent and well written account on the biography of Muhammad and a historical perspective on how the faith began fracturing and led to the creation of the different sects that exist today. Anyone who watches the news today and doesn't know a Shi'ite from a Sunni will get a lot out of this book. Anyone who only knows of the Islamic faith as a religion that "advocates violence" would find a lot surprising and gain a much better context from reading this. Most importantly, in my opinion this is a book that neither demonizes or idolizes the Islamic religion. It really paints a picture of Islam as a religion in the midst of its reformation, much like the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Religious reformations are turbulent and violent times, and the prospect of having one in the age of nukes and chemical weapons as opposed to swords and catapults is truly frightening.

#2 - The Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker
OK, so I have been promising a detailed discussion about this book literally since the day I started blogging. And I still will, because I found it absolutely fascinating and mind-blowing. However, it really does have a pretty specific audience. If you are not interested in economic theory, even though you would be able to understand the material it is very unlikely you would be willing to make the time commitment necessary to get through the 450+ pages. Nevertheless, I will once again defer to my long-promised discussion of this which will be brought to you sometime during this fiscal quarter to ultimately make up your mind if I am overpraising this work or not. So I will only say this brief bit right now. This is a book that attempts to explain economic growth throughout human history as evolution. It's important to note that he is not saying that economic growth is "like" evolution, but that it literally is evolution. Most people only ever think about evolution in terms of Darwinism, but the point he makes and proves (in my opinion) is that really Darwinism is just one of many types of evolution. Within this framework, he defines the general rules that all evolutions must follow and shows how both biology and economics follow them. What I love about this book is that it gives a broad overview of the theory it is presenting (economics as evolution), demonstrates the inherent inadequacies of the current economic system (i.e. a static, closed system that depends on exogenous shocks for progress), discusses how the new thinking helps solve those inadequacies, and then brings it all together to show how this new thinking can and is being applied to the business world today. Much like Hyperspace, if that previous sentence made your eyes cross, this probably isn't the book for you.

#1 - The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery
Let's get this out of the way right from the start. This book is about global warming. Anyone that has engaged me in any form of serious conversation over the last year should not at all be surprised that this book tops the list. This is a topic that I am very interested in because I believe it is the most important topic in the world today. Please reread that sentence and understand that I am not using those words as hyperbole or exaggerating for affect. The war in Iraq, terrorism, disease, world hunger, etc are all problems worthy of a great deal of attention but they all pale in comparison to this one, because if we don't solve this one all of the rest won't matter. Before I get into the specifics of this book, permit me a brief aside.

I don't really understand how this issue became partisan. Probably because it concerns the environment and that has always implied the left wing in the past. But to me this is just asymptom of a larger problem that especially exists in this country; the unwillingness to believe science. It is really upsetting to me that we continue to revisit the topic of evolution when it was adequately solved by the Scopes trial over 80 years ago. People like to use "selective" studies from science with no regard to how the scientific method works. The scientific community builds theories based on evidence and then continually modifies them based on new evidence received from tests that are objective and repeatable. It is important to realize that you cannot simply disprove one minor aspect of the theory and then label the entire theory "wrong". You try to accommodate the new data into the theory and find out where the fundamental disconnect originated from. In a nutshell, this is what I believe has happened with the global warming debate. People seemed to have made up their mind about it 10 years ago when there was a lot of conflicting data to interpret and the model failed to explain a lot. But since that time (and especially in the last 3 years), most of those conflicts have been resolved and the outliers have been explained. I think I am so adamant about this topic because up until about 2 years ago, I was one of those that dismissed global warming. But there are just too many facts out there for any rational person to dispute it anymore. And while there are still some scientists who deny that it is happening, remember that there are also scientists who don't believe in evolution or dinosaurs. The term "mad scientist" exists for a reason. And I know that history is replete with examples of doomsday prognosticators crying wolf. All I can say to that is that sometimes the wolf is real.

In any case, if I haven't infuriated you and you're still reading this, I'll go into the specifics of the book now. I think my main reason for reading this book is because I hate Al Gore. I am not a George W supporter in the least, but I still have a problem saying that we'd be better off had we elected Gore. However, I am also a big Roger Ebert fan and I try to make it a point of seeing the films he gives 4 stars to. Therefore I found myself with a dilemma when he gave Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth 4 stars. In the end, I decided to see it and the film is actually very well made and his arguments are coherent and compelling. But given my natural dislike and distrust of Gore, I wanted another source to either confirm or refute him. I chose this book by searching on Amazon and looking for something that seemed to garner some form of consensus among the left-leaning and right-leaning reviewers. I think the best thing I can say about the book is that it is very straightforward and easy to read. You don't need to know a lot of science to understand what is happening and see that the consequences he lays out are realistic and intuitive. But the thing that really elevates this book above others in the category is that he doesn't spend a lot of time blaming people for our current woes, and he lays out steps we can all take to help overcome the problem. The result is that by the end you are left feeling like this is a huge problem that will require a global effort to solve but that it is actually possible to do so.

As a final note, I want to issue an open invitation for anyone to point me in the direction of any credible sources that still deny the existence of climate change. I don't say that with animosity. I'd truly like to know if I have been the victim of doomsday propaganda and if I am consequently guilty of fear mongering myself. If you are able to find such info, please let me know. If on the other hand, you look and you aren't able to, this might be a topic that deserves more attention in your life.

- descends from soapbox -

As an FYI, here is a list of the other books I read over the last 15 months. As I said before, there isn't a bad one in the bunch and I'd recommend them all. If anyone wants to know any more about any of them (or the ones above) please let me know. I also own about half of them and would be happy to lend them to you.

The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House by John Harris
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers
Olympos by Dan Simmon
Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations by David Warsh
Prince of the Marshes by Rory Stewart
Gaia by James Lovelock
Gaia's Revenge by James Lovelock (like The Weather Makers but minus the hope)
The Bridge Betrayed by Michael Sells
The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid by Bill Bryson
Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser
Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser
American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips
The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell
My Year In Iraq by Paul Bremer
Spook by Mary Roach

Top 10 . . .

So again, it has been a while. However, this time you'll be happy to know that I have an excuse. My pursuit of an MBA has begun once again (a journey that I hope will end in June) and I caught the bullet in my class selection by getting a prof that likes to assign 3-4 hours of reading per week. But at least he makes up for it by the fact that the topic is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever (management of information technology). And I have a whole other class to worry about too. Oh well, on this of all days with the Bears in the Super Bowl I cannot complain.

In any case, with the start of the new year I thought it would be a good time to do one of those generic top 10 lists that are so popular with the kids nowadays, but I couldn't think of exactly what topic to use. Considering that my CD and mp3 collection would be largely unaffected if music had stopped being made in 1996 that was out. And although I still do see my fair share of movies this past year I saw just enough to know that I missed a ton of good ones, so that didn't seem right either. So, in the end, I have decided to go a little different way with it and do a list of the top 10 books I read this year. As I was compiling the list of all 25 books that I read over the last approximately 14 months (I'm going back to November 05) I realized that I have actually not read a single bad book. I think that's pretty impressive. I certainly have never seen 25 movies in a row without at least one being bad. I guess, if nothing else, it reinforces my belief that idle time spent watching a movie or tv is probably better spent reading. Or maybe I just got really lucky. In any case, here's the list with a little bit of commentary on each. I should add that these are all just books I read in the past 14 months, not that came out during that span.

#10 - The Places in Between by Rory Stewart
I don't remember how exactly I heard about this book but all I knew going in was that it was about some crazy Scotsman who decided it would be a good idea to walk across Afghanistan a couple months after the US overthrew the Taliban. Everyone (Afghans, Brits, and Americans) tells him he's crazy and that he'll be killed for sure but he does it anyway and although he does come close to dying a number of times (not to mention contracting a nasty case of dissentary) he lives to tell the tale. The result is a truly micro view of a region of the world that usually only gets a macro focus. For the most part he stays pretty politically-neutral, but at some points he does justifiably point out that there are a lot of things about these people and their culture that the West only thinks it understands. After completing his journey and spending a few months at home in Scotland he decided to "take it easy" for a while: he accepted a governorship for a province in Iraq (the book about that, which I also read and enjoyed, is entitled Prince of the Marshes).

#9 - Collapse by Jaret Diamond
Known mainly for his Pulitzer prize-winning book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" this fascinating follow-up looks at 7-8 different civilizations throughout history and tries to pinpoint the reasons why they collapsed, find some common themes, and use those lessons to help us avoid the same fate. Particularly haunting is the portrayal of Easter Island, the most remote island on the planet, whose inhabitants mined their natural resources to complete exhaustion and suffered the consequences. Although with globalization today there is little risk of any individual country befalling the same fate, the true parallel is with the entire Earth itself. For all practical purposes, we truly are alone in the universe and just as no one showed up to save the Easter Islanders, no one's going to show up and save us either if we fail to sustain the resources we need to survive.

#8 - The Stand by Stephen King
The only fiction book to appear here, I finally got around to reading this after being told by many people how good it was. It absolutely lived up to the hype and, although daunting at almost 1300 pages, is truly a book you find yourself flying through. By the time I reached the end, I wished it had gone on for another 500.

#7 - 1776 by David McCullough
This is not the drab history reading most people are familiar with from their high school classes. Historian McCullough gives a really accesible and entertaining perspective on this pivotal year in American history by using first hand accounts (via letters and journal writings) from people in every level of involvement in the war: from George Washington, to the British generals, to the men on the front lines and the people living in the cities where the battles took place. The result is a far more enlightening view of how the war was fought and how truly remarkable it was that a small band of unorganized rebels held their own against the world's most dominant military force. Let's just say that there was more than a little bit of luck involved. The success of some battles literally hinged on the direction of the wind.

#6 - Hyperspace by Michio Kaku
If you've ever wondered how modern science is progressing on answering such questions as resolving quantum mechanics and astrophysics, what the ultimate fate of the universe will be, and how many dimensions there really are, this is the book for you. This book lays things out in the most simplistic terms possible (with very, very little math and equations) and really makes you feel like you understand the concepts, even if you don't know the proofs and numbers behind them. Of course, if that doesn't interest you, then there's absolutely nothing else I could possibly say to make you interested. So I won't bother.

Later this week I'll get to #5 through #1. Time to go sit in an auditing class for 3 hours.

Happy New Year!

So it has been a little while since I updated this. Like to say I've been busy but I've actually been enjoying some time off with the fam down in Houston. Anyway, Happy New Year and all that jazz. Now, when I insert talking about my blog into random conversations I can say that I started it last year. How exciting! OK, I know, not really.

Anyway, I wanted to start out with some random thoughts. First of all, as I watched the college bowl games over the last week I was subjected to ads for the latest reality-TV experiment in absurdity titled "Armed and Famous." For any of you that have not seen the previews (and if you have managed this you are my hero and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter) the premise is that celebrities go through police training and (supposedly) become actual cops. I cannot help but think (which is incidentally why I don't watch reality shows -rimshot-), would it even be possible to do a parody of a reality show nowadays? This thought first occurred to me when Chappelle's Show did a spoof of the popular TLC show "Trading Spaces" and called it "Trading Spouses." A little over a year later, there was not one but two actual reality shows with the same premise, one of which even used the same name as the parody. Mr. Chappelle, if he was a litigious person and/or ever needs the money, has what I believe is an airtight lawsuit.

A couple of weeks ago, during a seemingly innocuous trip to the Argo Tea Cafe I was momentarily rattled when the late-teen/early 20s guy behind the counter bade me farewell by saying "dig the night, dude." While I definitely chalk this up to just quirkiness from a strange hippyish looking tea cafe employee, it did get me to thinking. I am rapidly approaching (or may actually already have passed) the point where expressions that sound strange and stupid to me are actually part of normal pop culture that I am just no longer aware of. And, of course, it also follows that at the same time that starts happening, I will be using expressions which seem normal and modern to me but will make me appear hopelessly dated and clueless to anyone else. And at that point, you might as well just grow a mustache and play up that whole angle. I think the point is simply this: I need to stop saying "Holla!" and "what up" immediately.

Lastly, for all you sports fans I hope that no one missed the Fiesta Bowl on Monday night between Oklahoma and Boise State. It truly ranks as one of the greatest sports games I've ever seen. I'm not going to recap it here, because you can get that anywhere and no recap could possibly do it justice anyway. Suffice it to say that it had absolutely everything you could possibly want in a game (except, of course, if you are an Oklahoma fan): big momentum swings, trick plays, and a miracle finish. I am reminded of what I said after watching the Illinois-Arizona Elite 8 game 3 years ago (the most remarkable comeback I've ever witnessed): You watch sports your whole life and while most games are entertaining they are also quickly forgotten. But the reason you keep watching is that maybe once or twice a year (40-50 times in your life if you're lucky to live that long) you get to see something truly spectacular. The kind of game where even people that don't ever watch sports stop and say "wow, that was really exciting." A game where you know without question that what you are seeing is genuine emotion and passion from all the players, coaches, and fans and you are right there with them. You may not remember the specific sequence of plays, any of the players names, or even what the final score was, but you will never forget that feeling you had while you were watching it.

On the flipside, of course, is game 6 of the 2003 NLCS. Catch the f#%*in' ball Gonzalez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If We're Losing, Here's How It Happened

So, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report was released last Wednesday, and although most Americans (and much of the world) are interested in what it has to say, who has time to sift through all 160-plus pages? Well, lucky for you I did as I wound out the clock last Friday before the holiday party at my work got going. I'm gonna try really, really hard this time to just cut to the point and not drone on and on like certain other entries in the short-lived history of my blog.
To answer the main question posing us now, which is how we proceed, the report offers a couple of solutions. The biggest of which is that we need to engage Syria and Iran in particular in assisting the quelling of the insurrection (as opposed to assisting the insurrection itself, as they are currently doing). They also suggest that the resolution of the long-standing Israel-Palestine dispute is central to solving the current problem and stabilizing the region. Finally, they are advocating that American forces be integrated into existing Iraqi forces (both the military and the police) rather than our current system of having separate Iraqi and American forces. There are a grand total of 79 recommendations, so certainly they offer a lot more on a much broader range of issues than just these 3, but if you want the "quick and dirty" version, I think that sums it up pretty well.

The report itself is very easy to read, and if you have any interest whatsoever in foreign affairs you should definitely read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Without the appendices it's roughly 100 pages, although the pages are pretty small by normal book standards. The average person could probably knock it out in about 2-3 hours.

What I think is most revealing from the report is not the proposal of where we go from here but the very frank and grave assessment of the deteriorating situation as it stands today. Certainly a great many pundits, journalists, and just about everyone else has reported and commented on how bad things are, but the fact that this comes directly from a bipartisan government commission is something new and almost unprecedented as far as I know. But rather than paraphrase what I found to be most enlightening, I'll just quote the report itself:

On the Iraqi army:
"Significant questions remain about the ethnic composition and loyalties of some Iraqi units—specifically, whether they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda. Of Iraq’s 10 planned divisions, those that are even-numbered are made up of Iraqis who signed up to serve in a specific area, and they have been reluctant to redeploy to other areas of the country. As a result, elements of the Army have refused to carry out missions."

"Units lack personnel. Soldiers are on leave one week a month so that they can visit their families and take them their pay. Soldiers are paid in cash because there is no banking
system. Soldiers are given leave liberally and face no penalties for absence without leave. Unit readiness rates are low, often at 50 percent or less."

On the Iraqi police:
"The state of the Iraqi police is substantially worse than that of the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Police Service currently numbers roughly 135,000 and is responsible for local policing. It has neither the training nor legal authority to conduct criminal investigations, nor the firepower to take on organized crime, insurgents, or militias. . . Iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians."

"There are ample reports of Iraqi police officers participating in training in order to obtain a weapon, uniform, and ammunition for use in sectarian violence. Some are on the payroll but don’t show up for work."

" The Facilities Protection Service poses additional problems. Each Iraqi ministry has an armed unit, ostensibly to guard the ministry’s infrastructure. In the ministries of Health, Agriculture, and Transportation—controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr—the Facilities Protection Service is a source of funding and jobs for the Mahdi Army. One senior U.S. official described the Facilities Protection Service as “incompetent, dysfunctional, or subversive.” Several Iraqis simply referred to them as militias."

On the sectarian violence:
"U.S. forces can “clear” any neighborhood, but there are neither enough U.S. troops present nor enough support from Iraqi security forces to “hold” neighborhoods so cleared. The same holds true for the rest of Iraq. Because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Iraqi military forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the sectarian violence, U.S. forces
seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end."

"The composition of the Iraqi government is basically sectarian, and key players within the government too often act in their sectarian interest. Iraq’s Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders
frequently fail to demonstrate the political will to act in Iraq’s national interest, and too many Iraqi ministries lack the capacity to govern effectively."

"The Shia, the majority of Iraq's population, have gained power for the first time in more than 1,300 years"

"Sunnis are confronted by paradoxes: they have opposed the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq but need those forces to protect them against Shia militias; they chafe at being governed by a majority Shia administration but reject a federal, decentralized Iraq and do not see a Sunni
autonomous region as feasible for themselves."

"First, Sunni Arabs are generally Iraqi nationalists, albeit within the context of an Iraq they believe they should govern. Second, because Iraq’s energy resources are in the Kurdish and Shia regions, there is no economically feasible “Sunni region.” Particularly contentious is a provision in the constitution that shares revenues nationally from current oil reserves, while allowing revenues from reserves discovered in the future to go to the regions."

"Another key unresolved issue is the future of Kirkuk, an oil-rich city in northern Iraq that is home to substantial numbers of Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen. The Kurds insisted that the constitution require a popular referendum by December 2007 to determine whether Kirkuk can formally join the Kurdish administered region, an outcome that Arabs and Turkmen in Kirkuk staunchly oppose. The risks of further violence sparked by a Kirkuk referendum are great."

"Iraq’s leaders often claim that they do not want a division of the country, but we found that key Shia and Kurdish leaders have little commitment to national reconciliation."

On the judicial system:
"corruption is rampant. One senior Iraqi official estimated that official corruption costs Iraq $5–7 billion per year."

"There are still no examples of senior officials who have been brought before a court of law and convicted on corruption charges."

"Intimidation of the Iraqi judiciary has been ruthless. As one senior U.S. official said to us, “We can protect judges, but not their families, their extended families, their friends.” Many Iraqis feel that crime not only is unpunished, it is rewarded."

On international aid:
"International donors pledged $13.5 billion to support reconstruction, but less than $4 billion has been delivered."

On problems with Iran and Syria:
"Iran has provided arms, financial support, and training for Shiite militias within Iraq, as well as political support for Shia parties. There are also reports that Iran has supplied improvised
explosive devices to groups—including Sunni Arab insurgents—that attack U.S. forces."

"Iran appears content for the U.S. military to be tied down in Iraq, a position that limits U.S. options in addressing Iran’s nuclear program and allows Iran leverage over stability in
Iraq."

"The Syrian role is not so much to take active measures as to countenance malign neglect:
the Syrians look the other way as arms and foreign fighters flow across their border into Iraq, and former Baathist leaders find a safe haven within Syria. Like Iran, Syria is content to see
the United States tied down in Iraq. That said, the Syrians have indicated that they want a dialogue with the United States, and in November 2006 agreed to restore diplomatic relations with Iraq after a 24-year break."

Conclusions on the current situation:
"As of December 2006, nearly 2,900 Americans have lost their lives serving in Iraq. Another
21,000 Americans have been wounded, many severely. To date, the United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq War, and costs are running about $8 billion per
month. In addition, the United States must expect significant “tail costs” to come. Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates
run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
Despite a massive effort, stability in Iraq remains elusive and the situation is deteriorating. The Iraqi government cannot now govern, sustain, and defend itself without the support of
the United States. Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take responsibility for their own future. Iraq’s neighbors and much of the international community have not been persuaded
to play an active and constructive role in supporting Iraq. The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out."

This one quote, though, sums up everything very effectively:
"To put it simply: there are many armed groups within Iraq, and very little will to lay down arms"

Fiscal Inferno Part II (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Debt)

Alright today I'll finish off my thoughts on the debt with a (hopefully) not as long-winded approach. I've got lots of fun and exciting graphs to share, too! Let's start out with a completely indecipherable one showing the federal debt as a donut graph:

What does this tell us? Absolutely nothing; it just reminds us that donuts are very tasty. Why don't you get yourself one right now? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Back? Good. Let's continue.

My objective here is that first I will lay out all the scary numbers, then make it seem like it's not a big deal, then spin it in a new, scary way. First, the scary part. Today the national debt currently stands at $8.644 trillion dollars, though by the time you read this it will undoubtedly have gone up a few million. And you know what they say, "A million here, a million there, and pretty soon we're talking about some real money." Anyway, the national debt has steadily risen over the past 50+ years. As some useless trivia, the last time the debt decreased from one year to the next was from 1959 to 1960, when it decreased by .20%. To be sure, there have been budget surpluses in years since then, but the government has opted to either spend the additional surplus on new programs or return it to the taxpayers rather than apply it towards the debt. Here is a graph of the balance of the federal debt at year end for every year since 1950.

Chances are you’ve seen a graph just like this before, and it is almost always accompanied by talk of how the debt is a classic representation of exponential growth, whereby things rise very slowly at first but then hit a point and rise very, very quickly.

Now I will continue with the scary news and show some projections of what the debt picture may look like in the next 10 years. Over the last 20 years, the debt has averaged an increase of 7.7% per year. For the sake of being conservative, let’s use that as the high end of growth predictions. Here are three different scenarios for the debt, using 2, 5, and 7.7% growth per year:

This means that if we continue on the growth rate that we have averaged over the last 20 years, by 2016 we will be looking at a national debt of $16.844 trillion, effectively double what we have today. The lower growth rates certainly make it more manageable, but are definitely on the side of extreme optimism rather than realism.

Now, are you ready for some good news? Looking at the national debt by itself is completely worthless. If I told you that one person is currently $5000 in debt and another is $20,000 in debt and then asked you who was in a better financial situation, most people would say the person with $5000 in debt. But the reality is that you need more information. If both people make the same amount of money, then that is correct. But if one makes $20,000 per year while the other makes $100,000 that changes things. So, we cannot look at the national debt in a bubble, we have to consider the nation’s income as well. While the nation doesn’t get a yearly salary, we do have a way of measuring it in the form of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For those not familiar, GDP is defined “as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.” So it seems that, much like a credit card company will look at a person’s debt-to-income ratio to determine their financial health, we should look at the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio to determine the country’s ability to pay off the debt. Here, there is better news. As of end of year 2005, our GDP to debt ratio is .637. Over the last 50 years it’s been higher and it’s been lower but on the whole it is just slightly above the average of .587.

So, simply put, all that’s really important, at least from a financial health perspective, is that annually our rate of GDP growth is equal to or exceeds our rate of debt growth. Has this been the case? Let’s check it out:


I will admit that at first glance this is a hard graph to decipher. Rather than try to evaluate any one point or year, the important thing to look for is a trend where one line is consistently above the other. And I think there are two trends that become clear. Generally speaking, from 1950 to the mid-70s GDP growth was consistently higher than debt growth and from the mid-70s through today the opposite has been true. There are certainly exceptions, most notable the period from the mid-90s through 2001 where we made balanced budgets a central issue (for both parties) and also enjoyed one of the greatest economic booms this country has ever seen.

In fact, had I written this in 2000, the outlook would be very rosy indeed and I would probably have described how the reversal of fortunes is shining evidence that when we as a country put our mind to something we can overcome even the largest of problems.

But, alas, times have changed. I hope in all the ramblings above I have at least successfully portrayed the message that this is an issue which, although certainly manageable, requires perpetual vigilance. It is therefore deeply disppointing to me to see that it seems to have lost resonance with the general public. Certainly I am not advocating that fiscal issues take precedence over national security and the fight on terrorism, but must we only focus on one issue at a time? In our jobs and in our personal lives, we are expected to multi-task all the time. Why is it that only in the political arena do we consistently see concentration of all efforts on 2 or 3 partisan issues at the expense of virtually blacking out all others?

Let us think about this in relation to the war. The debate that has raged for the past almost 4 years now has centered almost exclusively on whether we should have engaged in this conflict on principle. There has been astonishingly little talk about what the war is literally costing us in terms of cold hard dollars. I have heard it mentioned almost as a throwaway comment by pundits, almost as an afterthought once they finish making all of their points. “Oh, and by the way, it’s costing us a lot of money.”

Why has the question of how we are going to pay for this not been brought to the front and center? I think it largely stems from the fact that although we have spent billions on this conflict, we have opted to not raise taxes so the cost has not been passed on to the average American. To my knowledge, this has never been attempted before. We are witnessing a grand new experiment in government fiscal policy. The strategy is that as long as we keep the taxes low, we can keep growth high and thus the additional debt will not burden us. To me, I see this as a dangerous precedent. This is a “grow at all costs” mentality. To see the ultimate disaster scenario played out you only need to look as far as the Enron scandal, where once the company began hitting rough times it did anything and everything to keep income coming in so they could hit the next quarter’s earnings and hide the debt problems. I am not saying this is a likely scenario for the government, only that it is a situation that is likely to bring more harm than good and also has the potential to be a real powder keg.

Whether you are for or against the war has no bearning on this issue. These questions need to be asked and answered. If someone came to you and said, “Buy this house.” You would naturally ask, “How much does it cost.” It is doubtful that you would accept the response of, “Oh, don’t worry about that now. We’ll figure it out later.” I am just saying that we as American taxpayers should not accept that as a response now.

Now I’d like to wrap this up by bringing up some parallels to the consumer debt I discussed in Part I. Much like too much debt limits your options as an individual, so too does too much debt as a country. Sometimes maximizing profit today is not the answer. Private companies spend millions on R&D divisions that are not expected to generate any immediate short-term revenue, but they recognize that without innovation their long-term prospects are bleak. Being saddled with too much debt can severely limit our ability to do this, in much the same way that an 18-year old with $5000 in credit card debt is compelled to go out and get a job today rather than enroll in a university that will end up resulting in a far more profitable future. In addition, when you are dependent on fiscal growth you are far more likely to run into very difficult ethical dilemmas. For one large example, look at the oil industry. Setting aside the issue of greenhouse gases, it is still widely acknowledged that there is only a finite amount of oil left in the world and that if current usage remains constant (side note: it is actually increasing) it is likely to run out within the next century. Clearly then, it makes economic sense to invest today in the exploration of alternative energy sources so that we are in a position to be both a worldwide industry leader in whatever the next dominant energy source turns out to be as well as to ensure that we continue to be able to supply ourselves with the energy necessary to maintain our standard of living. Yet how do we accomplish this when a number of our most profitable companies are dependent on the high profits of the oil industry? How do we go further into debt exploring technology that, if successful, will ultimately displace one of our largest cash-cows? Further, right now OPEC prices all barrels of oil in US dollars. That means that no matter what country purchases a barrel of oil, they first obtain US currency to do it. This has the effect of keeping demand for our currency very high and creates a natural floor that keeps the value of the dollar from sinking too far (simple supply and demand; since the whole world needs oil there is constant demand for the dollar). How do we transition to a new energy source without losing that huge safety net? Further, do we want OPEC to have that threat of pegging oil against another currency (or, more likely, a basket of currencies) over our head? How does that affect our national security?

I could go on and on, but I won’t (I know; I already did). The point is that a problem that has such a deceptively narrow focus has an unfathomable amount of effects that ripple throughout the country in both anticipated and unanticipated ways. Remember that for years the ultimate fear was that the Cold War would explode into a War of the Super Powers and that only one side would be left standing. But ultimately it was not brute force that brought down the Soviet Union; it was a critical failure to manage their economy. More Americans need to pay closer attention to the fiscal policy of their government and let our leaders know that it’s an issue that’s important to them. Debt is not an inherently bad thing. It is a weapon. It serves an absolutely essential purpose but also needs to be constantly evaluated to ensure that is not being put towards an ultimately self-destructive end.

But really, I guess the previous four thousand or so words can best be summed up with the following 29:

“And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.” – Thomas Jefferson

Sources:
Today's national debt figure comes from: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Historical national debt statistics come from the Bureau of the Public Debt at : http://www.sbu.gov/opd/opd.htm
Historical GDP info was obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis at: http://bea.gov/bea/dn1.htm

Meeting of the National Procrastinators Association has been postponed

While I am being too lazy to either finish my thoughts on the national debt as well as the promised thoughts on The Origin of Wealth, I will instead offer a couple of quick things that have peaked my interest over the last few days:

On the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, there is a reference to an article in another section under the headline "When Drinking at Work is OK." Go ahead and crack open those beers and whiskey bottles, ladies and gentleman, and have yourselves some holiday cheer! And when someone looks at you funny, just inform them that you are just trying out a revolutionary new technique you read about in the WSJ.

As a Bears fan, I realized that my faith in QB Rex Grossman has plummeted so much that I found myself actually being nervous that he would screw up the simple task of hiking the ball and taking a knee on the final two plays of the game Sunday. Is it just me, or does Lovie Smith's insistence that Rex would remain the Bears starting QB sound a lot like Bush saying that Rumsfeld would remain the Secretary of Defense a week before he got fired?

Christy and I saw the movie "Deja Vu" last Friday, and all throughout it I had the strangest feeling that I'd seen a movie that was this shitty before. Seriously, as long as your IQ is lower than your shoe size, it is an enjoyable film. However, if you spend even a fraction of a second thinking about it, you discover that the entire thing makes absolutely no sense. It does have Denzel though, and who doesn't like him?

Anybody else find this picture funny?

Fiscal Inferno (Part I)

Note: After working on this for a couple hours, I have come to the conclusion that this is too large of an undertaking for one discussion. Hence, I will be dividing it into 2 parts.

While I had meant to work on the aforementioned recap of The Origin of Wealth, I was unexpectedly sidetracked by Bill Clinton and the national debt. As I realize that might sound a little strange, I will explain. Over the past year, I have found myself on the opposite end of a number of discussions whereby certain individuals have made the claim that Bill Clinton was a great president and might even rank as one of the greatest presidents. Now, I should confess that through most of Clinton’s presidency I was a card-carrying member of the Young Republicans and thus never liked the guy. Actually, come to think of it they never did issue us cards, but “card-carrying member” sounds so much more official than just “member”. But I digress. Anyway, as I started to craft a counter-argument I found that all I could seemingly remember about him was the Lewinsky scandal that dominated the last 2 years of his presidency. I knew that I had legitimate reasons for not liking him at one time, so I decided I would re-apprise myself of the specifics. I did not want to read his autobiography 1) because I really didn’t care much about his life before the presidency and 2) I certainly wasn’t looking for a Clinton love fest. On the other hand, I didn’t want to pick up something written by a right wing extremist with an ax to grind who filled the pages with half-truths and unsupported accusations. I ended up settling on The Survivor because it was written by respected Washington Post journalist John F. Harris and carries an endorsement from both liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and conservative Fox News correspondent Brit Hume. I am actually not quite finished with the book yet, and all I will say for the moment about how my prior opinions of Clinton stacked up against the realities in retrospect is that, predictably, it is a mixed bag. Some of the things I despised about him are still clearly evident, while on some other things he looks better than what I initially gave him credit for. But that is a debate for another time. I bring it up now only because as I was reading there is extensive talk on how one of the main foundations Clinton ran his 92 campaign on was that he was a “New Democrat” and strongly supported a balanced budget and a reduction to the national debt. Further along in the book, Newt Gingrich enters the picture with the famous “Contract with America” and he and the 94 Republicans also campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility and successfully orchestrated one of the greatest Congressional swings in history in the 94 election. Finally, I also recalled that somewhere around 96-97 we had supposedly balanced the budget. And then . . .nothing. Either we had solved the problem (unlikely), or people stopped caring (more likely), or talk of fiscal responsibility just wasn’t resonating with the voters anymore (quite probable). Sure, I have heard politicians and pundits make reference to the deficit and discuss it from time to time, but it just seems that neither party has maintained it as part of their core platform.

As a matter of practicality, I can see how this happened. Beginning around 1996, the dot com boom started to take off and it seemed like everyone couldn’t help but make money. It was pretty hard for the next 4 years for anyone to be taken seriously with a doom and gloom approach to fiscal matters when the economy was roaring and the Dow was setting records on an almost daily basis. Plus, with all the money everyone was making (including businesses as well as consumers), the government tax revenues were also higher then ever. I remember reading about how Congress had supposedly “balanced the budget” in 1996. Democrats and Republicans had been at a stand-still over the next budget. The Republicans want to keep taxes low but that would mean the Democrats having to cut some additional programs. Then a new report showed that the economy was growing faster than expected and there would be more tax revenue which would allow the taxes to remain where they were and still provide enough money for the programs the Democrats wanted. I don’t know why, but this just struck me as funny. In the end, neither side compromised; they just found more money. That let them both able to claim victory and announce that they had succeeded in balancing the budget. The old axiom of “give and take” in politics no longer seemed to apply; it had been replaced by “find and keep”.

In any case, the dot com boom busted in 2000 and I do believe we would have heard a lot more talk in the 2002 elections about a return to fiscal responsibility. But of course, before we got there 9/11 happened and suddenly fiscal matters were not at the forefront of anyone’s mind. Fast forward a couple of years and now the only time you hear about the deficit is in reference to “how much the war has cost us.” In other words, the deficit is being used to draw negative attention to the war, not the other way around. So, since not a lot of people seem to be talking about the debt as an issue unto itself, I will.

The issue of the national debt really resonates with me because it is one of the main issues that first got me involved in two of the areas I am most interested in today: politics and economics. Back in 1996, when talk of a Balanced Budget amendment to the constitution was still being bandied about, I was interning for a State Representative and had just become a Young Republican (I even read Newt Gingrich’s book To Renew America). At the same time, I was taking my first class in Economics and was finding it fascinating. The idea of a fiscally responsible small government that was for free markets, staying out of people’s lives, and generally believed that “the best government is the one who governs least” really appealed to me (as an aside; when I think back on this I find myself asking, to paraphrase Michael Moore’s paraphrasing of a great film, “Dude, Where’s My Party?”). It also seemed to me that traditional economic theory supported this line of thinking as well: the government’s place was to make sure markets worked as efficiently as possible. This meant that its prime focus should be to keep the citizens safe from enemies both foreign and domestic so that they would be free to do what they do best: be consumers.

I will begin my discussion of the specifics of the debt with the basics. If you already know them, skip ahead.

So what the hell is the national debt? Obviously, it is money that the government owes. Who does it owe it to? In a word, everyone. About 40% the government owes to itself (that is, one part of the government owes it to another part). The remaining 60% is privately held. For the private portion, the government’s typical choice of debt instrument is the Treasury Bill (for short-term debt) and government bonds (for long-term debt). Each is simply a promise to pay back the face value of the bond at a specified date in the future in addition to periodic interest payments. Hence, every time the government issues a T-Bill or bond it is increasing its debt, and every time it pays one off at maturity it is reducing the debt. Bonds and T-Bills are sold to businesses, individuals, and other governments all over the world. There are also probably as many other ways the government can get itself into debt as there are days in the year, but this rudimentary understanding of it will serve for our purposes.

So why is the debt bad? Well, let’s just say that the above represents the beginnings of my education on the subject from a theoretical perspective. My real understanding of debt in practice came from my own personal experience during college. College is a wonderful place because of the freedom young adults are afforded for the first time in their lives. In addition to the freedom to drink yourself stupid and arbitrarily decide your classes have been cancelled for the rest of the week, for me this also included the freedom to rack up a sizeable amount of credit card debt. I remember one particular stroke of less-than-genius which hit me about 6 months before I was to graduate. I was about $6000 in debt but was completely flat broke. As I contemplated accepting another credit card with a $2000 limit, the little angel appeared on my shoulder and said, “John, if you get that card and max it out you’re going to be $8000 in debt. You don’t have $8000.” But then the devil appeared on my other shoulder and said, “John, you’re already $6000 in debt and you don’t have that, so what difference does it make?” I called and authorized the card the next day and had it maxed out before I graduated. Now what I want to highlight here is not my awesome irresponsibility (though I admit that is fully on display) but how easy it is to simply take on more debt once you have made the decision to become a debtor. Most people, if given the choice, would prefer not to be in debt. Further, for those not presently in debt the idea of it is as unpleasant a prospect as having a root canal. But once you are in debt and are managing it, it suddenly doesn’t seem so bad to take on more. If you have no debt and you are thinking about spending $800 on a new tv and $1200 on a weekend in Vegas but you don’t currently any disposable income, you will likely bristle at the thought of racking up $2000 in credit card debt and paying $100 per month for the next 24-30 months (depending on your APR). However, if the debt you currently have already is forcing you to make payments totaling $400 per month for the next 2-3 years, is it that much worse to be making an extra $100 in payments per month if it gets you the things you really want today? Basically, it’s all about relativity. The jump from $0-$100 a month is huge, while the jump from $400-$500 doesn’t seem as large. So I believe it goes with the government. While the debt was small, I believe we had a careful eye towards keeping it down. However, once the debt started to rise and the country didn’t collapse, it suddenly didn’t seem like such a bad idea to keep adding on to it, especially if it got us what we wanted today (in the form of tax cuts and new programs instead of tvs and vacations). So what’s the problem? Well, actually, for the individual as long as they continue to progress in their career and increase their earning power year over year, there is no problem. If you always make your monthly payments and continue to make enough money so that your debt-to-income ratio stays below certain key thresholds, banks and credit card companies will continue to offer you more and more money. Your raw debt is going up but at the same time your ability to pay the debt is going up too, so everything is all good, right? Yep; till the day comes when the economy tanks and you get laid off and only make a fraction of what you used to at your old job. Or if you decide you want to change professions but the industry you want to go into doesn’t pay as well. Or if your wife is pregnant and ends up having triplets instead of the one you were expecting and the rest of your expenses go far higher than you forecasted. You get the idea. And if suddenly you stop being able to make your minimum payments you are in for some pain. And I’m not talking mild discomfort. I’m talking prison-style abuse. If you have ever heard an investment banker or retirement specialist speak, they often talk about the “miracle of interest”. It means that as interest adds on to your principle savings, the interest rate for the next period will now apply to the new, larger amount and compound it. The result is slow growth at first and then progressively it spirals into bigger and bigger growth till you end up with over $1,000,000 in your 401(k) by age 60 (hopefully). Unfortunately, the spiral also works the other way too, and if your debt is at a sufficiently high enough amount when you start defaulting, there will be no slow growth period as with the start of a retirement account. It can get very obscene very quickly.

I am not arguing that debt is inherently bad. On the contrary, I think credit is a wonderful thing. But it’s like alcohol. When used responsibly, it can become a wonderful enabler and allow you to do things you couldn’t do otherwise (like dance on tables and throw flaming couches off balconies). However, when used irresponsibly, it can literally ruin lives.

So with all of that framework in place, in Part II I am going to go into the details of where the current debt situation in this country stands and what I think it might mean for us over the next 10 years and beyond. Has the US government been a positive financial role model and set us on a path towards fiscal stability? Here’s a hint: No.

As promised, some random stupidity

I just finished an excellent book about cutting edge economic theory that I think is really interesting even if you are not a business geek. It's called The Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker. Some of you more astute individuals might notice that the title is a juxtaposition of 2 of the most influential books written over the last 250 years (Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Darwin's The Origin of Species). All I will say for now is that it is a very appropriate title. I am hoping to put together a short summary of what I found most interesting and revealing about it, but while I am working on that here is some random stupidity inspired by the Christmas season:

The 10 Least Popular Christmas Songs
10. Something's Coming Down the Chimney (And I don't think it's Santa)
9. Frosty the Illegitimate Love-Child
8. Rudolph Gets a Rifle
7. Nuclear Winter Wonderland
6. O Holy Shit!
5. Jingle Bells Palsy
4. Must Be Lactose Intolerant Claus
3. The Night the Elves Unionized
2. Christmas Coup d'Etat
And Finally:
1. White Christmas (as sung by Michael Richards)

Give peace a chance

I think the most appropriate thing to begin with is the article that I just read which finally motivated me enough to get on here and post. It is certainly not a major news story, but it is indicative to me of a growing trend in the U.S. today whereby common sense is being slaughtered and maimed at an unprecedented rate. You can read the whole story here if you wish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061127/ap_on_re_us/anti_peace_sign_4) but for those pressed for time (and if you are why in god's name are you reading this?) I will summarize: A homeowner's association in Colorado is threatening to fine a woman $25 a day for displaying a Christmas wreath that is in the shape of a peace sign. Read that again if you have to. The association sent her a letter saying that residents were offended by it and that the board "will not allow signs, flags, etc. that can be considered divisive." Say what? The symbol for peace is offensive and divisive? Really? Maybe I have just missed the boat on this one. I decided to turn to our good friend Webster and see which of the many definitions for peace might conjure up these feelings of animosity.

Definition 1: A state of tranquility or quiet. - Hmm, seems innocent enough.
Definition 2: Harmony in personal relationships. - Who doesn't like that?
Definition 3: Freedom from disquieting or opressive thoughts or emotions. -Kinda seems like the opposite of divisive. Let us pause to reflect on the irony.
Definition 4: A pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity. - Ding, ding, ding!

So it all comes back to the war. Really, it all comes back to people being offended when they think others are displaying anti-war feelings. This leads to several questions. First, if a word or symbol has several definitions and only one of which can be considered offensive, does it then become offensive in all cases? Is it the responsibility of the individual displaying the piece to clarify their intentions? Why is it that the act of displaying a Christmas symbol (which is a Christian symbol) is not considered divisive but advertising one of the core tenets of that religion is? Actually, let's set aside all of those questions and just ask this: isn't peace a good thing? I mean, ultimately whether you are for the war or not, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, etc. aren't we at least unified by that? I'm pretty sure that if you asked President Bush if he wants peace in the Middle East he'd look at you quite oddly and answer "yes" in the same tone as if you'd asked him if he knew how to speak english. Isn't that supposed to be the main thing that separates us from the terrorists that are trying to kill us? I always thought that whether or not we liked the idea of getting into the war, we could all agree that the best case scenario was a peaceful resolution as quickly as possible with the least loss of life. If we don't have that as a common foundation, then I don't know what we have. Perhaps I am making too much out of this, but for the last 10 years I have signed pretty much every personal e-mail correspondence "Peace" before my name, because I believe that peace is one of those ideas that is just unilaterally good. Inner peace, outer peace, it's all good. It transcends partisanship, race, ethnicity, and pretty much any other thing you can think of that is divisive. The only things it doesn't transcend are hate and anger, and that's the problem. Peace really doesn't have a chance against hate and anger. And that's too bad.

By the way, by far the most hilarious thing about the article is this line; "some residents also believed it was a symbol of Satan." That is just priceless.

OK, I promise the majority of my posts will not be in such a hippy mold, and I further promise to infuse them with not just a little bit of ridiculous thoughts and idiocy as well. Until then:

Peace.

To blog or not to blog . . .

Yes this is the first real post of what surely must be the least hyped, anticipated by no one, non-event in history. The launch of blog #1,549,442 by Random McTalentless, who somehow thinks that someone other than him wants to hear about the voices in his head.

So I probably have been kicking around the idea of having my very own blog since, oh, a few minutes after I first found out what the hell a blog was. But I am inherently lazy and never found sufficient motivation to get one started, and then before I knew it everyone had a blog, or a My Space page, or their own website, or a ham radio, carrior pigeon, semaphore code, etc. So then it was "well, I can't do that now, because EVERYBODY's doing it." I guess it is some ridiculous form of counter pop-culture impulse inside me that chooses to only selectively rear its head at the strangest time. At the same time, I suppose I always thought that if I was ever gonna spend the time to write about something, I would be better served working on one of the four novels I have begun but yet to get past page 10 on. At any rate, in the end I decided that even though it is completely unnnecesary, and even though few people are ever gonna read it, and even though my time is probably better spent doing other, more productive things, I like to write, and I want to do this, so I'm gonna do it. I'd like to also insert here the generic entry on how I will be looking to modify and improve how the page looks over the coming months and I will eventually get around to explaining why I named this blog what I did, and so on. But since I have been thinking for 3 weeks about how best to introduce this blog and came up with exactly nothing I am just gonna cut the backstory short (Too late!) here and just start.