Author of a book I read ("Spent" by Geoffrey Miller) claims these are actual bumper stickers in Albuquerque, New Mexico:
"A PBS mind in a Fox News world"
"Don't say ironic when you mean coincidental"
"Eschew obfuscation"
"If it fits on a bumper sticker, it's not a philosophy"
"TV is gooder than books"
"Tongue pierthing ith thtupid"
"If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat"
"Gun control means using both hands"
"Get off the phone and crash already"
"Jesus would have used his turn signals"
"Saturday has a morning?"
"Who would Jesus bomb?"
"Has anger solved your other problems?"
"Sniper: Don't bother running, you'll just die tired"
"If you can read this, you're in my kill zone"
"Honk if you've never seen an Uzi fired from a car window"
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
"It's not whining if you wave a handgun"
"Some days it's just not worth gnawing through the straps"
"If it weren't for physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable"
"If cats could talk, they wouldn't"
"Eagles don't flock"
"I'm not good at empathy; will you settle for sarcasm?"
"Oral sex is always a great last-minute gift idea"
"I am hung like Einsteing and smart as a horse"
Friday, October 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The problem with banking is ...
That as a business it is not the kind of business that can run on 10 or 12% capitalization. The risk profile of banking as a business is not any lower than that of a company making widgets or a transportation company and arguably it is actually higher than most. And yet, banks are run on a tiny sliver of capital only (and whether it is 8% or 12% does not fundamentally make all that much difference).
In just about any other business, if 10% of your customers walk away - don't buy your widgets, or subscribe to your service or eat at your place, the business may become less profitable or not profitable at all for a while but it would not mean the end of it. In banking, if 10% of your customers (depositors) walk away, you are insolvent and practically out of business.
I have no idea what the "right" level of capitalization is for a business that has the risk profile of banking - maybe it's 35% or maybe it's 45%. I am sure it is not 12%. Not that there is much that can be done about it because the amount of economic pain that would follow a de-leveraging of banking systems of the world to a level of, say, 40% is so huge that it would never happen.
There is an implicit "bargain" then that we all accept which is that occasionally the system will get wobbly and we the taxpayers will have to step in to backstop some part of it. This is simply the price to pay for the systemic excessive leverage and the only question is whether explicitly acknowledging this would help or not.
An analogy would be a car engine that by its design and materials specs could run for thousands of hours at 8,000 rpm without breakdowns but we decide to rev it up to 13,000 to go faster. We know full well that at that speed it will ocasionally break down and we will have to stop to repair it but the overall distance traveled at that higher speed with an occasional breakdown is farther than the distance that could be covered at lower speed with no stopping for occasional repairs.
We implicitly accept that trade off.
In just about any other business, if 10% of your customers walk away - don't buy your widgets, or subscribe to your service or eat at your place, the business may become less profitable or not profitable at all for a while but it would not mean the end of it. In banking, if 10% of your customers (depositors) walk away, you are insolvent and practically out of business.
I have no idea what the "right" level of capitalization is for a business that has the risk profile of banking - maybe it's 35% or maybe it's 45%. I am sure it is not 12%. Not that there is much that can be done about it because the amount of economic pain that would follow a de-leveraging of banking systems of the world to a level of, say, 40% is so huge that it would never happen.
There is an implicit "bargain" then that we all accept which is that occasionally the system will get wobbly and we the taxpayers will have to step in to backstop some part of it. This is simply the price to pay for the systemic excessive leverage and the only question is whether explicitly acknowledging this would help or not.
An analogy would be a car engine that by its design and materials specs could run for thousands of hours at 8,000 rpm without breakdowns but we decide to rev it up to 13,000 to go faster. We know full well that at that speed it will ocasionally break down and we will have to stop to repair it but the overall distance traveled at that higher speed with an occasional breakdown is farther than the distance that could be covered at lower speed with no stopping for occasional repairs.
We implicitly accept that trade off.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
The 3rd period
Living in Canada it is impossible to avoid hearing about hockey, getting involved in hockey .. and that is a good thing. It is certainly the most interesting spectator sport out there.
Hockey terminology is used a lot and recently an example occurred to me as I contemplated stages in life as one is apt to after turning 50.
So the way I look at it is that I have entered the 3rd period of this particular game given that a life expectancy of 75 years is not unreasonable for a healthy, non-smoking male living in North America.
In looking at it this way, the 1st period was all about education. Getting the most out of the process of learning and developing the mind to then be able to maximize the value of that intellect. Masters Degree was at 24 and if one considers the first year at Citibank as training, than that fits rather neatly into the metaphor.
The 2nd period was all about family and that includes professional achievement and economic success which were in the function of providing for the family. It was much more full and complex than the 1st period and the way one measures success is money in the bank and whether the kids are drug addicts or productive members of the society.
With Demi leaving for college mere months before my 50th, that period of family life has concluded. The family continues but in other ways as the kids are not kids any more even on the most fundamental level of feeding them - it is not all about how to provide for the family any more.
So then what will the 3rd period be about or what should it be about? There is one more gig ahead of me, probably the most enjoyable one of all which is to be a grandfather and that is truly going to be awesome and I have some big shoes to fill to be as good a Deda as Deda was.
But what else is an interesting and pleasing question as it's full of possibilities (although the often repeated "threat" that I will start playing golf at age 50 with the goal to make it onto the Senior Tour is not likely to become reality).
Oh yes, and for the final cliche - the game could always go into overtime......
Hockey terminology is used a lot and recently an example occurred to me as I contemplated stages in life as one is apt to after turning 50.
So the way I look at it is that I have entered the 3rd period of this particular game given that a life expectancy of 75 years is not unreasonable for a healthy, non-smoking male living in North America.
In looking at it this way, the 1st period was all about education. Getting the most out of the process of learning and developing the mind to then be able to maximize the value of that intellect. Masters Degree was at 24 and if one considers the first year at Citibank as training, than that fits rather neatly into the metaphor.
The 2nd period was all about family and that includes professional achievement and economic success which were in the function of providing for the family. It was much more full and complex than the 1st period and the way one measures success is money in the bank and whether the kids are drug addicts or productive members of the society.
With Demi leaving for college mere months before my 50th, that period of family life has concluded. The family continues but in other ways as the kids are not kids any more even on the most fundamental level of feeding them - it is not all about how to provide for the family any more.
So then what will the 3rd period be about or what should it be about? There is one more gig ahead of me, probably the most enjoyable one of all which is to be a grandfather and that is truly going to be awesome and I have some big shoes to fill to be as good a Deda as Deda was.
But what else is an interesting and pleasing question as it's full of possibilities (although the often repeated "threat" that I will start playing golf at age 50 with the goal to make it onto the Senior Tour is not likely to become reality).
Oh yes, and for the final cliche - the game could always go into overtime......
Thursday, February 10, 2011
On Decision Making
Ability to make good decisions is key to just about everything from work to relationships to investing. And yet, the process of how we educate and raise young people is woefully absent of any useful decision making training and is arguably actually sabotaging any chance that good decision making may emerge.
As young people grow up, all decisions are made for them from what they eat to what they wear to how they spend their time. Through teenage years the only "decisions" they get to make are about what electives to take at school and even that only towards the end of high school. Not surprisingly, they yearn for more freedom and the more structure is imposed on them the more they rebel against it.
What if instead of depriving them of decision making authority we were to do more to teach them the skills of making better decisions?
Starting with simple things such as that every decision is a trade-off. What if instead of saying "you can play computer games for not more than 2 hours and your curfew is 9 p.m." we give them some decision making power by saying "you can have your curfew extended by an hour if you agree to watch less TV". After that engaging in a "negotiation" is also a useful skill to learn in the sense of having to asses the relative "value" of an hour of watching TV VS and hour more spent out with friends.
Currently as kids finish high school and turn 18 they get positively drunk with freedom to, among other things, get drunk. If they are in college, they have to make some decisions that will affect the rest of their life so they better make some good ones. If they do not go to college, they often end up making no decisions at all as that is not something they had a lot of practice with.
Delegating authority to subordinates in business is tried and true way of brining up leaders who will make good decisions. Why not raise our children that way. Spoken by someone who never had a curfew.
As young people grow up, all decisions are made for them from what they eat to what they wear to how they spend their time. Through teenage years the only "decisions" they get to make are about what electives to take at school and even that only towards the end of high school. Not surprisingly, they yearn for more freedom and the more structure is imposed on them the more they rebel against it.
What if instead of depriving them of decision making authority we were to do more to teach them the skills of making better decisions?
Starting with simple things such as that every decision is a trade-off. What if instead of saying "you can play computer games for not more than 2 hours and your curfew is 9 p.m." we give them some decision making power by saying "you can have your curfew extended by an hour if you agree to watch less TV". After that engaging in a "negotiation" is also a useful skill to learn in the sense of having to asses the relative "value" of an hour of watching TV VS and hour more spent out with friends.
Currently as kids finish high school and turn 18 they get positively drunk with freedom to, among other things, get drunk. If they are in college, they have to make some decisions that will affect the rest of their life so they better make some good ones. If they do not go to college, they often end up making no decisions at all as that is not something they had a lot of practice with.
Delegating authority to subordinates in business is tried and true way of brining up leaders who will make good decisions. Why not raise our children that way. Spoken by someone who never had a curfew.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
When logic says one thing but it just doesn't feel right - Carbon credits
Had a reason recently to once again review all "Things Emission" (carbon emissions) and because it was as uncomfortable as always, I tried to figure out why is it that we are unable to ever really feel that we "understand" the whole issue of carbon credits, cap and trade and all that.
My conclusion is that the fundamental difficulty is that our mind and our sense of what is right (morality of sorts) are pulling in opposite directions.
While it is not difficult to understand and accept the logic that the world collectively will reduce overall emissions the most if it reduces the emissions of the biggest polluters first, the inescapable fact is that this just feels "wrong".
It feels as wrong as it would feel to pay potential robbers to not rob us or to pay potential rapists not to rape. Some of the arguments are similar such as that the potential robbers are just poor and if they were less poor they would not be motivated to rob.
Indonesia, China or Russia would like to be able to build power plants that pollute less but those cost a lot more so they "can't help it" and all other things being equal (the rest of the world not paying them to pollute less), they will provide electricity for their people the least expensive way they can.
So they are issued emissions credits, in order to benefit from them there needs to be a market for those and there is trading of carbon credits and once that is there, you can `cap`emissions of various businesses and tell them that in order to pollute (produce) more, they have to buy some emission credits.
Not sure I am any further along after realizing what my mental block was.
My conclusion is that the fundamental difficulty is that our mind and our sense of what is right (morality of sorts) are pulling in opposite directions.
While it is not difficult to understand and accept the logic that the world collectively will reduce overall emissions the most if it reduces the emissions of the biggest polluters first, the inescapable fact is that this just feels "wrong".
It feels as wrong as it would feel to pay potential robbers to not rob us or to pay potential rapists not to rape. Some of the arguments are similar such as that the potential robbers are just poor and if they were less poor they would not be motivated to rob.
Indonesia, China or Russia would like to be able to build power plants that pollute less but those cost a lot more so they "can't help it" and all other things being equal (the rest of the world not paying them to pollute less), they will provide electricity for their people the least expensive way they can.
So they are issued emissions credits, in order to benefit from them there needs to be a market for those and there is trading of carbon credits and once that is there, you can `cap`emissions of various businesses and tell them that in order to pollute (produce) more, they have to buy some emission credits.
Not sure I am any further along after realizing what my mental block was.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Life is like a Giant Slalom (and so is investing)
and if I can pull off that analogy, I am better than I know.
Well, life is similar to a Giant Slalom (GS) in the way that GS is different than slalom or downhill as both slalom and downhill are really not "thinking man's" ski events. GS is a thinking man's ski race.
In slalom, there is no time to think. There is only instinctive reaction and the rush and getting to the finish. Downhill is all about overcoming fear and then getting to the bottom of the hill in one piece.
GS is different because to ski GS well, one has to think, anticipate and act. You have to know the course well, anticipate and visualize all the turns and most importantly, execute your plans for each turn timely and with precision . It is not just instinctive, it is one step more difficult than that - plan the action and then do it.
It is essential in GS to start turning before reaching the turn itself. One needs to be almost done with the turn by the point one reaches the gate flag and then accelerate out of the turn.
So then the impossible analogy - life and investing is like that too - the hardest thing of all is to think "ahead of time", plan what you will do when the moment comes and then actually do it. Failure to do any one of the 3 steps results in missed gates, failed investments or just plain simple failures.
Well, life is similar to a Giant Slalom (GS) in the way that GS is different than slalom or downhill as both slalom and downhill are really not "thinking man's" ski events. GS is a thinking man's ski race.
In slalom, there is no time to think. There is only instinctive reaction and the rush and getting to the finish. Downhill is all about overcoming fear and then getting to the bottom of the hill in one piece.
GS is different because to ski GS well, one has to think, anticipate and act. You have to know the course well, anticipate and visualize all the turns and most importantly, execute your plans for each turn timely and with precision . It is not just instinctive, it is one step more difficult than that - plan the action and then do it.
It is essential in GS to start turning before reaching the turn itself. One needs to be almost done with the turn by the point one reaches the gate flag and then accelerate out of the turn.
So then the impossible analogy - life and investing is like that too - the hardest thing of all is to think "ahead of time", plan what you will do when the moment comes and then actually do it. Failure to do any one of the 3 steps results in missed gates, failed investments or just plain simple failures.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Something worth fighting for
Reading "The Unforgiving Minute", which is worth reading just for the Kipling poem alone:
"If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son."
I realized that in all of my life I've never had anything literally worth fighting for (and it is really "fighting for" and not "dying for" that should be used).
A country or any other group to belong to that one believes in so much as to be willing to fight for it (and if it so happens, die in the process).
From my vantage point then it looks like a great privilege to have that.
"If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son."
I realized that in all of my life I've never had anything literally worth fighting for (and it is really "fighting for" and not "dying for" that should be used).
A country or any other group to belong to that one believes in so much as to be willing to fight for it (and if it so happens, die in the process).
From my vantage point then it looks like a great privilege to have that.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Meeting people is like walking up to a new mirror
Despite what we may think about "knowing ourselves" and knowing who we are, we can only understand who we really are from the reflection of ourselves in other people's eyes. The only way that the Universe perceives us is through observation of others and in that way it's a bit of a Schroedinger's cat going on. The observed is influenced by the observers and it has no other state than the observed one.
To put it differently, if there was nobody around us, would we really know who we are?
So every new person we meet is like a new mirror that we face and it shows us an image of ourselves that is always to some extent different than any other mirror. Some are more precise reflection of the actual molecules that we are really composed of while others are more "kind" to our imperfections, physical and otherwise. And of course, just for fun, there are the hall of mirrors distorting mirrors that show us grotesquely different than reality and those are just that - only fun but not something a person would say "I need plastic surgery pronto because of what I saw in that mirror".
And when we meet people what do we expect and what would we want to see? As accurate a reflection of reality as possible or do we prefer a "kinder mirror" when it comes to our faults? This goes to the crux of the matter because it answers at the same time the question of what kind of a mirror should we ourselves be.
If I have a wart on my face, would I rather know it so I can deal with it or would I rather not know and spend the rest of my days not being aware of the imperfection?
It ultimately depends to a large extent on whether the flaw is fixable or not - if we have a poppyseed between our teeth we want our friends to tell us so we can get rid of it. If we have a permanent disfigurement, it really is pointless for anyone to say "Don't mean to put you on the spot but do you realize you have an ear missing?"
Things are comparatively easy when it comes to physical as opposed to the issues of character, personality, behavior. Do we value a more an accurate reflection or one that makes us feel better?
Do we really want the mirror on the wall to tell us the way things are?
P.S. Late addition - leave it to a country song to put it in right words - "I wanna be the kind of man a mirror likes to see."
To put it differently, if there was nobody around us, would we really know who we are?
So every new person we meet is like a new mirror that we face and it shows us an image of ourselves that is always to some extent different than any other mirror. Some are more precise reflection of the actual molecules that we are really composed of while others are more "kind" to our imperfections, physical and otherwise. And of course, just for fun, there are the hall of mirrors distorting mirrors that show us grotesquely different than reality and those are just that - only fun but not something a person would say "I need plastic surgery pronto because of what I saw in that mirror".
And when we meet people what do we expect and what would we want to see? As accurate a reflection of reality as possible or do we prefer a "kinder mirror" when it comes to our faults? This goes to the crux of the matter because it answers at the same time the question of what kind of a mirror should we ourselves be.
If I have a wart on my face, would I rather know it so I can deal with it or would I rather not know and spend the rest of my days not being aware of the imperfection?
It ultimately depends to a large extent on whether the flaw is fixable or not - if we have a poppyseed between our teeth we want our friends to tell us so we can get rid of it. If we have a permanent disfigurement, it really is pointless for anyone to say "Don't mean to put you on the spot but do you realize you have an ear missing?"
Things are comparatively easy when it comes to physical as opposed to the issues of character, personality, behavior. Do we value a more an accurate reflection or one that makes us feel better?
Do we really want the mirror on the wall to tell us the way things are?
P.S. Late addition - leave it to a country song to put it in right words - "I wanna be the kind of man a mirror likes to see."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
There is something seriously wrong with camels.. (and salmon)
For some time now I have been wondering how certain species managed to not become extinct when some of their "features" or ways of existing are so clearly sub-optimal. Earth in general is not a very hospitable place with something on the order of 95% of all species that ever existed being extinct by now. So how is it then that camels or salmon have managed to avoid that fate given some obvious, what should be fatal, flaws?
Take camels for example. Yes, I know about their humps storing water or whatever that allows them to go a long time without food and water and all that. Seems like a useful evolutionary adaptation but you don't have to be a mechanical engineer to take one look at a camel walking or God forbid running to see that there is clearly something wrong with that basic design.
If you tried to on purpose come up with a "design" of a quadruped animal that is maximally inefficient you would just about draw a camel. There is nothing graceful,fast or effortless in how that body moves through space (unlike a cheetah or even an elephant). And having ridden one once, I have a first hand appreciation of how the overall movement just seems haphazard.
But that imperfection pales in comparison to what is a reproductive process almost asking to fail with salmon. It is so inefficient and difficult that it is very hard to "reverse engineer" which provides the storyline for a great book "Salmon fishing in the Yemen".
There is really no reason one can divine why salmon should be born in freshwater, go into the sea and then return some years later to their native stream to reproduce. Furthermore, all salmon die after only reproducing once. The lengths to which they go to return to their native streams, which are for all practical purposes the same as any nearby streams or even bodies of water very far away, are monumental.
It is these examples that make me wonder about evolution more than the "successes" and examples where things make sense.
Take camels for example. Yes, I know about their humps storing water or whatever that allows them to go a long time without food and water and all that. Seems like a useful evolutionary adaptation but you don't have to be a mechanical engineer to take one look at a camel walking or God forbid running to see that there is clearly something wrong with that basic design.
If you tried to on purpose come up with a "design" of a quadruped animal that is maximally inefficient you would just about draw a camel. There is nothing graceful,fast or effortless in how that body moves through space (unlike a cheetah or even an elephant). And having ridden one once, I have a first hand appreciation of how the overall movement just seems haphazard.
But that imperfection pales in comparison to what is a reproductive process almost asking to fail with salmon. It is so inefficient and difficult that it is very hard to "reverse engineer" which provides the storyline for a great book "Salmon fishing in the Yemen".
There is really no reason one can divine why salmon should be born in freshwater, go into the sea and then return some years later to their native stream to reproduce. Furthermore, all salmon die after only reproducing once. The lengths to which they go to return to their native streams, which are for all practical purposes the same as any nearby streams or even bodies of water very far away, are monumental.
It is these examples that make me wonder about evolution more than the "successes" and examples where things make sense.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
"Sex Addiction" - give me a break ...
I am getting a little bit tired of the whole "sex addiction" racket out there.
Sex is not an addiction any more than skating backwards is. It may feel good to have air blowing up your behind (or to have sex) but that does not an addiction make. And if you feel you are addicted, just stop skating backwards!
The problem is that calling it an "addiction" trivializes addictions which are real and substantive. The operative word being "substantive" meaning there is a substance involved (although this may not be the correct usage of the term substantive).
With real addictions be it alcohol, drugs, nicotine or prescription drugs, there is always a substance at work which makes us feel a certain way ("good" or at least "better" than without it). From that emerges an addiction to that "feel good effect" and in that sense, yes, food can be an addiction also but sex cannot.
Of course sex feels good, it is supposed to and without it feeling good there would be a risk of the species becoming extinct. Therefore, it is a natural and fundamental instinct to want to have sex and not so to want to smoke or take Vicodin.
But the individuals claiming "sex addiction" are not having "more of a good feeling" then the rest of us, they just have more opportunities. Maybe I just don't know but the "problem" of sex addiction does not seem to afflict a whole lot of broke, unattractive men. It seems to be a disease of the rich and not entirely physically repugnant men such as Tiger Woods or David Duchovny.
Sex is not an addiction any more than skating backwards is. It may feel good to have air blowing up your behind (or to have sex) but that does not an addiction make. And if you feel you are addicted, just stop skating backwards!
The problem is that calling it an "addiction" trivializes addictions which are real and substantive. The operative word being "substantive" meaning there is a substance involved (although this may not be the correct usage of the term substantive).
With real addictions be it alcohol, drugs, nicotine or prescription drugs, there is always a substance at work which makes us feel a certain way ("good" or at least "better" than without it). From that emerges an addiction to that "feel good effect" and in that sense, yes, food can be an addiction also but sex cannot.
Of course sex feels good, it is supposed to and without it feeling good there would be a risk of the species becoming extinct. Therefore, it is a natural and fundamental instinct to want to have sex and not so to want to smoke or take Vicodin.
But the individuals claiming "sex addiction" are not having "more of a good feeling" then the rest of us, they just have more opportunities. Maybe I just don't know but the "problem" of sex addiction does not seem to afflict a whole lot of broke, unattractive men. It seems to be a disease of the rich and not entirely physically repugnant men such as Tiger Woods or David Duchovny.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The thing about kids growing up is ...
I love that subject line because just about anything can follow. You may see it a lot.
In this particular moment, the thing about it is that once they get to be 17 or 18 all of the little annoying things that your spouse used to say or do for years (or not do), they notice and call them out on.
So whenever there is lack of logic in how one parks the car or talks about events of the day, they jump all over their parents and with you and your spouse it means - well, I no longer have to do it!
It is bliss, I can just sit back and watch them send zingers of all kinds on all sorts of issues and I can relax and grin (but not so that it can be seen, more of a "grin on the inside"). Really wonderful so you should look forward to when they are about 18 (and then, of course, just when you are enjoying it, they leave the house!).
They do the same (calling out any absence of logic or any BS) with stuff on TV, in the news and even in gatherings and family events. Almost like having your own personal Jon Stewart show.
Which kind of means that the whole burden of setting the world straight is slowly but surely being lifted off me.
Isn't that really how the world is supposed to work, that the next generation takes up the good fight.
In this particular moment, the thing about it is that once they get to be 17 or 18 all of the little annoying things that your spouse used to say or do for years (or not do), they notice and call them out on.
So whenever there is lack of logic in how one parks the car or talks about events of the day, they jump all over their parents and with you and your spouse it means - well, I no longer have to do it!
It is bliss, I can just sit back and watch them send zingers of all kinds on all sorts of issues and I can relax and grin (but not so that it can be seen, more of a "grin on the inside"). Really wonderful so you should look forward to when they are about 18 (and then, of course, just when you are enjoying it, they leave the house!).
They do the same (calling out any absence of logic or any BS) with stuff on TV, in the news and even in gatherings and family events. Almost like having your own personal Jon Stewart show.
Which kind of means that the whole burden of setting the world straight is slowly but surely being lifted off me.
Isn't that really how the world is supposed to work, that the next generation takes up the good fight.
Friday, January 01, 2010
"Risk aversion" VS "Loss aversion"
Reading "Superfreakonomics" and end of year market summaries it struck me how the term "risk aversion" is really so inferior to what we really mean - "loss aversion". We are not afraid of risk, we are afraid of losing and this is repeatedly confirmed by studies of behavioral economics and other sciences as well as by simple observation.
So we should just stop using "risk aversion".
The interesting part of all these studies is where they cross the divide into how we are motivated to inflict pain (or economic loss) onto others even when that is not in our own best economic interest.
Got to look more into that and understand my own loss aversion better. (Maybe inflicting pain on others as a motivation is a useful "antidote"?) There is a New Year's resolution No.1 !
Friday, December 11, 2009
Why is Al Gore lying and why isn't anybody calling him on it?
First, I mostly ignored a lot of the "climategate" debates because at the end of the day they do not reveal anything new about the issue at hand - the fundamental drivers of climate change.
However, when I came across an article quoting Al Gore, even I was stunned by the sheer audacity or blindness of religious zeal which can cause a relatively normal person to just so blatantly lie to us or to himself.
In an interview he said:
I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.
and then repeated the same point 2 more times. These statements are simply completely wrong.
In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.
Is he going to apologize? Is at least Jon Stewart going to abuse him for it?
Please! Somebody.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
They want reparations!
That is the best one so far - apparently some "diplomats and officials" of less developed countries have suggested and continue to suggest that the US should pay reparations to the rest of the world for "decades of high emissions".
If there ever was a non-starter ...
Apparently they also suggest public international funding should be made available to future major polluters, the biggest one being China. Really - with 2 Trillion of reserves they should be paid by others not to build things that are going to pollute?
Friday, December 04, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Presence of mind
So there is a Facebook application "how many of you are there in the World". I put my name in and it turns out there are two of us with the name Miljenko Horvat.
Then I posted a comment that I now only have to find the other guy and get rid of him and there will be only one Miljenko Horvat.
Without missing a beat Hanif Younus commented:
"It would be a lot easier to just kill yourself."
You have got to admire the presence of mind. One simly cannot argue the point that he makes.
Then I posted a comment that I now only have to find the other guy and get rid of him and there will be only one Miljenko Horvat.
Without missing a beat Hanif Younus commented:
"It would be a lot easier to just kill yourself."
You have got to admire the presence of mind. One simly cannot argue the point that he makes.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Russia in 1994 - how much has really changed?
So we had a flooding in our basement. So that is where all of my files were. So I am going through my old files and found this e-mail from 1994:
"It is a cultural thing at work in Russia.
It is part of the same context as magnetic storms, 'complex lunch', not being able to come to work before 9 on Monday mornings; driving with no lights on; turning off lights; drinking champagne for any reason whatsoever; terribly salty appetizers; no hot water in the summer for a month; kinds bundled up in the winter so much that they look like the Michelin man; desire for World domination; propensity on the part of the female population to cry inexplicably during the months of Nov - March, in particular in November; sunbathing standing up; disregard for the environment; superstition and belief in "chudo"; man in space but no local furniture; cult of the "otdih"...."
Well, now that I look at it quite a bit has indeed changed. Certainly nobody drives their cars with no lights on at night. And does anyone use the term 'complex lunch' any more? Would a 15 year old Russian teenager even know what it means (or meant)?
"It is a cultural thing at work in Russia.
It is part of the same context as magnetic storms, 'complex lunch', not being able to come to work before 9 on Monday mornings; driving with no lights on; turning off lights; drinking champagne for any reason whatsoever; terribly salty appetizers; no hot water in the summer for a month; kinds bundled up in the winter so much that they look like the Michelin man; desire for World domination; propensity on the part of the female population to cry inexplicably during the months of Nov - March, in particular in November; sunbathing standing up; disregard for the environment; superstition and belief in "chudo"; man in space but no local furniture; cult of the "otdih"...."
Well, now that I look at it quite a bit has indeed changed. Certainly nobody drives their cars with no lights on at night. And does anyone use the term 'complex lunch' any more? Would a 15 year old Russian teenager even know what it means (or meant)?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A rant about the "Blackberry fallacy"
We live in an era of a "Blackberry fallacy" where the assumption is that we are more "efficient" and things move along faster, better, if we type with our thumbs.
The fallacy is that it is not properly understood that the "time constraint" is only one the sending end meaning on the thumb using end. On the receiving end, meaning on the head using end, reading a message of a word count of 70 is one minute different from reading a message that has a word count of 400.
So we are having these truncated half-conversations or 1/3 conversations believing it is the same thing or somehow even better. It is not and I am no Luddite but I do believe it truly is a fallacy and as such, it should be exposed in order to be understood in order to be remedied not by stopping to text message or use Blackberries but to understand there has to be more to complete an interchange of thoughts in full rather than just "brb" and "lol".
TTYL he he
The fallacy is that it is not properly understood that the "time constraint" is only one the sending end meaning on the thumb using end. On the receiving end, meaning on the head using end, reading a message of a word count of 70 is one minute different from reading a message that has a word count of 400.
So we are having these truncated half-conversations or 1/3 conversations believing it is the same thing or somehow even better. It is not and I am no Luddite but I do believe it truly is a fallacy and as such, it should be exposed in order to be understood in order to be remedied not by stopping to text message or use Blackberries but to understand there has to be more to complete an interchange of thoughts in full rather than just "brb" and "lol".
TTYL he he
Sunday, January 25, 2009
That idiot Rush Limbaugh - but that is not the point
Rush Limbaugh said "I want him to fail". I can kill a man with a pencil and I've never come closer to wanting to.
But I have decided that rather than remaining angry at the idiot, I would share with friends some things recently read or heard which I found amusing, insightful and sometimes both. Here goes:
- I have been told that I inspire an "intellectual gag reflex" (as in just being too freakin cerebral about everything).
- "Instead of the mahi mahi, could I just get the mahi cause' I am not that hungry"
- "the eyes are the nipples of the face"
- when referring to a commuter plane - "we were travelling half the speed of smell"
- referring to Nancy Pelosi - "there are less frenetic humming birds than that woman"
- "I just think better lying down"
- "life is much like the Four Seasons in Maui - you get off the elevator and you either make the turn towards ocean front suites or the other way with 99% of the other people"
- "I have more vowels than a Honolulu phonebook" (only my son is likely to get this one)
- "some poeople dream of having been on the 67 Yankees, others of having been on Project Orion" - me !
- "I rode an $800,000 vehicle to work this morning, it's called the city bus"
- "the only reason for time is so that everything does not happen at once" - you'd think it was a comedian who said that but it wasn't
- "It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very hard to have a simple idea." I have very many complicated ideas.
- "When was the last atheist riot?"
- "the moral self-righteousness of the have-nots"
Too bad this had to be PG in case my kids see it.
But I have decided that rather than remaining angry at the idiot, I would share with friends some things recently read or heard which I found amusing, insightful and sometimes both. Here goes:
- I have been told that I inspire an "intellectual gag reflex" (as in just being too freakin cerebral about everything).
- "Instead of the mahi mahi, could I just get the mahi cause' I am not that hungry"
- "the eyes are the nipples of the face"
- when referring to a commuter plane - "we were travelling half the speed of smell"
- referring to Nancy Pelosi - "there are less frenetic humming birds than that woman"
- "I just think better lying down"
- "life is much like the Four Seasons in Maui - you get off the elevator and you either make the turn towards ocean front suites or the other way with 99% of the other people"
- "I have more vowels than a Honolulu phonebook" (only my son is likely to get this one)
- "some poeople dream of having been on the 67 Yankees, others of having been on Project Orion" - me !
- "I rode an $800,000 vehicle to work this morning, it's called the city bus"
- "the only reason for time is so that everything does not happen at once" - you'd think it was a comedian who said that but it wasn't
- "It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very hard to have a simple idea." I have very many complicated ideas.
- "When was the last atheist riot?"
- "the moral self-righteousness of the have-nots"
Too bad this had to be PG in case my kids see it.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
So what is next - locusts?
Desperately trying to find a silver lining here but this has got to be the weirdest start to a year ever (and end of one too).
German billionaire steps in front of a train; Madoff thing; Satyam thing; 500,000 jobs gone? I mean we need some good news, seriously.
OK, I'll take a stab. The "investment banking model" is no more. Derivatives "have no clothes". Interest rates are low. After the worst year since 1931 how bad can 09 be?
We all have too much information, that is part of the problem.
I cut back this Xmas too - literally - bought a tree that was at least a foot shorter than the years before (they price them by the foot here).
And even locusts would die with the weather we've been having!
German billionaire steps in front of a train; Madoff thing; Satyam thing; 500,000 jobs gone? I mean we need some good news, seriously.
OK, I'll take a stab. The "investment banking model" is no more. Derivatives "have no clothes". Interest rates are low. After the worst year since 1931 how bad can 09 be?
We all have too much information, that is part of the problem.
I cut back this Xmas too - literally - bought a tree that was at least a foot shorter than the years before (they price them by the foot here).
And even locusts would die with the weather we've been having!
Monday, December 29, 2008
Watch "Religulous" !!
Bill Maher would sometime get on my nerves with his relentless anti-Bush stuff but his "documentary" is excellent.
You just need to watch it because it is hard to talk about everything that is in it but one example is the question of how did the US as a nation get from founding fathers who said - "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" (B. Franklin) and "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" (T. Jefferson) - to having "In God We Trust" printed on its currency.
Just the basic act of asking questions is so powerful that one cannot but cumulatively be struck by the sheer ridiculousness of religions as such, not singling out any particular one. So while for the past number of years I would have taken the usual cop out of "agnostic" or "spiritual but not religious" in part due to those things being more PC, I must say I am now willing to throw it in with Dawkins and Hitchens (and by implication Maher) - we would all be better off without the whole darn religious thing.
You just need to watch it because it is hard to talk about everything that is in it but one example is the question of how did the US as a nation get from founding fathers who said - "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" (B. Franklin) and "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" (T. Jefferson) - to having "In God We Trust" printed on its currency.
Just the basic act of asking questions is so powerful that one cannot but cumulatively be struck by the sheer ridiculousness of religions as such, not singling out any particular one. So while for the past number of years I would have taken the usual cop out of "agnostic" or "spiritual but not religious" in part due to those things being more PC, I must say I am now willing to throw it in with Dawkins and Hitchens (and by implication Maher) - we would all be better off without the whole darn religious thing.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
"The Dream Team" II
So far Barack Obama's steps to build his cabinet have been nothing short of the Barcelona Olympics US basketball Dream Team. Is he the Michael Jordan of leadership? For all of ours sake I hope he is. The only true answer to that question is that it is too early to tell but the first steps were nothing short of brilliant.
Larry Summers at the White House and Geithner at the Treasury were exactly the right moves. Summers will be much better out of the limelight and pulling at more levers, while Geithner at the Treasury is just the right technocrat (and is 47, as is Obama, as is your truly, which I like to point out).
To get two Clinton's, and it is the two Clinton's that he is getting, is the ultimate twofer. It says a lot about his ability and that of the people around him to smooth over ruffled feathers. However, the more important thing is that they are perfect for the job - they will be the face of America to the world and one could hardly find two Americans that the world likes more, or at least dislikes less (since unlike in the US, Hillary does not have a group of pretty determined "haters" outside of the US).
Richardson at Commerce, keeping Gates in place at Defense (which means no major immediate changes for strategies of General Petraeus and others) are again right down the middle of the leadership fairway.
Expectations of the Obama presidency are so high that the second coming could not meet them. How far short it falls of the unrealistic expectations driven in part by the euphoria of the special moment which we will years from now ask about - "where were you when Obama was elected President?" - hugely depends on who he puts around him.
So far not just so good, so far brilliant.
P.S. All of this from somebody whose guy did not win.
LATE ADDITION - Headline from a WSJ Op-ed piece "Not Left or Right, Forward"
Larry Summers at the White House and Geithner at the Treasury were exactly the right moves. Summers will be much better out of the limelight and pulling at more levers, while Geithner at the Treasury is just the right technocrat (and is 47, as is Obama, as is your truly, which I like to point out).
To get two Clinton's, and it is the two Clinton's that he is getting, is the ultimate twofer. It says a lot about his ability and that of the people around him to smooth over ruffled feathers. However, the more important thing is that they are perfect for the job - they will be the face of America to the world and one could hardly find two Americans that the world likes more, or at least dislikes less (since unlike in the US, Hillary does not have a group of pretty determined "haters" outside of the US).
Richardson at Commerce, keeping Gates in place at Defense (which means no major immediate changes for strategies of General Petraeus and others) are again right down the middle of the leadership fairway.
Expectations of the Obama presidency are so high that the second coming could not meet them. How far short it falls of the unrealistic expectations driven in part by the euphoria of the special moment which we will years from now ask about - "where were you when Obama was elected President?" - hugely depends on who he puts around him.
So far not just so good, so far brilliant.
P.S. All of this from somebody whose guy did not win.
LATE ADDITION - Headline from a WSJ Op-ed piece "Not Left or Right, Forward"
Monday, November 03, 2008
The 3 reasons to do anything
There are only 3 possible reasons to do anything in life and they are:
One, to make a lot of money. Two, to change the world and three, because you can't help it.
The first one does not merit much discussion - you need to put food on the table, provide for the family and you do what it takes to maximize your marketable skills to make the most of it.
The second is different in that you have to decide in which way are you going to try to "change the world" or at least contribute to it. Do you help starving children or do you work to help the elderly. Do you try to make a difference in Darfur or do you try to make a difference in the inner city Detroit.
The easiest of them is the third one. I asked a friend who is a singer "if you were on a deserted island and there was nobody else around, would you still sing every day even if there is no fame or fortune to be gained?". People who have born talents just can't help but use them and of course she said yes.
Most of us in life ever get a chance to do one of the above and the very lucky get to do two or even all three. Those of us without natural talents can only lament that and try to do the One and Two ...
One, to make a lot of money. Two, to change the world and three, because you can't help it.
The first one does not merit much discussion - you need to put food on the table, provide for the family and you do what it takes to maximize your marketable skills to make the most of it.
The second is different in that you have to decide in which way are you going to try to "change the world" or at least contribute to it. Do you help starving children or do you work to help the elderly. Do you try to make a difference in Darfur or do you try to make a difference in the inner city Detroit.
The easiest of them is the third one. I asked a friend who is a singer "if you were on a deserted island and there was nobody else around, would you still sing every day even if there is no fame or fortune to be gained?". People who have born talents just can't help but use them and of course she said yes.
Most of us in life ever get a chance to do one of the above and the very lucky get to do two or even all three. Those of us without natural talents can only lament that and try to do the One and Two ...
Friday, October 03, 2008
Riding horses
Saw a group of people riding horses on the beach the other day and it reminded me to post a rant that I have repeated many times to many people.
All of these horse riders and "horse lovers" are convinced that horses like to be ridden.
Really?
The first horse that a human ever jumped onto immediately thought "Oh, goody, it's so fun to run around with 200 pounds of extra weight on my back". I don't think so. I think it was rather pissed off in fact and therefore the whole "breaking them in" thing from cowboy movies.
People who ride horses think that their love for the horse means that the horse enjoys to have them on their back. If you love horses, run next to them on the beach. The horse will definitely have a better time and you will be in better shape.
We love our children but we don't ride them to school. We don't put big leather things on their backs and pieces of metal in their mouths and kick them in the ribs to tell them what we want them to do.
Now this analogy could go too far - we love our parents but we don't ride them (at least not once we are no longer 3). We love our significant others but ... (hmm, I guess you see what I mean by taking an analogy (if this indeed is an analogy)too far))
All of these horse riders and "horse lovers" are convinced that horses like to be ridden.
Really?
The first horse that a human ever jumped onto immediately thought "Oh, goody, it's so fun to run around with 200 pounds of extra weight on my back". I don't think so. I think it was rather pissed off in fact and therefore the whole "breaking them in" thing from cowboy movies.
People who ride horses think that their love for the horse means that the horse enjoys to have them on their back. If you love horses, run next to them on the beach. The horse will definitely have a better time and you will be in better shape.
We love our children but we don't ride them to school. We don't put big leather things on their backs and pieces of metal in their mouths and kick them in the ribs to tell them what we want them to do.
Now this analogy could go too far - we love our parents but we don't ride them (at least not once we are no longer 3). We love our significant others but ... (hmm, I guess you see what I mean by taking an analogy (if this indeed is an analogy)too far))
Thursday, February 28, 2008
RIP William F. Buckley
A great one has died and given that we are talking about William F. Buckley the list of favorite quotes could run pages and pages but I decided to chose one:
"The attempted assassination of Sukarno last week had all the earmarks of a CIA operation. Everyone in the room was killed except Sukarno"
OK, one more:
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words."
"The attempted assassination of Sukarno last week had all the earmarks of a CIA operation. Everyone in the room was killed except Sukarno"
OK, one more:
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words."
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Canada - in six words or less
National Post ran a contest recently asking readers to submit their suggestions for a new tagline for Canada. Here are some of the better entries:
"If countries are clothes, we are cardigans."
"Like America, but with poutine."
"Life, liberty and pursuit of hockeyness."
"Canada: Birthplace of mediocrity" and the similar "Canada: Mediocre and reasonably proud of it."
"Canada - your mother would love us."
"If countries are clothes, we are cardigans."
"Like America, but with poutine."
"Life, liberty and pursuit of hockeyness."
"Canada: Birthplace of mediocrity" and the similar "Canada: Mediocre and reasonably proud of it."
"Canada - your mother would love us."
Friday, October 05, 2007
Ooops, I did it again ...
My Letter to the Editor was published in the National Post 10/5/07. Not sure how long the link will be live but here it is:
www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=9b2e536d-5d43-4dd0-8e39-25c48a85a3a9
So far I have about 4 out of 5 hit rate for letters submitted to the Vancouver Sun or National Post. They must have some slim pickins to deal with if I get that hit rate...
www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=9b2e536d-5d43-4dd0-8e39-25c48a85a3a9
So far I have about 4 out of 5 hit rate for letters submitted to the Vancouver Sun or National Post. They must have some slim pickins to deal with if I get that hit rate...
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Having a way with words
I have always been impressed by and envied folks who have a way with words. The most recent example is from an interview with Camille Paglia:
On Hilary Clinton - "stridently partisan" with a "pretend marriage". "No emotional intelligence, no real instinct for the stage ... a thoroughgoing Methodist, a grim social activist" with a "mafioso attitude".
On Al Gore - "a mournful character," who is "much too vulnerable to the women around him" and "lacks a masculine identity".
On Hilary Clinton - "stridently partisan" with a "pretend marriage". "No emotional intelligence, no real instinct for the stage ... a thoroughgoing Methodist, a grim social activist" with a "mafioso attitude".
On Al Gore - "a mournful character," who is "much too vulnerable to the women around him" and "lacks a masculine identity".
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Russian history "Do-Over"
There is apparently a new manual being distributed to Russia's history teachers that hopes to put a more positive spin on the nation's history and give a bit more upbeat and "feel good" view of Russia's past. It has the explicit support of President Putin and is part of the broader effort at defining the Russian national identity.
Some of the more interesting nuggets:
Stalin is apparently described as "the most successful Soviet leader ever" and the guide explains his purges and the system of camps for political prisoners as a function of his desire to make the Soviet Union strong.
Mr. Putin in a meeting with teachers apparently stated that killing at 700,000 of one's own fellow citizens at a time of peace and for political reasons is not as bad as the US use of the atomic bomb in World War II.
The manual says "The democtratic political culture that has formed in Russia over many centuries (emphasis added by MH) has become the main instrument of its rebirth and rise." Those pilars of democracy - the czars and the Politburo...
And one of the manual's co-authors had this final words of wisdom:
"Imagine in the U.S. you were told that all your history was awful and nightmarish. I'm sure you'd change the way history was taught too."
So if your history is a bit of a downer, just rewrite it...
Some of the more interesting nuggets:
Stalin is apparently described as "the most successful Soviet leader ever" and the guide explains his purges and the system of camps for political prisoners as a function of his desire to make the Soviet Union strong.
Mr. Putin in a meeting with teachers apparently stated that killing at 700,000 of one's own fellow citizens at a time of peace and for political reasons is not as bad as the US use of the atomic bomb in World War II.
The manual says "The democtratic political culture that has formed in Russia over many centuries (emphasis added by MH) has become the main instrument of its rebirth and rise." Those pilars of democracy - the czars and the Politburo...
And one of the manual's co-authors had this final words of wisdom:
"Imagine in the U.S. you were told that all your history was awful and nightmarish. I'm sure you'd change the way history was taught too."
So if your history is a bit of a downer, just rewrite it...
Saturday, July 07, 2007
It's neither poverty nor democracy, stupid
The recent terrorist attacks in the UK may have at least some positive effect if once and for all they serve to puncture the delusion that Islamic terrorists are a product of circumstances of poverty and lack of liberty.
The liberal crowd would like to think that people doing evil can be "explained" by the fact they were poor and desperate. These doctors were not poor or desperate by a long shot.
The conservative crowd like to think that if only democracy is spread through what today may be totalitarian autocratic states, the magic potion of democracy will convert potential terrorist into humanistic, benevolent citizens. The UK terrorists of last week had all the benefit of liberty of the UK and the spread of democracy to Palestine gave us a Hamas government. So it's not really working according to the script.
The problem really is religion in general and in particular a religion which allows for extremist notions of killing everyone who does not believe the same. If there is such a thing as moderate Islam, it is the only force that can displace extremist Islam by more strongly asserting itself. Absence of poverty or presence of democracy won't do it.
So at the end of the day, as with African aid or the "revolutions" of various shades (orange, velvet etc), it is up to the community to deal with its problems and its problem children, whether they are dictators or terrorists.
The liberal crowd would like to think that people doing evil can be "explained" by the fact they were poor and desperate. These doctors were not poor or desperate by a long shot.
The conservative crowd like to think that if only democracy is spread through what today may be totalitarian autocratic states, the magic potion of democracy will convert potential terrorist into humanistic, benevolent citizens. The UK terrorists of last week had all the benefit of liberty of the UK and the spread of democracy to Palestine gave us a Hamas government. So it's not really working according to the script.
The problem really is religion in general and in particular a religion which allows for extremist notions of killing everyone who does not believe the same. If there is such a thing as moderate Islam, it is the only force that can displace extremist Islam by more strongly asserting itself. Absence of poverty or presence of democracy won't do it.
So at the end of the day, as with African aid or the "revolutions" of various shades (orange, velvet etc), it is up to the community to deal with its problems and its problem children, whether they are dictators or terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
