This is a long post, so I've decided to post it in segments to make it more manageable. Anyway.
I'm doing something a little more nerdy than usual these days. I'm reading a textbook. For fun.
Even at the height of my nerdom - speedwalking to eighth grade history with a book in one hand, eight books in the other, and a red fleece zip-up sweater tied around my waist - I would never have read a textbook for fun. I was much too busy working my way through the nine-book Star Wars: X-Wing series. I read textbooks only when they were assigned. I had some standards.
Well, I haven't started reading the dictionary or going through wikipedia alphabetically yet, but I have to believe that somehow I've crossed a line. Just when I think I'm finally well-adjusted ...
Anyway, the point of this post is not to overly analyze my new manifestation of nerdiness. The textbook is an introductory economics textbook by Greg Mankiw, and I'm loving it. I'm learning about markets and trade and taxes, and I'm amazed at how incredibly basic math concepts lead to really interesting implications. The one problem is, the math is simple because of some pretty huge assumptions that undergird the 'science' of economics, and that finally brings me to my point.
In the course of my education, I have gradually become aware of some limitations on human knowledge that I hadn't thought about before. Basically, we don't actually know very much.
What I mean to say is, when we look at scientists, we assume that they really know for sure what they're telling us ... and that's just not true. Everything in science is a work in progress, and nothing is absolutely nailed down, and not all disciplines are equal.
There are some areas where I'm confident we have a good working approximation of the truth. Newton's expression of the laws of motion, for instance, was so reliable that we could use his ideas to strap three guys to an enormous piece of exploding metal, throw them 90,000 miles into space, put them on the moon and then bring them back - five or six times. The basic laws of heredity and genetics seem pretty solid, and a nuclear power plant is a testament to how useful our understanding of the periodic table can be.
But in all of these areas, the things we're really certain about are surprisingly limited. And that's what I'm going to talk about in part two, when I hope the title of this blog post will start making sense.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Something Fun Is Happening in America
So, there's this guy named Ron Paul who's running for President. This guy has no business running for President. Here are just a few reasons:
He's served a total of 24 years in the House of Representatives, and introduced 620 bills. Only one of them has become law.
He's never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget - which basically means he's hardly ever voted yes on anything.
He doesn't think we should start wars unless congress votes to go to war - which means he thinks every war since WWII started unconstitutionally.
He thinks we should treat drug users as patients, not criminals, and wants to end the war on drugs.
He thinks we shouldn't have federal departments unless they're mentioned in the constitution - so he wants to get rid of things like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce.
He thinks the Federal Reserve is responsible for devaluing the dollar and perpetuating bad banking practices, and he wants to return to a gold standard. On these two points, the vast majority of established economists think he's wrong.
He's old, thin, stoop-shouldered, and cranky. He also talks too fast.
So, what I'm trying to say is, this guy sounds like he's doing everything any rookie politician can tell you is a surefire way to lose, and lose badly. He doesn't listen to the lobbyists who help you get elected, he doesn't bring federal money to his district, and he's stayed fiercely committed to a set of unpopular ideas for literally decades.
But ... he's been elected to the House twelve times. He trailed the two leaders in Iowa by less than five points, and took a solid second place in New Hampshire. He got 13% of South Carolina's vote - 4 times more than in 2008.
And that's why I say something fun is happening. And the fun thing isn't that Ron Paul suddenly became a normal candidate - the fun thing is that there are suddenly people who want to elect Ron Paul. Whoa! There are people who like consistent ideas more than they like slick debate performances, people who like civil liberties while simultaneously loving the free market, people who will re-elect someone who doesn't give them money ... where did these people come from?
See, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Paul
- but I am sure that I wish there were more candidates like him, and I am sure that a vote for him is a vote not for a man but for an idea about what liberty is, and how we should defend it. And I think his supporters are there not for him, but for that idea. I wish that instead of having to pick between Newt and Mitt and Barack, I could instead pick between the consistent ideas supported by Newt or Mitt or President Obama, and know that they'd stick with those ideas while they were in office. Now, usually I'd brush off that desire as unrealistic. Politicians, I know, are usually pragmatists - action often requires compromise, and election seems to depend more on presentation than on content.
But then I remember Paul getting a fifth of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. And I think of all the people who made that happen, and who cheered with passion at his rally tonight even though he came in fourth - the people who are voting for an idea, not a politician.
And I think there might be something to this whole democracy idea after all. And that's a fun thought.
He's served a total of 24 years in the House of Representatives, and introduced 620 bills. Only one of them has become law.
He's never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget - which basically means he's hardly ever voted yes on anything.
He doesn't think we should start wars unless congress votes to go to war - which means he thinks every war since WWII started unconstitutionally.
He thinks we should treat drug users as patients, not criminals, and wants to end the war on drugs.
He thinks we shouldn't have federal departments unless they're mentioned in the constitution - so he wants to get rid of things like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce.
He thinks the Federal Reserve is responsible for devaluing the dollar and perpetuating bad banking practices, and he wants to return to a gold standard. On these two points, the vast majority of established economists think he's wrong.
He's old, thin, stoop-shouldered, and cranky. He also talks too fast.
So, what I'm trying to say is, this guy sounds like he's doing everything any rookie politician can tell you is a surefire way to lose, and lose badly. He doesn't listen to the lobbyists who help you get elected, he doesn't bring federal money to his district, and he's stayed fiercely committed to a set of unpopular ideas for literally decades.
But ... he's been elected to the House twelve times. He trailed the two leaders in Iowa by less than five points, and took a solid second place in New Hampshire. He got 13% of South Carolina's vote - 4 times more than in 2008.
And that's why I say something fun is happening. And the fun thing isn't that Ron Paul suddenly became a normal candidate - the fun thing is that there are suddenly people who want to elect Ron Paul. Whoa! There are people who like consistent ideas more than they like slick debate performances, people who like civil liberties while simultaneously loving the free market, people who will re-elect someone who doesn't give them money ... where did these people come from?
See, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Paul
- but I am sure that I wish there were more candidates like him, and I am sure that a vote for him is a vote not for a man but for an idea about what liberty is, and how we should defend it. And I think his supporters are there not for him, but for that idea. I wish that instead of having to pick between Newt and Mitt and Barack, I could instead pick between the consistent ideas supported by Newt or Mitt or President Obama, and know that they'd stick with those ideas while they were in office. Now, usually I'd brush off that desire as unrealistic. Politicians, I know, are usually pragmatists - action often requires compromise, and election seems to depend more on presentation than on content.
But then I remember Paul getting a fifth of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. And I think of all the people who made that happen, and who cheered with passion at his rally tonight even though he came in fourth - the people who are voting for an idea, not a politician.
And I think there might be something to this whole democracy idea after all. And that's a fun thought.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Negative Works
So I've been watching the GOP primary cycle with a lot more interest than usual this year, and one of the themes has been these amazing institutions known as "Super PACs", which can raise and spend money on campaigns without any limits except for a very loose requirement about not coordinating with the candidates they support. The fun thing about this recently has been the Super PACs running really nasty, inaccurate ads, the candidates suffering from the attacks and calling for them to stop, and then claiming inability to coordinate as an excuse for not interfering with anything really offensive. I have to think it's got to be an amazing time to be a candidate - your friends can say all the really terrible things you want to say anyway, and you get to wash your hands of the whole thing while still getting the votes.
I've also watched a few episodes of The Bachelor recently (other people turn it on, I happen to be around ... you know). Like a Super PAC ad, The Bachelor is mainly notable for how it plays on the worst side of human nature - desperate women, arrogant men, petty fights, shallow relationships, and an obsession with superficial beauty and relationships. Now, the only times in my life that I had working access to TV were during parts of my childhood and adolescence in Utah, which is a state that doesn't see political ads because we're all going to vote for the Republican anyway. But I imagine the power of these Super PAC ads is similar to The Bachelor in at least one way - it's really hard to stop watching. It's fascinating. Disturbing, yes. Degrading, yes. But absolutely fascinating. It's like talking to someone who has a huge booger visible just inside their nostril - extremely awkward, but also impossible to break away from. You just have to watch.
I don't know why it's so easy to watch this kind of stuff. I just know that it is. I think maybe we just love to hate it. And I think, even if we say we despise it, it affects us. And it will probably change the way people vote.
The reason I'm writing about this is because Gov. Huntsman asked for a return to civility in political discourse when he dropped out of the race. And that sounded like a really nice thing to me. I would like my debates to be about issues, my ads to be based in fact, and my election experience to be about ideas instead of people. But, after thinking about it, and reflecting on my experience with programming like The Bachelor, I don't believe this kind of political campaign is going away anytime soon. Especially in its current form, where candidates get to smear their opponents and then blame it on their crazy Super PACs - it's the best of both worlds for them, and they'd be crazy - or abnormally decent - to back away from it now.
So, what are we supposed to do? These ads will air, these ads will change the campaign, these ads will bring people into and out of office. Can we do anything about it? Maybe, maybe not. I guess my point is that the solution isn't to simply condemn this kind of politics for being sordid, petty, and vulgar ... because that is actually their strength.
So, negative works. It's not going anywhere. And I think it will probably end up changing election results for the worse. Not a very uplifting observation, but I think it's accurate enough.
I don't know how to fix negative ads. I feel like they'll do our elections harm. I guess the only thought I have on the matter is that the answer probably isn't in attacking the ads - I think they thrive on being despised. If the ads harm democracy, maybe the solution is to balance them out with something that helps democracy. If we can't get rid of them, maybe we can compensate for them by doing a little more good.
Maybe we can beat them if we take the time to think about what we believe, have respectful conversations with people we disagree with, make our decisions, and vote.
I've also watched a few episodes of The Bachelor recently (other people turn it on, I happen to be around ... you know). Like a Super PAC ad, The Bachelor is mainly notable for how it plays on the worst side of human nature - desperate women, arrogant men, petty fights, shallow relationships, and an obsession with superficial beauty and relationships. Now, the only times in my life that I had working access to TV were during parts of my childhood and adolescence in Utah, which is a state that doesn't see political ads because we're all going to vote for the Republican anyway. But I imagine the power of these Super PAC ads is similar to The Bachelor in at least one way - it's really hard to stop watching. It's fascinating. Disturbing, yes. Degrading, yes. But absolutely fascinating. It's like talking to someone who has a huge booger visible just inside their nostril - extremely awkward, but also impossible to break away from. You just have to watch.
I don't know why it's so easy to watch this kind of stuff. I just know that it is. I think maybe we just love to hate it. And I think, even if we say we despise it, it affects us. And it will probably change the way people vote.
The reason I'm writing about this is because Gov. Huntsman asked for a return to civility in political discourse when he dropped out of the race. And that sounded like a really nice thing to me. I would like my debates to be about issues, my ads to be based in fact, and my election experience to be about ideas instead of people. But, after thinking about it, and reflecting on my experience with programming like The Bachelor, I don't believe this kind of political campaign is going away anytime soon. Especially in its current form, where candidates get to smear their opponents and then blame it on their crazy Super PACs - it's the best of both worlds for them, and they'd be crazy - or abnormally decent - to back away from it now.
So, what are we supposed to do? These ads will air, these ads will change the campaign, these ads will bring people into and out of office. Can we do anything about it? Maybe, maybe not. I guess my point is that the solution isn't to simply condemn this kind of politics for being sordid, petty, and vulgar ... because that is actually their strength.
So, negative works. It's not going anywhere. And I think it will probably end up changing election results for the worse. Not a very uplifting observation, but I think it's accurate enough.
I don't know how to fix negative ads. I feel like they'll do our elections harm. I guess the only thought I have on the matter is that the answer probably isn't in attacking the ads - I think they thrive on being despised. If the ads harm democracy, maybe the solution is to balance them out with something that helps democracy. If we can't get rid of them, maybe we can compensate for them by doing a little more good.
Maybe we can beat them if we take the time to think about what we believe, have respectful conversations with people we disagree with, make our decisions, and vote.
Believing Christ
I live a very comfortable life. I attend an awesome institution of higher learning, I have a roof over my head and plenty to eat, and most importantly I have a wife and son who love me and make life meaningful. In all of these things, I see the hand of God. He's behind all the blessings in my life, and I can't claim what I have as my own. Of course, there are some hard things in my life, too. And God is in those things. His hand is in all parts of my life, and sometimes I don't understand what's going on. But I trust him, and I know he has my salvation as his primary goal. One thing I do know is that, if I let Him, God always pushes me into situations that teach me about my dependence on Christ, and that allow him to change me. Both my successes and my failures are sharp reminders of how I depend on Him - my failures because I see how weak I am, and my successes because it's so clear that they only come about because of blessings God gives me. Even the motivation to do good things - the desire to do right - is fueled by Him. I can trace back my good attributes - all of my good attributes - to the influence of God, usually through the Holy Ghost. So I'm happy about what I've done, especially because I know who enabled me to do it.
Christ lives, and loves me.
Christ lives, and loves me.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Parenthood
Parenthood is being able to pick someone up when you think they're going the wrong way.
Parenthood is letting someone cry because you can't change the fact that life is tough.
Parenthood is knowing that the person you love today will be someone slightly different tomorrow.
Parenthood is being proud of things you have absolutely no control over.
Parenthood is going to bed at 7:30 and still not wanting to wake up the next morning.
Parenthood is having to know exactly where a specific little person is at all times.
Parenthood is deciding to love someone who you haven't met yet.
Parenthood is finding out how you act when you genuinely want to love someone.
Parenthood is being best friends with someone who can't speak a word of English.
Parenthood is a weird mix of doing your best and just trying to get by.
Parenthood is not the typical occupation of your average Stanford Mechanical Engineering student.
Parenthood is awesome.
Parenthood is letting someone cry because you can't change the fact that life is tough.
Parenthood is knowing that the person you love today will be someone slightly different tomorrow.
Parenthood is being proud of things you have absolutely no control over.
Parenthood is going to bed at 7:30 and still not wanting to wake up the next morning.
Parenthood is having to know exactly where a specific little person is at all times.
Parenthood is deciding to love someone who you haven't met yet.
Parenthood is finding out how you act when you genuinely want to love someone.
Parenthood is being best friends with someone who can't speak a word of English.
Parenthood is a weird mix of doing your best and just trying to get by.
Parenthood is not the typical occupation of your average Stanford Mechanical Engineering student.
Parenthood is awesome.
Economics
I think about money a lot. This has something to do with the fact that I'm poor. It also has something to do with the fact that I graduated from Harvard and am on track to graduate from Stanford and I would be a statistical anomaly if I didn't end up at least kind of rich. I think that's weird. Here I am, just about as poor as the day I was born, and yet there's a lot of indicators saying I'll make good money when I get done getting my doctorate. What will it be like to have discretionary income? What will I do when I can afford something ridiculous, like, say, having McDonald's hashbrowns every single morning? What if I could have juice at every meal? What if I could afford to fly to Utah for a weekend? What if I could afford to build a home? A real home, maybe with a little study just for me - something with a comfortable chair, a nice set of bookshelves, and a bay window? Does that kind of thing happen in real life? Could it happen to me?
And then there's this weird feeling I get from mingling with rich people all the time. Well, at least, rich people's kids. There's something different about rich kids at nice schools like Harvard and Stanford that makes me feel a little out of place ... I think it's the way they know that they're going to be rich their whole lives. Yes, the economy might go up and down, and yes, they might not get perfect grades ... but they don't ever seem insecure about the money they spend or the plans they make. It's like they've already made it, like all the applications and job interviews and internships are just formalities to wade through before the money starts rolling in. It makes sense, I guess. Since I was raised poor, I don't have a good idea of what it means to be rich ... and they must feel the same way about being poor.
Anyway, this stuff makes me think about money. Not my money, necessarily - that still seems far away. But money in general. What makes people rich, what makes people poor. Why people stay rich, why people stay poor, why some people go from poor to rich, and how many people come back down from rich to poor.
So I'm going to talk about economics on this blog sometimes. And that's why.
And then there's this weird feeling I get from mingling with rich people all the time. Well, at least, rich people's kids. There's something different about rich kids at nice schools like Harvard and Stanford that makes me feel a little out of place ... I think it's the way they know that they're going to be rich their whole lives. Yes, the economy might go up and down, and yes, they might not get perfect grades ... but they don't ever seem insecure about the money they spend or the plans they make. It's like they've already made it, like all the applications and job interviews and internships are just formalities to wade through before the money starts rolling in. It makes sense, I guess. Since I was raised poor, I don't have a good idea of what it means to be rich ... and they must feel the same way about being poor.
Anyway, this stuff makes me think about money. Not my money, necessarily - that still seems far away. But money in general. What makes people rich, what makes people poor. Why people stay rich, why people stay poor, why some people go from poor to rich, and how many people come back down from rich to poor.
So I'm going to talk about economics on this blog sometimes. And that's why.
Starting A Blog
So, last night I was lying in bed thinking ... which I do often. Last night the subject material ranged from how intensely weird my dreams can be to why I like Ron Paul's style to the fact that I really should be scheduling more official date nights with my wife. And I realized that it would be nice to have somewhere other than my head to put all that thinking. It would be nice to have it out where people could read it. First of all, having it written down neatly in black and white - or, in the current color scheme, grey and light green - might be a way of keeping the clutter down in my head. Second, someone might enjoy reading it. That someone might be me, because I have a tendency to forget what I wrote and really enjoy stumbling across it later. So ... here I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)