June 2006 Archives

Here's an interesting article about the keys to happiness and why it has little to do with wealth. I particularly like Abraham Lincoln's take: "Most people are as happy as they make up their minds to be." The article dances around the issue of faith and service to God, but as a Christian I'm of course convinced that those are integral components as well.

Sonja Lyubomirsky of the University of California at Riverside has discovered that the road toward a more satisfying and meaningful life involves a recipe repeated in schools, churches and synagogues. Make lists of things for which you're grateful in your life, practice random acts of kindness, forgive your enemies, notice life's small pleasures, take care of your health, practice positive thinking, and invest time and energy into friendships and family.

The happiest people have strong friendships, says Ed Diener, a psychologist University of Illinois. Interestingly his research finds that most people are slightly to moderately happy, not unhappy.

And that's one of the reasons I'm nervous about moving to St. Louis... I don't always make friends easily, but I know that my happiness depends on it.

Lethargy holds many people back from doing the things that lead to happiness.

Easterbrook, also a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institute, goes back to Freud, who theorized that unhappiness is a default condition because it takes less effort to be unhappy than to be happy.

"If you are looking for something to complain about, you are absolutely certain to find it," Easterbrook told LiveScience. "It requires some effort to achieve a happy outlook on life, and most people don't make it. Most people take the path of least resistance. Far too many people today don't make the steps to make their life more fulfilling one."

As for Abe Lincoln, I agree, which is why I have little patience for people who are always complaining about unhappiness. Sure, bad stuff happens to everyone, but you can't let your happiness depend on your circumstances. Even though I'm a cynic, I'm a resigned cynic, which means I don't expect much from the world and I'm rarely disappointed. I think some of the most unhappy people I know are idealists who are constantly frustrated that reality will never be what they think it should.

Everyone on the net is already discussing the situation in more depth than I've got time to do, but I may as well toss in my $0.02 and point out that winning the Palestinian elections may have been one of Hamas' worst moves ever. Now Israel is holding the Palestinian government directly responsible for everything the terror groups do; it doesn't look like the old good-cop/bad-cop routine is going to work anymore, in which the Palestinian government would act like they couldn't really control the terrorists.

Reading Barack Obama's speech about the connection between faith and politics has left me both impressed with the man and a little frightened. I am diametrically opposed to just about all his political positions, and yet his speech was was very well-argued and probably quite persuasive to those less convinced than I. Insofar as he calls for the use of "fair-minded words" in the political dialogue I am wholeheartedly in agreement, and it's too bad that his experiences haven't led him to embrace more of my political positions. Still, the guy is smart and very appealing, and will probably become a very formidable presidential candidate. After reading this transcript I think it's likely that he could someday win that office, and I'm afraid his policy preferences will cause no end of trouble. Despite his obvious intelligence and compassion, tax-and-spend never works and abortion really should be outlawed.

I may have to take back everything denigrating I've ever said about Canada, because it looks like some Canadian scientists have created a device to regrow new teeth -- an amazing invention that, if it works, may improve quality of life for millions of people.

The researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton filed patents earlier this month in the United States for the tool based on low-intensity pulsed ultrasound technology after testing it on a dozen dental patients in Canada.

"Right now, we plan to use it to fix fractured or diseased teeth, as well as asymmetric jawbones, but it may also help hockey players or children who had their tooth knocked out," Jie Chen, an engineering professor and nano-circuit design expert, told AFP.

Chen helped create the tiny ultrasound machine that gently massages gums and stimulates tooth growth from the root once inserted into a person's mouth, mounted on braces or a removable plastic crown.

The wireless device, smaller than a pea, must be activated for 20 minutes each day for four months to stimulate growth, he said.

It can also stimulate jawbone growth to fix a person's crooked smile and may eventually allow people to grow taller by stimulating bone growth, Chen said.

I've got a slightly chipped tooth that occasionally frets me when I've got nothing better to worry about, and the prospect of eventually being able to regrow a whole new tooth encourages me greatly.

I've never understood the distress of the American and international Left over the detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, but I expect the recent Supreme Court ruling denying the legitimacy of the military tribunals President Bush established to try the prisoners will lead to further angst from those with bleeding hearts (only figuratively bleeding, thanks in part to Guantanamo Bay).

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti- terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

Even though there doesn't appear to be agreement over whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply to terrorists who don't abide by the convetions themselves. (And this issue isn't really up to the Supreme Court to decide.) Anyway, the key point of this ruling is naturally buried in the last two paragraphs.

In his own opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check.'"

"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

So there's a pretty simple solution available. There's no way we're going to reduce the number of prisoners at Guantanamo if we can't definitively win the War on Terror (how?) or have trials. Hopefully Congress will step into this gap and resolve the issue. If not, hopefully some Senator or Representative will offer up his district as an alternative prison site that's more agreeable to the Left.

Yep, yet another Life Story post. Take it or leave it!

Anyway, I'm really scared about moving here! The state is beautiful and everyone is really nice, but... wow, it's a huge change for me. I wasn't at all scared of getting married, but this move is really intimidating. I'm not good with big changes. I'm very adaptable when it comes to small things, as long as I've got a secure foundation. However, even moving across Los Angeles used to scare me, and now I'm moving across the country! Still, I know that my real foundation isn't where I live, it's God, so I'm trusting him and trying to use what wisdom he's given me.

Has anyone else moved across the country? Were you scared? Did it work out? Any regrets? I'd especially like to hear from anyone who left Los Angeles for a fly-over state.

Well, it looks like we've decided to go with a Type 2 house, as I indicated in the comments to the previous post. The grounds are absolutely amazing, and the commute is about 20 minutes door-to-door. That's a little longer than I'm used to in the mornings, but about how long it took me to get home in the evenings from my job in Los Angeles.

Concerns: The house is in a very nice neighborhood, but most of the neighbors appear to be older folks. I like old people just fine, but it doesn't seem likely that we're going to meet many people our own age that will live close by. Of course, I don't know many people our age who live near our house in Los Angeles either, so maybe that won't be a problem. I'm used to braving the streets of LA to see my friends, so it shouldn't be any more difficult to drive a little here in Missouri. I'm hoping that the drive (maybe about 5 miles farther out than other, less nice areas) won't deter whatever new friends we make from visiting. DeoDuce knows people here, but they're down in Chesterfield, which looks to be about 20 miles away. Still, there have to be cool people closer by....

Also, there are a million churches here, but we have no idea yet where we'll join. We aren't centrally located in the metro area, so it could be that we end up going to church somewhat far away. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. Pray for that, though, because we really need to find the place God wants us. We haven't had the mental energy to spend on this problem yet, but once we're here we're going to start looking around. If anyone knows any good Baptist churches in STL, let me know! We're not necessarily restricted to Baptist churches, but those are probably the most likely ones that will match our beliefs ( / the truth).

Does anyone have any experience flying dogs across the country? We've pretty much decided we're going to drive because we're scared that our dog will get killed or hurt himself, but does anyone know much about it?

Ok, so I'm soliciting opinions on buying real estate in locations other than Los Angeles.

As DeoDuce and I have been exploring St. Charles, MO, we've noticed something strange, there are two kinds of houses available:

1. New construction (5 years or newer), expensive, large houses, small lots, tightly packed subdivisions, far from the city (where I'll work).

2. Older homes (around 20 years), slightly smaller (and less modern floor plans), larger lots (acre-ish), less subdivisiony, much closer to the city).

The Type 1 houses appear to be what everyone here is buying, and they're going for ~$100k more than the Type 2 homes. However, my instinct tells me that in the long run it will be more valuable to own larger plots of land closer to the city. People hate commuting -- as I do -- and like open spaces. The Type 1 houses won't be brand new in a few years; then they'll just be older houses, far from the city, on tiny lots.

So, right now we're thinking that we want to buy a Type 2 house that's close to my work and has a lot of land. Even if it needs renovation (not that 20 years old is that bad for a house) we'll have $100k to play with before we get close to the price of the Type 1 houses. Also, I've read that you pay a premium to buy a new house and that they can depreciate over the first few years, just like a new car.

So, what are your thoughts? Am I foolish to think that land and location will pay off in the long run in a place like Missouri? I find it hard to believe that Type 1 houses will continue to be more valuable than Type 2 houses once they aren't new anymore... and for $100k difference in price we could fix up a Type 2 house pretty nice.

I've always been interested in legal professions, but maybe law school isn't all it's cracked up to be.

It's time those of us inside the profession did a better job of telling others outside the profession that most of us don't earn $160,000 a year, that we can't afford expensive suits, flashy cars, sexy apartments. We don't lunch with rock stars or produce movies. Every year I'm surprised by the number of my students who think a J.D. degree is a ticket to fame, fortune and the envy of one's peers--a sure ticket to the upper middle class. Even for the select few for whom it is, not many last long enough at their law firms to really enjoy it.

There's something wrong with a system that makes a whole lot of people pay a whole lot of money for jobs that are not worth it, or that have no future. If we wanted to be honest, we would inform students that law school doesn't keep their options open. Instead, we should say that if they work hard and do well, they can become lawyers.

I think business school will be my next stop.

Ok, here's a pop quiz. In the following story, who can spot a problem with the concept of "generosity"?

Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?

"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.

As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.

As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts).

Someone explain to me how it's "generous" to give tax money away? Last time I checked, "generosity" is when you give your own money away, not someone elses'.

(HT: James Taranto

I'm encouraged to see that President Bush has issued an Executive Order to prevent the federal government from using the eminent domain power to take private property from one party and give it to another.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

It goes on into details, and they look pretty good to my naive understanding.

(HT: The Pirate.)

It's my last day of work at my current job, and the middle day of the continuing prep to sell our house and move to St. Louis. Yay!

I rather enjoy looking at things that please me aesthetically (tautologically), but I've got little interest in the pretensions of "modern art" and the society that prescribes it. The story of David Hensel and "Exhibit 1201" is illustrative.

In this year's summer show at London's Royal Academy of Arts, "Exhibit 1201" is a large rectangular tablet of slate with a tiny barbell-shaped bit of boxwood on top. Its creator, David Hensel, must be pleased to have been selected from among some 9,000 applicants for the world's largest open-submission exhibit of contemporary art. Nevertheless, he was bemused to discover that in transit his sculpture had gotten separated from its base. Judging the two components as different submissions, the Royal Academy had rejected his artwork proper--a finely wrought laughing head in jesmonite--and selected the plinth. "It says something about the state of visual arts today," said Mr. Hensel. He didn't say what. He didn't need to.

Moreover, the Royal Academy denies having made an error, for the plinth and hastily carved wooden support were, according to an official statement, "thought to have merit."

It doesn't say much for the art world that its experts can't distinguish between art and utilitarian infrastructure. The cases of Banksy does New York and Banksy does Europe are also instructive.

The brutal slayings of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker make me sick. This is why we have to win. I guess some people read about these deaths and think the best idea is to pull all our soldiers out so no more get killed, but our troops have volunteered to risk their lives for our sake and I commend and thank them for it. By fighting and dying over there, they're saving countless of our lives over here. It's heroic and noble, and yes, tragic, but their the cause is good.

"We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said the claim, which appeared on an Islamic militant Web site where insurgent groups regularly post statements and videos.

"With God Almighty's blessing, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer carried out the verdict of the Islamic court" calling for the soldiers' slaying, the statement said.

The statement said the soldiers were "slaughtered," suggesting that al-Muhajer beheaded them. The Arabic word used in the statement, "nahr," is used for the slaughtering of sheep by cutting the throat and has been used in past statements to refer to beheadings.

Right back at'cha, just be patient.

We had some technical troubles there for the past few days, but my awesome server admin, Rodney, figured out the problem and now we're back in business. Apparently the site was under some serious hack attack by the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the Let's Cede California to Mexico Committee (a.k.a., the California Legislature), but we've managed to prevail and are back online.

Interesting bits I'd been wanting to post about but couldn't:

• Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori dismisses parts of the Bible she doesn't like using facile, intellectually dishonest arguments with no basis in history or theology.
• Even more crazy, Matt Labash recounts his visit to Oz with the munchkins of the Daily Kos.
• Crazier still, The Secrets of Scientology.
• In awesome news, Hong Kong scientists discover that leukaemia is caused by a virus, which may allow for some new treatments for all sorts of cancers.
• Fred Barnes explains why it's too bad Jeb Bush won't run for president.

Update:
Looks like the site is still intermittent, so bear with us.

It frustrates me when people conflate business and personal matters. Myself, I tend to view almost everything as business and rarely take anything personally. One of us didn't get what we wanted this time -- maybe it was me, maybe it was you -- but that's ok. It's very likely that we'll do business together again in the future, so let's not make a big deal out of this interaction. I tend to find it unproductive to get angry about many things. I try to make it worthwhile to interact with me, but if people don't want to then that's fine, someone else will. Likewise, if I don't want to interact with someone in a given circumstance, no hard feelings, maybe next time. Maybe I take this too far sometimes by treating what should be personal matters with a "just business" attitude.

The flip side is when people treat business situations as if they're personal, and it's why there are all sorts of maxims advising against doing business with your friends and family. "Don't mix business with pleasure." "Don't sh** where you eat." Many people take business far too personally, and if an arrangement doesn't work out for business reasons they take it as a personal insult. You don't want me, your own cousin, to paint your house?! But I'm a painter! You must hate me!

Some people have claimed that everything is business, and others have claimed that everything is personal. That leads me to think that everything is both, mixing in an amorphous manner that's impossible to quantify. Since I don't like unquantifiable messes, I like to treat everything like business, which is probably why I come across as insensitive. Maybe there's some middle ground.

Wow, those stingy Americans are at it again, giving hundreds of billions of dollars to charitable organizations all around the world.

The urgent needs created by three major natural disasters - the tsunami in Asia, earthquake in Pakistan and hurricanes Rita, Katrina and Wilma - drove American philanthropy to its highest level since the end of the technology boom, a new study showed.

The report released Monday by the Giving USA foundation estimates that in 2005 Americans gave $260.28 billion, a rise of 6.1 percent, which approaches the inflation-adjusted high of $260.53 billion that was reached in 2000.

About half of the overall increase of $15 billion went directly to aid victims of the disasters. The rest of the increase, meanwhile, may still be traced to the disasters since they may have raised public awareness of other charities.

"When there is a very significant need, when people are clearly aware of that need, they will respond," the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly, said. "Were it not for the disasters, what we would have expected is more of a flat number. With the staggering need generated by the disasters, it's very in keeping with what has happened in the past - the American public stepped forward and provided additional support."

And that's just private charity, it doesn't count the billions we've spent freeing millions of Afghanis and Iraqis, protecting millions of South Koreans and Europeans, and so forth.

I figured that leaving Los Angeles for St. Louis would trade earthquakes for tornados, but now reader JV informs me that St. Louis is on the New Madrid fault line.

Most people think that destructive earthquakes only occur in the western United States. To the contrary, St. Louis is located in the most active seismic zone east of the Rocky Mountains. In the winter of 1811-1812 the Central Mississippi Valley was struck by three of the most powerful earthquakes in U.S. history. The Great New Madrid Earthquake was actually a series of over 2000 shocks in five months, five of which were 8.0 or more in magnitude. Eighteen of these rang church bells on the Eastern seaboard. The very land itself was destroyed in the Missouri Bootheel, making it unfit for farming for many years. It was the largest burst of seismic energy east of the Rocky Mountains in the history of the U.S. and was several times larger than the San Francisco quake of 1905.

Emergency planners, engineers and seismologists believe that an upheaval equal to the Great New Madrid Earthquake of 1811-1812 only occurs every 500-600 years. Their greatest concerns are the 6.0-7.6 events, which do have significant probabilities in the near future. A 6.0 shock has a 90% chance by the year 2040. Damaging earthquakes of this magnitude are a virtual certainty within the lifetimes of our children.

Well that's nice! Gotta avoid brick houses.

Posting news items about Natalie Maines' idiocy is literally beating a horse, but since she isn't quite dead news yet, what the heck? It's a slow day.

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country... I don't see why people care about patriotism."

And hm, why do you suppose Maines can "like [her] life" so much? Why can she live like a queen and prance around on a stage and have money thrown at her for singing songs other people wrote? Because she lives in America, that's why, and apparently she's a social free rider.

Free-riding is an economic term that's used when one takes more than their fair share of a resource and/or doesn't contribute fairly to its production. For instance, tax evaders enjoy the benefits of a stable government without paying for them. Similarly, Natalie Maines and her ilk enjoy the benefits of living in a free and prosperous country without even noticing the sacrifices made by others that were and are necessary to maintain our country. People like Paul Varner gave their lives to protect Natalie Maines' ignorance, so that she doesn't have to lay awake at night wondering when the front line is going to reach her and the people she cares about.

Natalie Maines doesn't have to struggle to put food on the table despite the fact that her only ability is singing, which is essentially worthless. Shakespeare himself was a pauper, and I doubt she's got anywhere near his talent. Historically, singers, bards, and other performers were barely better than homeless drifters... and why does she live in a mansion? Because better people than her have loved our country and our people enough to die for them.

Natalie Maines is worthless scum, and just about everyone knows it but her. She isn't "brave" for standing up to... what? Criticism? She isn't profound or insightful or even a particularly interesting performer. She's nothing, and the world won't long remember her. Her net impact on society will be zero. If someone Googles "Natalie Maines" a hundred years from now all they'll find is this post and others like it decrying her cowardice, ignorance, and self-absorption. So, I hope she does enjoy her life, because that fleeting pleasure is all the substance she'll ever have.

(HT: DeoDuce.)

I'm amazed to read that police in the UK have been instructed to let serious criminals off with a "caution".

Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution. ...

Some serious offences - including burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine - may now be dealt with by caution if police decide that would be the best approach.

And a string of crimes including common assault, threatening behaviour, sex with an underage girl or boy, and taking a car without its owner's consent, should normally be dealt with by a caution, the circular said.

Eh, it's too much trouble to prosecute someone for "taking a car with its owner's consent" -- stealing a car -- so let's just caution them not to do it again. It sounds like the UK has a problem with overflowing prisons, but since when is the solution not to build more prisons?

The crisis of overcrowding in UK prisons has also prompted moves to let many more convicts out earlier.

It emerged last month that some violent or sex offenders, given mandatory life sentences under a "two-strike" rule, have been freed after as little as 15 months.

It's sad that the Labour government doesn't have what it takes to protect the British citizens from thugs and criminals.

(HT: David Hardy and Clayton Cramer.)

If we're doomed to a Senate filled with senior citizens, let's at least get some new old folks in there, like Willie Brown from my new home of St. Louis?

Willie Brown said he thought he was back in a foxhole in Korea on Thursday morning when a burglar stood at the door to Brown's bedroom.

"He said, 'I got a knife, don't move,'" Brown recalled.

"I reached behind my back and whipped my gun from under my pillow and said, 'Take this .38,' and I blasted him."

The man, wounded, uttered "Whoops," Brown said, and fled down the stairs. Brown pursued, and fired a second shot, striking the intruder as he jumped through a broken window.

That's the kind of old guy we need in the Senate.

Update:
(HT: My wife, DeoDuce, told me about the old guy in St. Louis! I didn't mention it before because I feel that we're so at one with each other that it wasn't necessary.)

I added links to the bottom of each post that allow you to recommend a post to digg. So, try it out.

"philipsu" offers an insider's perspective on Microsoft's corporate culture and why WinVista keeps getting delayed. That link is to a mirror since the original post was removed. My desire is not to knock Microsoft, whose software I generally like, but to point out that process is important, and that writing software is hard and the difficulty increases exponentially with the lines of code.

The real problem isn't Microsoft's culture! The modern programming paradigm inevitably leads to Gordian software. Solving this single problem, hidden in plain view from most computer scientists, could eventually be one of the greatest contributions from artificial intelligence to humanity.