Category Archives: Uncategorized

Saw a Blackhawk (complete with a fly-by), stunt plane, Citation, couple of Cessnas, Bombadier, and a 1983 Ferrari.  Not a bad afternoon.

A colleague is reading Keith Richards’ autobiography on Kindle.  Said the most frequent highlights center around how Keith and Mick developed lyrics, but not a single hightlight on how they developed their muscial prowess by playing for 8+ hours/day, every day, for a long time. The 10,000 hour rule is a real thing.

Therein lies the problem, and why the creative class is a lie. For all of the trophies and mass inclusion, we get Facebook, Zynga, Groupon, and Color.  Nice people as long as you agree with them, meanwhile ignoring hard problems. 

Funny how the laws of competition and capitalism work objectively.  When the “you tried hard” accolades dissolve away, the market rewards economic contributions.  The “Creative Class” isn’t. 

Two-time champs after going 3-0 in today’s round robin. Persevered through injuries and the heat to escape with the title. Thanks to Eric R. for getting me involved with Special Olympics. Today was a blast.

Peter Theil is a big thinker. He covers everything from the Green Revolution to the Arab Spring to beating cancer in his National Review article – “The End of the Future.” (Thank you to Paul Kedrosky for sharing on Twitter.)

Couple of my favorite passages:

One cannot in good conscience encourage an undergraduate in 2011 to study nuclear engineering as a career. “Clean tech” has become a euphemism for “energy too expensive to afford,” and in Silicon Valley it has also become an increasingly toxic term for near-certain ways to lose money. 

This one was painful to read because of my ardent faith in free markets, though I acknowledge that obvious fallacies breed within the system:

The most common name for a misplaced emphasis on macroeconomic policy is “Keynesianism.” Despite his brilliance, John Maynard Keynes was always a bit of a fraud, and there is always a bit of clever trickery in massive fiscal stimulus and the related printing of paper money. But we must acknowledge that this fraud strangely seemed to work for many decades.

On our political system and the inmates running the asylum:

Most of our political leaders are not engineers or scientists and do not listen to engineers or scientists. Today a letter from Einstein would get lost in the White House mail room, and the Manhattan Project would not even get started; it certainly could never be completed in three years. I am not aware of a single political leader in the U.S., either Democrat or Republican, who would cut health-care spending in order to free up money for biotechnology research — or, more generally, who would make serious cuts to the welfare state in order to free up serious money for major engineering projects. 

—-

Theil’s piece follows a number of dysphoric perspectives skirting my computer screen lately:

Is America Giving Up on the Future? (Umair Haque on HBR).  The best line of this article:

Call me crazy, but I’d bet: you probably can’t Farmville your way into the future. Prosperity isn’t a video game. Reality matters.

Innovation Starvation (Neal Stephenson, World Policy Institute):

Still, I worry that our inability to match the achievements of the 1960s space program might be symptomatic of a general failure of our society to get big things done. My parents and grandparents witnessed the creation of the airplane, the automobile, nuclear energy, and the computer to name only a few. Scientists and engineers who came of age during the first half of the 20th century could look forward to building things that would solve age-old problems, transform the landscape, build the economy, and provide jobs for the burgeoning middle class that was the basis for our stable democracy.

World on Wi-Fire (Niall Ferguson in Newsweek)

In view of the extraordinary economic and political instability of recent months, it’s worth asking if the Netlords are the Four Horsemen of a new kind of information apocalypse.

Smart people think we’re on the downslope.  Could they be right, or time to go long on society?

Going from Vonnegut to Asimov was a leap of faith, and too far for me to jump.  As the chapters sputtered along, I reached deathly point of gaining more utility by finishing than from reading, fulfilling my mission finally on Saturday night and sleeping well knowing I’d no longer subject myself to it.

From reviews I’ve read, Asimov’s Foundation series established the modern-day science fiction writing genre in many ways. I get it.  It’s just not my cup of tea. Because of the 20, 50, and 70 year forward jumps, little time remains for the character development and minituae that I enjoy.  And that’s the point with Asimov – the story matters more than the characters – and that’s where the great chasm exists for me. 

I’m onto Catch-22 now.  Yossarian lives. (I planned on Catcher in the Rye, but it’s not available on Kindle.)

Finished reading Cat’s Cradle last week.  Yes, I definitely like Vonnegut.  My takeaways:

• Vonnegut is a fatalist.  Two for two in the books I’ve read (Slaugherhouse Five was the other).
• About 2/3 through the book, I was completely baffled as to where the story was going.  Kind of felt like an episode of “Family Guy.” 
• His character development is incredible – he does little to share the characters’ thoughts and feelings, but somehow through vague and trailing dialogue, you find yourself knowing exactly what you need to know about each. 

Now I’m on to Asimov’s Foundation.  Definitely on the full-scale science fiction path – more so than I would thought I would enjoy.  The writing isn’t difficult or heavy, but the story’s time-based transitions and constantly introduced new characters make it tough reading.  I’m good for 3-4 chapters at a time, then I have to stop.  Or maybe I just lack the necessary intelligence to get through more in one sitting.  I’m willing to accept either.  I’m sort of enjoying it – mostly because I’m actually trying a hard core sci-fi book and it’ll all be over in about a week.  Already thinking ahead to Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye next.

I’ve been taking James Altucher’s advice to read and write daily.  Mornings are best for me. I’ve always enjoyed these activities but told myself that my most productive time should be spent working on work, not superfluous personal activities. But the more I partake in my self-designated reading and writing, the better my days seems to flow.  Maybe it’s placebo, but does it matter either way?

I introduced myself to Kurt Vonnegut, starting with Slaughterhouse Five and now onto Cat’s Cradle. My previous introduction was one-sided and included Rodney Dangerfield as our intermediary.

What I like about Vonnegut:

• Stream of conciousness reading. 
• How he weaves the commonplace world into the stories – a character referenced The Brothers Karamov in Slaughterhouse Five and Dr. Breed’s assistant simply replies in a conversation – “A penny saved is a penny earned.” (from Cat’s Cradle).
• Writing in short bites.  I think of it as antithetical to Ayn Rand.

Having failed to read fiction more frequently throughout my life, the flavor of the day influences my own writing.  When I read Orhan Panchuk, my writing thoughts turned introspectively and psychological.  Now that I’m reading Vonnegut, I’m back to a shorter, matter-of-fact approach (though others may differ).

So that’s it. Also, I went for a morning run for the first time in a while, inspired by my resistent-to-trolling roommate.  Last week, he saw me stretching after I returned to the house from the office.  We got talking about cycling.  He indulged me as I lightly told him about my craving for endurance races.  When I saw him last night, he had ridden in the morning and told me how it completely changed his perspective on the entire day.  When I awoke this morning tired with a headache, it was the signal I needed to get my ass out on the road.  A quick 3 miles at 6:00am really resets the mind.  And that’s why I’m at Starbucks reading Kurt Vonnegut and talking to you.