Everything that follows on this post is an awesome speech by tentative Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, given in Israel earlier this week. I copied it from Powerline, and they got it from Joel Mowbray.

"Thank you Ron Lauder for that introduction. And thank you for what you do – and to you Uzi Arad as well – to make this important conference happen. It’s good to be at the Herzliya Conference this afternoon. It’s been a busy day. I saw the sunrise in Jerusalem. And along with friends, I traveled to the Gaza border, from there wechoppered up to the Lebanese border. And now here.I am glad to be in Israel again. It has been about 10 years since my last visit and I am struck by how much has changed. The economy is booming. As someone who spent most of my career in business, I have great respect for the ingenuity and resilience of Israel’s workers and entrepreneurs.

*****

But the changes are not only economic and they are not only positive.

*****

And it is not just Israel that has changed in the past decade, but the world around us. Unfortunately, many have not fully caught up with the new strategic paradigm we face.In that old world, the Arab-Israeli conflict was thought of as just another intractable regionalconflict. One that drags on…that should be resolved…but is not part of a global threat to theworld order.9/11 changed that perspective. Or it should have. Contrary to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not magically mollify the jihadists. No, what we should have realized since 9/11 is that what the world regarded as an Israeli-Arab conflict over borders represented something much larger. It was the oldest, most active front of the radical Islamist jihad against the entire West. It therefore was not really aboutborders. It was about the refusal of many parts of the Muslim world to accept Israel's right toexist – within any borders.

This distinction came into vivid focus this summer. The war in Lebanon had little to do with thePalestinians. And it had nothing to do with a two-state solution. It demonstrated that Israel isnow facing a jihadist front that from Tehran through Damascus to Southern Lebanon andGaza.As Tony Blair astutely put it, Hizbullah was not fighting “for the coming into being of a Palestinian state...but for the going out of being of an Israeli state."

Yet we have still not fully absorbed the magnitude of the change. As far as our enemies areconcerned, there is just one conflict. And in this single conflict, the goal of destroying Israel issimply a way station toward the real goal of subjugating the entire West.Jihadism -- violent radical Islamic fundamentalism -- has emerged as this century’s nightmare. It follows the same dark path as last century’s horrors: fascism and Soviet-styled communism.In my country, the attack by Al Queda has led some to believe that we are threatened by aband of fanatics in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They imagine that if we couldonly get Bin Laden and his cohorts, all this unpleasantness could be over.But Jihadism is much, much more.

Jihadists are among Shia and Sunni, promoted by Hamasand Hizbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, financed by knowing and unknowing Muslimgovernments, and preached to hundreds of millions in many nations. Their goal is theoverthrow of moderate Muslim states and their replacement by a caliphate. Their strategy isthe collapse of the economy, the government, and the military of America and our friends.To their eyes, our destruction is not delusional, but possible.In my country, the focus has been on Iraq, which is understandable. We have some 140,000 men and women there, with more on the way. And we are suffering casualties. Indeed, the past few days have been especially painful for the United States. Thousands of American families continue to make the greatest sacrifice for security in Iraq. And for whatever the mistakes made and the challenges before us, we must remain committed to making everyeffort for success there.And on Iraq, I would just like to make another point. Some Congressional leaders in theUnited States today are arguing that the President is not authorized to allow our forces topursue Iranian elements inside Iraq – which are attacking our own troops. That would be folly.

But today, I wish to focus on the regime that has become the heart of the Jihadist threat - Iran. I believe that Iran’s leaders and ambitions represent the greatest threat to the world sincethe fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany.

Ahmadinejad has gone well beyond the boundary of outrage…beginning with his calculateddesecration of history. Indeed, when he denies the Holocaust, he could care less about history– his point is about the present and the future. His purpose is not to deny the Holocaust, but todeny Israel. He is testing the waters. He wants to know who will object. And how they willregister their objection.The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, andultimately the world. And that threat would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power. And just think of the signal a nuclear Iran would send toother rogue regimes with nuclear ambitions – this could be a tipping point in the developmentand proliferation of nuclear regimes. How should the civilized world approach this challenge?

Our first goal should be to dispense with three major schools of wishful thinking:The first school concedes that Iran must not be allowed to go nuclear. But that's where thecertitude ends. Beyond that recognition, there is only the hope that Iran’s weakeningeconomy and political rivalries will yield a change in the government’s leadership. We are all hopeful, but this is not a strategy. The second assumes that it is possible to live with a nuclear Iran. This thinking is based onthe theory that Iran, once granted the privilege of joining the nuclear club, will be aresponsible actor.

Neither their words nor their record justify this conclusion. The third school believes that the logic of deterrence, which served us through the Cold War,will apply to Iran. But for all of the Soviets’ deep flaws, they were never suicidal. A Sovietcommitment to national survival was never in question. This assumption simply cannot bemade about an irrational regime that celebrates martyrdom.Each of these three represents a rationale for inaction, rather than a strategy for success.Each would in all likelihood yield the same result – an Iran that is nuclear armed, threateningthe world, or worse. They should be rejected. And they should be replaced with anunderstanding of two fundamental realities:

1) Iran must stopped;

2) Iran can be stopped.

It is inconceivable to me that some think otherwise. Their view must be based ondisbelief…disbelief that Iran’s regime means what it says.Few believed that Hitler meant when he called for the destruction of the Jewish people in Mein Kampf. Few believed what Osama bin Laden said.

The 9/11 Commission found numerous failures – failures of intelligence, of coordination, andof analysis. But they found that the most critical failure was what they called a “failure ofimagination.” Americans simply could not believe that people would crash airplanes full ofinnocent people into buildings full of innocent people.

***

Since that happened, can we really dismiss horrific threats as mere rhetoric? A nuclear Iran is unacceptable because, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out inhis confirmation hearings, we have no way of guaranteeing that Iran will not use a nuclearweapon. Many people do understand that Iran must be stopped, but they do not believe it is possible. They see the modest sanctions that the UN took three years to produce. They see Russia refusing to end its cooperation with Iran's nuclear program. They conclude that the UNSecurity Council will never produce sanctions tough enough – and soon enough - to stop Iran.

What is less appreciated is what the US and Europe can do. Yes, we should continue toencourage China and Russia to work with us on the UN Security Council. And from mymeetings in Israel over the past few days, and in China two months ago, I have reason to bemore optimistic about the role China could play.But we must not sit idle while we wait for cooperation: The US and Europe can do much toexploit the Iranian regime’s vulnerabilities.

***

In considering our strategy, we must remember that the government and the clerics arenot the sole center of power. The people of Iran also represent a major source of power. Byand large, they have not been radicalized by their government and clerics. They feareconomic stagnation and political repression. Most are not seeking a military confrontationwith the West. Indeed, most want greater engagement with the West - there’s a reason, for example, that there are more than 75,000 bloggers active in Iran today. A successfulstrategy should consider and encompass the people of Iran, as well as their leaders. In my view, our strategy to stop Iran should include the following five dimensions:

First, we must continue tighten economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severeto the sanctions imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from theinternational community today.The Bush Administration deserves credit for the efforts it has made on the economic trackthus far. The Administration’s campaign to deny Iran access to the international bankingsystem is crucial. The United States and Europe must ensure that Iran is unable to obtaincredit. And we must ensure that Iranian purchases in foreign currencies become difficult or impossible.

We must also be imaginative in the way we pressure Iran economically – an issue I havebeen looking into. In my meetings this week in Israel, I have become aware of the potential ofUS pension funds to further isolate the Iranian economy. We should explore a selective disinvestment policy. After a series of briefings here, I have contacted the Treasurer of my own state of Massachusetts and Governors of other states to begin this process by meetingtoday with senior Israeli leaders in Boston.

Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran’s Government. Ahmadinejad should notbe provided the trappings, respect, and recognition of a responsible head of state as hetravels. In fact, when former Iranian President Khatami traveled to Boston last year to lectureat Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. The real question is: why was he invited in the first place? Ahmadinejad is even more strident than Khatami. He should neither be invited to foreign capitals nor feted by foreign leaders. This would haveimportant symbolic significance, not just to Ahmadinejad, but to the people of Iran.Diplomatic isolation should also include an indictment of Ahmadinejad for incitement togenocide under the Genocide Convention. The United States should lead this effort.

The full title of the Genocide Convention is the Convention on the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime of Genocide. Remember that word: Prevention.Article III of that treaty establishes that “public incitement to commit genocide” is apunishable crime. Every signatory to this treaty, including the U.S. and most Europeancountries, shares an obligation to enforce it. So do human rights groups that care aboutinternational humanitarian law.Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, and human rights advocate and former Canadian JusticeMinister Irwin Cotler have spoken out on this issue.In addition, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has been a forceful advocate for this effort, and is joined by Alan Dershowitz. If these two can agree, they must be on to something.

Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do muchmore than wring their hands and urge America to act. They should support Iraq’s nascentgovernment, They can help America focus on Iran by quickly turning down the temperatureof the Arab-Israeli conflict -- stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas andHizbullah…thawing relations with Israel…and telling the Palestinians they must dropterrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can alsobe a source of peril. The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear materialthat falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from thecivilized world.

Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world.I agree with our friend, former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, that a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam. I believe this has two critical dimensions. The first is anunquestionably capable military. This will mean a greater investment by the United States aswell as other nations. The second is a global partnership which includes NATO and otherallies. Its mission would be to support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win thedebate in their own societies. They need secular public schools, micro credit and banking,the rule of law, adequate healthcare, human rights, and competitive economic policies. In thefinal analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. And we canhelp.

We should remember that in the two other global confrontations with totalitarianism in thepast century, it was not always obvious that the West would prevail. Indeed, in these conflicts, the balance of power was not always in the West’s favor. Those were wars we could have lost, but did not.In the current conflict, the balance of forces is not nearly as dangerously close as it wasduring moments of World War II and the Cold War.

There is no comparison between the economic, diplomatic, and military resources of the West and the handful of weak terroriststates that threaten us.In the previous global wars, there were many ways to lose, and victory was far fromguaranteed. In the current conflict, there is only one way to lose, and that is if we as acivilization decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, our values, and our way of life.

It is time for the world to plainly speak three truths:

One, Iran must be stopped.

Two, Iran can be stopped.

And three, Iran will be stopped.

Thank you."

What is the ultimate purpose of a government? More specifically, of the United States government. Is it to provide for the general welfare, to pull together resources for national defense, to keep the economy chugging along, to use utilitarianism to find the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, or to usher humanity towards the unknown future that lies at the end of technological progress? Something else, or a combination thereof?

I think this question goes even deeper into explaining a politician's actions than whether they are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. That presumes, of course, that the politician in question is in it for more than personal gain. Wow, wouldn't it be great if we could find out somehow who was in office for purely personal gain, and who intends to do the best they can for their constituents?

At any rate, I think part of the problem with the Federal government here is that they try to be all things to all people. I do not believe Washington D.C. was ever meant to be the panacea for our problems. I think the government's most noble purpose is to provide a stable environment which allows personal and business relationships to flourish, and experimentation in both to done with enthusiasm. Following such a guideline, most of the other problems mentioned in the original questions I posed should take care of themselves.

I'm going to a fancy salon for a haircut today. The only other time I paid more than $13 for a haircut, it was probably one of the best I've ever had, so I have high hopes for today. And thanks to a nice little poker win last night, I can start looking for a nice suit again. Previously I had to put that on hold for bit since I spent over $700 on textbooks, which was a bit more than I had budgeted.

I have to do 1 hour and 15 minutes presenting a case study on the use of derivatives for hedging purposes by a mining company for next Tuesday. I've never done anything close to that long. I know I can't memorize over an hour of talking, so I guess I will make a bunch of slides and just try to follow them. And if it only takes an hour... Oh well.

I cry for the future.

I got this little gem of a comparison from someone else, I forget who, but don't credit me for it. Anyway... There are a lot of people who think that if we raise taxes on gasoline, then people will drive less or buy more fuel efficient cars. Sounds like a reasonable theory. Here's the problem. Most of the people that hold to that idea are liberal or left-wing or Democrat. And those are the same people that want to raise taxes on income and businesses. Yet while they think taxing gas will lower the amount of gas people buy, they don't think that taxing work will lower the amount of work that gets done.

It will. If I have to give 50% of my income to government, I don't have as much monetary incentive to work hard as I would if they only took 30%. But you know what? Personal income doesn't go far enough to explain this. Let's look at a business.

I am company X, and I have a great idea for a product. I estimate $100 for startup costs, a 90% chance the project utterly fails and I lose that $100, and a 10% chance that it succeeds and I earn $1000. So the business weights the outcomes, (0.9)(-100)+(0.1)(1000)=$10. So I do the project because I have a positive expectation. Sure, there's a lot of risk, but the risk is worth the possible payout. But then the government raises taxes. All of the sudden the best I could expect to make with that 10% success rate is $800. Now the equation reads
(0.9)(-100)+(0.1)(800)=-$10. No longer do I want to do the project.

Raising taxes cannot help but to lower the amount of risk companies are willing to accept when innovating, which means innovation slows down big time. But people who complain about rich companies needing to pay more (they already pay ridiculous rates) don't understand this concept. This effect ripples across the economy in all sorts of businesses, and will slow down growth, productivity, and innovation.

And read this .

Want yet another example of how the Democrats care more about bashing Bush than trying to do good things for the country? Here's a direct quote from the Washington Times:

On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.

"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "

"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."

Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.

Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.

He was for the buildup before he was against it. What changed? Bush decided Mr. Reyes was right, and Mr. Reyes care more about trying make Bush look bad than anything else. He probably couldn't care less about the Iraq situation, except as a way to gain power for himself and his party. Why else the switch? Why was a buildup necessary a month ago, but unthinkable today? $10 says most major media outlets completely ignore this story, even though a similar flop-flop from a Republican would incite editorials from here to Iwo Jima.

So Michael Vick was caught in an airport with a water bottle that had a secret compartment that allegedly contained some marijuana.

Who cares?

Granted, it's stupid to try to transport that on an airplane, especially since Vick could probably find pot easily anywhere he goes, but as far as him having pot? Who gives a damn? Only intolerant fools who never look beyond what they are told by the media/government still have a problem with pot. In other words, the people who never tried it think it's a horrible thing. The people who have tried it may or may not smoke it again, but they are also aware that it's just not that big of a deal.

Yes, I admit it. I have tried pot. It did not make me disfunctional, destroy my family or career, it did not cause terrorists to kill people, or puppies to die. All it did was make me sleepy, silly, and a little bit horny. And, if I remember correctly, made me super-shy. I'm shy enough already in a lot of social situations, so that was not really a big positive for me, but I have met people who say they become more social when stoned.

And lest we forget... The medical uses. Maybe Michael Vick is worried about glaucoma?

Bad news on the poker front. No, I didn't lose my shirt, in fact I've had about my best month ever and feel poised for a personal record cash. But the game may be drying up a bit online. Federal officials arrested the two guy that founded Neteller, the largest e-wallet service on the internet. You can't use most Visas or Mastercards to put money in a poker account directly, so people started some e-wallets. You put money in your Neteller account and then can transfer it to any poker site. Because of the arrests, Neteller has announced that they will no longer do business in the US, and another popular e-wallet, MyCitadel.com, said they are also leaving the US. While I have no problem jumping through hoops to deposit money by other methods (ideally I will never have to make another deposit anyway), potential new players probably just won't bother, and current losing players will have an easier time quitting. That means the only US players left are going to be the good ones and/or the rich businessman type who doesn't mind dropping $10k in a night for some excitement. Granted, that's above my level, but some of that money may trickle down, though money tends to trickle up in the poker world.

More information has come out about that blogger/lobbyist bill I mentioned a couple of entries ago. Turns out it supposedly only applies when a blogger has been paid to write a certain viewpoint, in which case he is acting as a lobbyist and not a real blogger anyway. So if that's the way the bill is really written, and perhaps more importantly, if that's the way the bill is enforced, then it's probably not a bad thing.

Read this regarding people's misunderstanding of macroeconomic factors, primarily the trade deficit. Think the economy would boom if we had a trade surplus? Well we had a trade surplus in the 1930's. We also had a little thing called "The Great Depression." Right now we have a trade deficit and since 2001 the U.S. has created over 9.3 million new jobs. Countries/economic zones with trade surpluses, Japan and the European economic zone foremost among them, have created a fraction of that total. Many of the countries in Europe have trade surpluses, and most of those countries have stagnant economies where it's very tough to find a job. The U.K. and Spain, like the U.S., have trade deficits, and they have created far more jobs since 2001 than European countries that have trade surpluses. Which economy would you rather be in? We tend to think of trade deficits as bad because the media that reports on deficits has little understanding of macroeconomics, and also like to ignore historical fact when it goes against their ignorant agendas.

An example to give you an idea why a trade deficit is not bad. I go to the grocery store and pay them money and they give me goods. Never does the opposite happen. So I run a permanent and irreversible trade deficit with the grocery store. Does this mean I am starving, that I have no job, that the grocery store now has power over me? No.

I want to mention that the trade deficit and the government budget deficit are different things. And a lot of journalists, and thus a lot of average citizens, do not understand this.

I read that there's a bill proposed int eh Senate that would require bloggers with over 500 regular readers that comment on politics to register as lobbyists.

What a bunch bullshit! This is the result a of Democratic congress realizing that right-wing bloggers are a big threat, because they are smart enough and do enough research to refute left-wing talking points. They are trying to shut down right-wing talk radio for the same reason with the "fairness doctrine." Anyway, if bloggers with over 500 readers are lobbyists, what does that make anti-Bush newspaper editorialists? They have more than 500 readers, they make political commentary, shouldn't they be lobbyists, too? Not according to the Democratic congress. Because major newspaper editorial pages in the US are primarily left-leaning. Notice the template? Restrict all media that is mostly right wing, but allow mostly left-wing media to run free.

Just released reports are saying the federal deficit will disappear in 18 months, which is just about the time that Bush had said he would have the deficit cut in half. So it looks like he's going to beat that goal. And our economy is booming right now. There are only two real issues to look at int eh next few years that could damage things. One is the foreclosure boom that is coming due to rising interest rates slaughtering families who got adjustable rate mortgages a couple of years ago, and won't be able to afford higher payments. The other is the entitlements. Medicare and SS may kill us, and instead of trying to fix those problems, the Democrats who have just taken power in Congress just want to add more entitlements.

Woohoo! My very favorite fantasy series by a living author, George R.R. Martin's "The Song of Ice and Fire," is being turned into a TV series by HBO. This is fantastic news! I had heard rumors about TV rights being sold and such, and I was very nervous because ABC or one of the major broadcast networks would never give the story it's due. They would be cutting characters left and right, shortening storylines, lowering the sex and violence levels, and canceling the whole thing after 5 episodes because of low ratings (caused by their interference). But HBO? They can do this right. The plan is to turn each book into one season of episodes. Although I bet they split book 3, A Storm of Swords, perhaps one of the most badass volumes of fantastic literature ever written, into two seasons. And perhaps combine books 4 and 5, which originally were meant to be one volume anyway.

The other really important thing I should mention about all this is that Martin himself will be involved, writing at least one episode per season. He has previous TV experience, having been a writer (head writer?) on the late '80s show, Beauty and the Beast, which starred Linda Hamilton and Ron Pearlman. All I really remember about it is that my family enjoyed it and made a point of watching every week.

Back to the "Song." Most fantasy written today is built around the Tolkien framework. Good versus evil, powerful magicians, orcs, elves, dragons, that sort of thing. The hero is introduced at the beginning, he or she goes through many trials, but you know they will prevail in the end. Not so with "Song." The cast of characters is in the thousands, the story evolves from different points of view, with several different storylines happening simultaneously. The first guy you think is going to be the hero is killed. One of the villains later becomes heroic (for a very believable and in-character reason), several other heroes are killed off unexpectedly. Other heroes become villains, and most cannot be described in black and white terms anyway. The whole series has some magic and some dragons and such in it, but at the same time could be described as a historical fiction describing a medieval war.

After all this time, we still don't really know what Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives. All we know is that stealing from the archives is a felony, but despite stuffing documents in his socks and down his pants, Berger got just a slap on the wrist.

Here's the thing... What he stole may have been nothing, just some papers that had personal notes written in the margins or something. But why go through so much trouble for that. More likely what he stole and destroyed was a lot more important, but we'll never know. It may have been evidence which would partially destroy the legacy of the Clinton years, or it may have been evidence which would vindicate Bush in his WMD search, or maybe it was evidence that Clinton knew all about Al Queada and decided to ignore it and leave it for the next guy. Who knows, but I have to assume that whatever it was, it was pretty damn important. Not only will we never know, but the perpetrator of the crime has gotten away scot-free.

I read part of an interesting study earlier. Over the last decade or two, over 30 million new weapons, 10 million of which are handguns, were bought by US consumers. And in that same period, something like 15 states have added laws allowing concealed weapons and such. Such stats should make anti-gun people rise up in protest, but it's the next stat that makes them look like fools.

In the years of extra guns and more lax firearms laws, the homicide due to firearms rate has plummeted. So when we had less guns, there were more deaths from them, more guns, less death. That fits with the logic of "right to bear arms" people like myself. Make guns illegal and only criminals have guns. Make them legal, and criminals will be a lot less likely to confront victims because they know the potential victim may have a gun of their own and be willing to protect themselves.

I've yet to hear a single argument for banning firearms that is not full of serious holes in logic and does not ignore reality. If everyone was happy, and non-violent and there were no criminals in this world, then sure, ban firearms. But this isn't fantasyland.

I'm dumping the olympic lifting. I really liked it, great exercise, but my knees don't seem to like it too much, and there are other things I can do to meet my goals. I've been looking at stuff here: http://www.maxalding.co.uk/index.htm They are all about muscular control as much as strength, and that's something I'm very interested in. Being able to move individual muscles without affecting others and such. Very cool.

I had a decent day of poker. Couldn't play too much this weekend, as I had a wedding and friends in from out of town and such. Actually because of school and job searching, my poker time is being cut considerably. Because of that, I'm changing my focus to bigger buyin tournaments where I will satellite in. For instance today I played in the Sunday Millions on Pokerstars, the biggest weekly tournament online (and possibly live, too). 1st was 200k and I paid $11 to enter a sat, which I won for the $200 entry fee to the big tourney. Almost made the money. Then I satted in to the Full Tilt weekly $200 tourney and finished in the money for $445 or so, giving me a total profit of about $250 for the day. Not bad, and hopefully next week I go deeper. When a couple of Aces at the right time could make me tens of thousands of dollars, I'm not likely to win except with immense luck, but even a run at the final table would earn me more than I ever thought I could with poker.

Classes started this week. I have four for the whole semester, and then pick up a half semester course at mid-terms. Which was a bad idea. Anyway, I got the final two courses required for every MBA grad, and then two rick management courses. One is actually very similar to a course I had last semester and could have done better in, so the overlap will do me good for learning purposes. And the other is mostly an excel-based risk modeling course, which should do me a lot of good on the job market. So I have a lot of math and a lot of reading ahead of me. Luckily math and reading are two of my best skills. I wish I was equally proficient in job-hunting.

For some stupid reason, I decided to start playing an online poker tournament at 1 am after I got home from midtown earlier. About half an hour in, I was really tired, so I started playing really aggressive to either go out quick or build a big stack of chips. Then these two guys started making fun of my play, calling me a "noob." Of course that ticked me off and I had to fight back. I was down to almost no chips, and had to build back up. One of the guys went out before I had a chance to crush him, but the other guy.... I made him look foolish, it was great. I took all his chips over three different hands. And I would have just quit if he hadn't insulted me. The lesson: Keep your mouth shut until you know who you are talking to.

Now that the Duke lacrosse players have been pretty much cleared of rape charges, the fallout is really getting started. There has to be some sort of soul searching for all the people who were ready to crucify these guys way before any real evidence was presented. There should be some employment consequences, not just for the DA who pressed on despite evidence contrary to the accuser's claims, but also for the local journalists who ruined these kids' lives. Journalists are supposed to report the facts, or at least fact-based opinion in a column, they are not supposed to promote guilt before a trial has even begun, blah blah blah.

And Duke University, as well as other institutions, needs to look at things like this with more skepticism and not be so ready to punish people because they are white, or black, or any particular race. And that's what it comes down to. 50 years ago if a white woman accused a black man of rape, he would be hung immediately without trial. Now it's the opposite, and the white men, while not hung, were hung out to dry. Maybe we should take a lesson from this and realize that innocent until proven guilty works well for all colors.

This little gem of a letter should be required reading for everyone that complains about capitalism and our free market economy and the national deficit. It's actual economics from a professor of such, and it points out many of the fallacies from enemies from free trade.

This is damn creepy. It's about a fungus.

I watched Blood Diamond last night, and it was great! Lots of action, on-the-ground views of Africa in all of its beauty and butchery, and a message that may make you think twice when shopping for a diamond.

I have frequently and vehemently lauded Veronica Mars on this blog, and now I will do so again, because we are nearing a new episode that should be a good jumping on point for new viewers. I could, perhaps, be accused of hyperbole in some of my statements on these pages, but I assure I am not exaggerating when I say that Veronica Mars is one the best hours of television you will ever see. There are hardly any weak episodes, the writing is clever and fresh, with characters acknowledging and referencing pop culture without it being gratuitous like The O.C., among others. I find I laugh more during a typical episode than most sitcoms, and am shocked and intellectually stimulated at the same time.

Look, even if you are skeptical, give it a try. If you don't like it, it sure can't hurt to try, and if you do like it, spread the word. This show is on the new CW network, and it needs help in the ratings. TV is the driving force behind much of pop culture, and when a show of such quality of Veronica Mars appears, I want its influence to spread as far and as wide as possible. While our society tends to stress quality in the written word, we seem to focus on the lowest common denominator for our visual entertainment, and the success of a venture like Veronica Mars can only lead to a rise in the quality of the average show.