45 - 42

I am not a current (or former) Georgia Tech football player.
I do not give a dime to the Georgia Tech Athletic Association.
Many of my favorite people went to the University of Georgia -- which is an excellent center of higher learning.

Yet...There has been a smile plastered on my face since Saturday.

David beat Goliath (on the Philistines' home field).
The Trade School Nerds beat the Cool Kids from Athens.
An annual whipping might turn into a rivalry again.

This is the first year since we moved away from Georgia that Tech has beaten UGA in American football. I have always said that the Sunday after Tech-Georgia is the best day of the year to live in Texas (or Colorado). But yesterday that wasn't true -- yesterday would have been a very, very good day to be a Tech fan in the Promised Land.

Volatility is not Loss (or Gain)

I’m a little bummed that the bottom fell out of the real estate market right after we “bought” our first house (we don’t own a house, we have a mortgage). More to the point, it’s no fun watching the value of any asset decline.

But the title phrase of this post, “Volatility is not Loss,” should give us some comfort. It’s something that any financial planner will try to express, and I heard it uttered by a broker on the radio yesterday afternoon. It’s a good sentiment to remember in times like these. A paper profit or a paper loss is just that, you don’t make or lose money until you actually sell an asset.

Every asset is different, but for those linked to the larger economy, like a house in a major metropolitan area or a mutual fund with broad holdings, things may not be as bad as they seem. The current financial crisis might lead to a permanent revaluation of many assets, but it’s also possible that this is just another business cycle. What goes down will go up again.

On the other hand, that is little solace for those around us who are losing jobs, struggling to pay bills, and wondering what the future holds. As the seasons of Thanksgiving and Advent approach, I hope that I/we will be grateful for what we have and redouble our efforts to help anyone we can.

Shalom.

A Policy/Ethics Question

Florida recently passed a law requiring older drivers (+80) to have their eyes examined. (Please refrain from guffawing). The result as described here, was a statistically significant decrease in fatalities among these drivers. At least three factors were involved. Some drivers flunked the test and stopped driving; others got new prescriptions to pass the test, which made them better drivers; others just let their licenses expire because they knew they would fail.

In my mind this is a public policy success. Fatalities declined and a bunch of folks can see better. This begs the question: should this policy be directed at drivers of all ages, instead of just older drivers? My uninformed guess is that there would be some benefit, but not as much as for older drivers.

So how many lives would make it worth it? If it would save 5 lives, would YOU require everyone to have their eyes examined? 100 lives? 1000 lives?

Nickolas

Late last Spring, Elaine and I went to a cookout with some folks from church. It was a small group, and we were staked out near a playground where several children who were not affiliated with our group were playing. While I was preparing dessert, the following actual conversation occurred.

Young Boy – I need a S’more
Travis – I can’t give you a S’more, there are a bunch of kids around here, and I don’t have enough for everybody
Young Boy – But I NEED a S’more
Travis – Kid, I don’t KNOW you
Young Boy – I’m Nickolas
Travis – Well, Nickolas, I’m not going to give you a S’more. It looks like you just ate; you’re wearing your dinner on your shirt (his shirt was covered with ambiguous food stains).
Nickolas – That’s not my dinner, it’s my mess
Travis – Well, you can’t have S’more unless you ask your mom
Older Boy playing on playground – Mom lets him have anything he wants
Travis – I don’t care. Nickolas, if you want a S’more, you have to go ask your mom.

(Nickolas runs off, then returns)

Nickolas – She said I could have one
Travis – Okay (reluctantly gives Nickolas a S’more which he happily devours).

I totally understand if this text doesn’t leap off the page, but it is one of the most memorable conversations I’ve ever had. Elaine and I happily recount it regularly.

The kid was just so optimistic and so-good natured. The way he said, “I’m Nickolas,” as if I had been hearing about him for quite some time, or should have already known, as if a name encapsulated everything you need to know about someone.

I can’t help but worry that this kid has a lot of pain coming his way. Trusting strangers, wearing your heart on your sleeve, and appealing to people’s better angels is a recipe for disaster.

On the other hand, it’s pretty motivating. I want to live in Nickolas’s world – everybody’s a friend; tell people what you want; ignore snide remarks; expect the best.

I'm implicitly racist, but I love Barack Obama

So I was reading an op-ed in the NYT this morning
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/opinion/30kristof.html
which offered a link to the following:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/

It's an "Implicit Association Test" attempting to test our unconscious associations with race (and the leading party candidates).

Here are my test results:

"Your data suggests a moderate automatic preference for White people over Black people

Your data suggests a strong automatic preference for Barack Obama over John McCain"

(my emphasis)

Remember, the idea here is to open up the hood and look at visceral reactions, rather than something you have time to think about. It doesn't surprise me at all that I'm implicitly (moderately) pro-white -- I've had mostly positive experiences with white people, and my view of African-Americans has largely been formed by culture/media rather than personal relationships. Intellectually, I believe we are all God's children, and that there are no significant biological differences (other than appearance) between black and white folk, but my sub-conscious instinct is to prefer my own tribe.

I attribute my preference of Obama to self-conditioning. I really like Obama, so I associate him with positives. I see McCain as more of a tragic figure, so it's natural for me to associate him with negatives.

If my results are not idiosyncratic, if white people (who still have the majority of power in this country) exhibit an implicit preference for other whites, is this an argument in favor of affirmative action?

I think the main upshot is that we should not beat ourselves up over our unconscious bias, but we also should not overlook a potential disconnect between what we "think" and what we "feel". Furthermore, if we know we are biased against other groups, we should consider seeking out individuals in these groups to enter into relationship with.

The Jesus-move is to have a preferential option for the poor, the hurting, and the broken, regardless of race, ethnicity, or other demographic category. My base instinct is towards selfishness and preference for people who look and act like me -- the Jesus impulse has to be cultivated.

(Update: I took the test again and found no bias in preference for whites over blacks -- or vice versa -- and only a moderate Obama preference. But while the test is a fun tool, individual results aren't really the point. The important question is whether there is a pattern of subconscious racism in the population as a whole. I'm fairly agnostic to this question, but I'm willing to be convinced by good research one way or the other.)

Old people vote

I was at a retirement home this evening to attend a presentation. The presenter asked how many people had already voted. I think every hand went up. I don't know who's going to take the over-80 vote, but I think turnout will be high.


Along those lines, Elaine came across a good article about generational equity in the Washington Post last week. You might be able to access it at the following link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102252.html?referrer=emailarticle
If not, it is Robert Samuelson's column published on 10/22. You can get all of the New York Times and Washington Post content with free registration.

Sarah Vowell

Elaine and I went to Denver last night to attend a Sarah Vowell reading and book-signing at The Tattered Cover – the big independent bookstore in town. I haven’t actually read a Sarah Vowell book – she read from her newest The Wordy Shipmates – but her essays on This American Life are great, she’s sort of a Rock Star for nerds, and the event was free.


I came away impressed by her encyclopedic knowledge of her subject and her general style – which is to inject so much humor into history that you forget that you’re learning. The funniest/most poignant sequence of the night was when someone asked her how she felt about Sarah Palin injecting the phrase "city on a hill" into the presidential campaign. Vowell said she was saddened that Palin's reference was to Ronald Reagan rather than a more original source, like John Winthrop, or, you know, Jesus.


This recent interview in The Wall Street Journal covers a lot of what she said.