It actually reminds me of the Presidential Election. People always complain about the negativity of the ads, how they wish it didn't have to be so dirty. But do you really blame them for doing it? Campaigns run negative ads because they work. Is it really realistic to expect the candidate who's behind in the polls to not employ a tactic that would help him make up ground? McCain once said he wanted to run a different type of campaign, avoid the typical negativity. That got chucked out the window after polls showed him significantly behind Obama. But what do you expect him to do? Be noble and not even try to win?

Speaking of Luis Scola, he reminds me of Lorraine. Don't know what it is. Tayshaun Prince reminds me of Joe Yuhan. Paul Pierce reminds me of Slim. Kobe reminds me of Jibin. Tim Duncan reminds me of andreww. Shane Battier reminds me of Scott. Rafer Alston reminds me of Mo Choi. Pau Gasol reminds me of Oscar the Grouch.

The Gold Medal game confirmed to me that Kobe Bryant is not the MVP of the NBA. In a close game, all his worst characteristics came out, primarily his selfishness and bad decision-making. He's unquestionably the most gifted player in the league, and that partly hides his faults, as it did in the Gold Medal game. But he's not the most valuable.

I stand by a conversation I had with someone earlier this year, that the proper NBA MVP is LeBron. He disagreed with me, saying "most GMs in the league would say that Kobe is the MVP." That kind of killed the conversation, at it's an impossible statement to counter. It has the weight of expert consensus but is completely unverifiable.

In any case, I stand by LeBron. To me, the MVP isn't just good, but he makes his team better. Michael had that effect, partly by pure intimidation. LeBron has that effect, and I think you saw that in the Gold Medal game. Doug Collins kept complaining about the U.S.' weak side defense (which was atrocious), and at one point he attributed it to LeBron being out of the game with foul trouble. Apparently LeBron is the communicator on weak side help. That says a lot to me. His presence makes everyone else better. His absence makes everyone else worse.

Kobe makes his team worse, both on and off the court. When push comes to shove, he gets selfish and hangs his teammates out to dry. Happened in the Finals, happened in the Gold Medal game. His estimable skills aren't enough to make up for this. So in my mind, he can't be the MVP. Best player, yes. Most valuable? No.

Anyway, Aaron Sorkin of A Few Good Men / West Wing fame is writing a movie about the founding of Facebook. I joined the group referenced in the article and the discussion boards are fascinating. First of all, getting his perspective on things is really interesting. Like, in response to a question about whether he watched West Wing after leaving, he says

When it was announced that Tommy and I were leaving The West Wing, I got a call from Larry David, whom I'd only met once and very briefly. Larry had left Seinfeld a few years before it went off the air and he said, "You can't ever watch the show again. Either it'll be good and you'll be miserable or it'll be less than good and you'll be miserable. Either way you'll be miserable, so you can't watch the show." I figured it was just Larry being Larry since he's made an art form out of being miserable and so I watched the first 10 minutes of the first episode of Season 5. Larry was right. I never saw any more of Seasons 5 thru 7. I have no doubt they were outstanding.

What I find more interesting is his banter with friends, including Josh Malina (Will on West Wing). Again, it's just kind of weird to think of celebs using Facebook the way we do. Looking at some of those celebs' friends, and seeing who they're friends with, especially other celebs, is also fascinating.

No real point to this entry, just that Us Weekly has it right I guess. Celebs: they're just like us.

In short, it claims that there are real, significant consequences of income inequality, and they exist regardless of absolute income levels. Among them: higher homicide rates and obesity (and thus, mortality rates). When the inequality is extreme, it is even correlated with lower economic growth rates.

As the post mentions, the economic libertarian argues that this inequality is unimportant, because in absolute terms, the poor are better off than they were 100 years ago. But it is important. Aside from the reasons mentioned, it seems to me that times of extreme inequality in history have preceded societal upheaval. Marx saw this effect and predicted a widespread proletariat revolution. He was wrong (somewhat) in forecasting a huge adoption of socialism. But he was right that inequality eventually leads to chaos.

On a smaller scale, I won't get into details but there are compelling arguments (e.g. here) that the extreme income inequality that existed in the 1920s was a direct influence on the Great Depression. It's actually interesting when you read about it; the economy basically became completely depending on upper class spending. When certain speculative investments by that class went bad, there was nothing to replace it. To me, it's another argument against trickle down economics, which doesn't even work.

This other interview in Freakonomics with, of all people, a primate expert is also fascinating, and it touches on the dangers of class separation as well. A snippet:

We did a study in which capuchin monkeys received either a grape or a piece of cucumber for a simple task.

If both monkeys got the same reward, there never was a problem. Grapes are by far preferred (as real primates, like us, they go for sugar content), but even if both received cucumber, they’d perform the task many times in a row.

However, if they received different rewards, the one who got the short end of the stick would begin to waver in its responses, and very soon start a rebellion by either refusing to perform the task or refusing to eat the cucumber.

This is an "irrational" response in the sense that if profit-maximizing is what life (and economics) is about, one should always take what one can get. Monkeys will always accept and eat a piece of cucumber whenever we give it to them, but apparently not when their partner is getting a better deal. In humans, this reaction is known as "inequity aversion."

I actually don’t think the response is irrational at all, but related to the fact that in a cooperative system, one needs to watch what kind of investment one makes and what one gets in return. If your partners always ends up getting a greater share, this means that you’re being taken advantage of. So, the rational thing to do is withhold cooperation until the reward division improves.

This holds an important message for American society which is becoming less fair by the day.

The Gini-index (which measures income inequality) keeps rising and is now more in line with that of third-world countries than of other industrialized nations. If monkeys already have trouble accepting income inequality, you can imagine what it does to us. It creates great tensions within a society, and we know that tensions affect psychological and physical well-being. Some attribute the dismal health statistics of Americans (now #42 in the world’s longevity ranking) to the social frictions of an unfair society (see Richard Wilkinson, 2005: The Impact of Inequality).

As has been reported all over the place, economic inequality in the U.S. is now at the highest level it's been since those aforementioned 1920s. From the Economist:

Figures collated by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at Berkeley, make the point starkly. In the 1990s, the incomes of the richest 1% of taxpayers went up 10% a year in real terms (see chart), while those of the other 99% grew at an average annual rate of 2.4%. Between 2002 and 2006 the richest 1% saw 11% annual real income growth: everyone else got less than 1%. Three-quarters of the gains from the Bush expansion went to 1% of taxpayers, who now receive a larger share of overall income than at any time since the 1920s.

Also, in the 2007 income, poverty, and health insurance figures, it shows that the current economic boom started in 2000 and peaked in 2007. And yet, median income in 2007 was lower than it was in 2000. Additionally, the poverty rate and percentage of Americans without health insurance was higher in 2007 and 2000.

Bush has complained that he doesn't get enough credit for the economy, which has grown at a decent clip on his watch. Phil Gramm argued that we aren't in a recession and that we are just a nation of whiners. They both miss the point. Bush doesn't get credit, and people complain for the same reason: the vast majority of the gains in the past few years have gone to the very top, and the economic issues confronting people today inordinately affect those at the bottom.

The cause of inequality today is arguable (and worth arguing about). But since bad things happen to all of society when things are too unequal, it seems to me that it is in everyone's self-interest, including the rich, to address this. There are many danger signs, and honestly, it makes me worry about the stability of American society.

I'd say I'm politically way more liberal than Henry is, even though he claims to be more liberal than people think he is. But we once had this conversation on an issue where it seems we're reversed - I'm really against unions in their current form, whereas he seemed sympathetic towards them.

Like Jibin, I voted for Proposition 74, which would have increased the probationary period before a teacher gets tenure from 2 years to 5 years. Like him, I think there needs to be more free-market principles when it comes to education. My main issue is with public sector unions is that there's no accountability. In the private sector, if unions' demands become too unrealistic, the companies go bankrupt, and all the union members lose their jobs. So there's accountability there, reason for unions to be realistic in their negotiations, and unions willingly give up benefits from time to time, like airline unions when a bunch were on the verge of going under.

No such thing happens in the public sector. Unions can make and keep ridiculous benefits, there's no accountability, and the public suffers. I've railed against this before, but it causes a buttload of issues. Teachers' unions make it impossible to get of bad teachers. Vallejo's firemen and police unions bankrupted the city. The same issues Vallejo had are happening to a lesser extent to other cities in CA and the state itself. I'm not against people wanting to get all they can. But when there's no accountability when they overreach, it's screwed up.

Anyway, I love what she's doing. Pay teachers 6 figures (which they deserve), force accountability. And I also like how there's still accountability if she fails, since D.C. has vouchers now, and thus a viable alternative to public schools. We'll see what happens.

"Time to go potty."

"I don't *wanna* go potty."

"Wash your hands."

"I don't *wanna* wash my hands."

"Eat dessert."

"I don't *wanna*... (pause as it sinks in) yes."

What I find particularly amusing is that recently, her "yes" sounds like Borat.

The thing about this is, it's exceedingly easy to manipulate her rebellion, and because it's so easy, I utilize it all the time. Like, when we were in Oregon, our room had a full-size bed and an inflatable mattress on the floor. We (more Jieun) wanted Abby to sleep on the mattress. How to do that? Easy. I just said, "Daddy and Mommy sleep on the mattress. Not Abby."

She immediately responded with "No, ABBY sleep on the mattress."

To reinforce, I came back with, "No Abby. Mommy and Daddy."

And now she's really insistent, "ABBY SLEEP ON MATTRESS."

So I say fine and let her have "her" way. I do this with a whole host of things, using the same pattern: say that only Mommy and Daddy can do something, not Abby, have her protest, say it one more time to reinforce it, then let her do it. Super effective.

Jieun was asking me though, is this really how I want to get her to do things? Wouldn't it be better if we got her to actually obey? Hmm, I hadn't even thought of that. I suppose my nature is to go for the immediate easy solutions. And yeah, in the long run, it's probably better to get her to obey. But man, it's hard to give up something that works so well.

Abby is easily manipulated. There are many situations where she doesn't know the appropriate emotional response, so if I start laughing, she then (and only then) starts laughing herself. If it's situationally inappropriate, she won't know - she just follows my cues. I'm exactly like this with gymnastics. No clue what's good and bad; I can only follow Tim Daggett's cues. And personally, I think he gives bad ones. He just seems surprised at the scores too often, pointing out errors the judges apparently don't see, and applauding routines the judges are down on. I need a better guide. And does it age me that I remember him from the '84 Olympics? It's hard to forget a team that features someone named "Gaylord".

Tom Hammond really looks like a woman. And many of the women competitors, across many events, look like men. It doesn't help that in swimming, both genders wear the same types of swimsuits now. It's confusing.

In general, I'm against sports where competitors wear makeup and/or hair glitter. And ones where there's too much subjective judging (these things seem to often go together). So not a fan of gymnastics, figure skating, diving, among others. I'd be fine with limiting the Olympics to purely objective sports. A coworker suggested they eliminate anything that doesn't fit under the official Olympic motto: Faster, Higher, Stronger. I'm not totally down with that, as it would eliminate some interesting events (pretty much any event that uses a ball) and keep some odd ones (high jump, kayak), but I dig the main idea.

I think my favorite moment of the Olympics so far was when Andrea Kramer interviewed the U.S. 4x100 free relay team after (barely) beating France, when she mentions how France said they would crush the U.S. and asked them, "who's laughing now?" and one of the U.S. guys responded, "We are. (Pause) The United States of America." That's it. Come on, Andrea, you can't expect athletes to answer a question any way but literally. Second favorite moment was when Costas was joint interviewing Phelps and Spitz and he asks Spitz a question comparing how Phelps' achievement compares against the greatest in history... and Phelps starts answering. Granted, everyone's been kissing his butt, but that's kind of an arrogant misunderstanding.

Speaking of which, I'm over the Phelps thing. I enjoyed his accomplishment, he's the greatest Olympian ever, but even still, I think NBC overdid the coverage.

Wang Zhizhi looks 40 years old.

The live feed stuff on nbcolympics.com is awesome, and really well done. Good video quality, and the text-based play by play and commentary is pretty interesting. It's really weird not having commentators, though. Like, there's this clip of a Hungarian weightlifter suffering a horrific elbow injury, and the absence of any sound other than his agonizing shouts of pain makes it especially gruesome. But having the chance to watch some of the non-mainstream sports is pretty cool. Last night I saw a fascinating women's table tennis doubles bronze medal match between Korea and Japan. Today I saw some men's handball (Russia vs. South Korea), baseball (Korea vs. Taiwan aka Chinese Taipei), and basketball (China vs. Greece).

Re: the table tennis match, the 4 women were scary looking. One of the Japanese women looked like the scary character from Akira. The game itself was fascinating. For one, they all use the Western grip. I know very little about table tennis so maybe that's not surprising, but it is for me.

It's really entertaining though. I like those changes they made a few years back - larger ball, must be visible during the serve, 11 points per game, best of 5 games per match, to get longer rallies and make each point more meaningful. The long rallies are really fun to watch. And I love the commentary on stuff I know nothing about. "The Koreans change up with topspin attacks." "Sometimes as an attacker you overhit against the backspin ball." Good stuff.

And it was nice that Korea won. Why is Korea so good at the Olympics, anyway? If you look at this Medal Count Map, Korea's been way overrepresented in the medal count given its size since 1984. I don't think of Koreans as being particularly athletic, so it's odd.

Two, I liked the inspiration behind it, that more is learned by doing than by passive listening. Plus, I get a kick out of the fact that it's inspired by A.J. Jacobs' latest book. Since I'm a Jacobs fan. Not as much as Henry, and not enough to buy it hardcover, but still a fan.

Three, I love how they used a Facebook group vitally for its duration and afterwards. Even since before I joined, it's been my hope that Facebook can be used as a ministry tool. It's definitely influenced what I've chosen to work on here. So it's personally gratifying and encouraging to read in CT how it was used for that. Plus I probably fixed some of their bugs and they didn't even know it.

It's a great feeling when something you work on is used by a lot of people. And it's a greater feeling when something you work on is used for good.

But don’t get an M.B.A.! We have too many M.B.A.’s as it is, and they’re killing the economy!

Republicans have been very good and very disciplined at framing policies in ways that average Americans find attractive. Democrats aren’t disciplined at anything; that’s why they’re Democrats.

Q: What do you believe would really happen, if in a growing economy (such as the one we had under President Clinton), we left the rate be, and allowed the economy to grow large enough for say, 99 percent employment?

A: We’d have inflation.

Q: Do you think that corporations should still hold a status similar to citizenship, but in a diminished form? If so, what would that form look like?

A: As I’ve argued in my latest book, Supercapitalism, corporations are not citizens and should not be treated as such. They’re contracts, pieces of paper. Hence, there should not be corporate criminal liability; corporations shouldn’t pay income taxes; corporations should have no right to sue the federal government; corporations should have no constitutional rights.

The most important thing we can do to reduce global poverty is to end agricultural price supports and eliminate tariffs and quotas on agricultural commodities coming into the U.S. These make it difficult if not impossible for developing nations’ farmers to sell their produce on world markets. They also raise food prices for U.S. consumers, and drain the Treasury of money needed for other purposes.

Q: Is a liberal arts education a worthwhile investment? Does it have value in today’s labor market, or is it an outdated concept?

A: The purpose of a liberal arts education isn’t just to make more money (four-year college grads have lifetime earnings that are about twice that of the typical high-school grad without any college) but also to be able to have a fuller life and be a more engaged and responsible citizen. So yes, without a doubt, it’s a worthwhile investment.

Economists tend to believe that economic efficiency and economic growth are the two most important values. Therefore, any policies that reduce the incentive to work hard are suspect. (Economists worry, for example, that a higher Earned Income Tax Credit for low-wage workers may discourage them from working harder, since wage increases would lead to correspondingly larger declines in the E.I.T.C. wage subsidy.)

This strikes me as wrong-headed. The economy exists to make our lives better; we do not exist to make the economy better.

Anyway, I really agree with how he thinks things through. Robert Reich - another person I'm a fan of.

Another weird thing: Jieun has managed to teach her to count to ten in English, Korean, and Spanish. The odd thing is, in every one of those languages, she consistently skips six. How does that happen? We can't explain it.

So lately I've been reconsidering the point of accountability. I'd say my previous view was, it's a fallacy to believe that we can conquer sin on our own; we are intended to live out our faith in community. Accountability acknowledges that social aspect, that we can only grow through community. So we have accountability to spur each other on to holiness, as iron sharpens iron.

What I do think that's important, what I'm reconsidering is whether that's the point. I read this article about Pope Benedict XVI where he answers a child's question on why the Church insists on regular confession:

It's very helpful to confess with a certain regularity. It is true: our sins are always the same, but we clean our homes, our rooms, at least once a week, even if the dirt is always the same... Otherwise the dirt might not be seen, but it builds up. Something similar can be said about the soul, about me: if I never go to confession, my soul is neglected and in the end I'm always pleased with myself and no longer understand that I must work hard to improve..."

I've been chewing on that for a while. Even though Protestants believe in grace, I think a lot of times we still approach Christianity with a self-help mentality. Especially so with accountability, which can be viewed as a way to get "better".

I'm thinking now that the greater purpose of accountability is just to keep us aware of our sin, that we might be reminded to lean on God more. In the process we become more like Jesus. But it's more important that we be aware of our sin. That suggests that the honesty aspect of accountability is much more important than actually overcoming our sin. It might be disheartening to struggle with the same sins every single week. But that's kind of the point. We need to be reminded of that, so that we are reminded that we need Jesus.

I'm not fully settled on that, but that's my current theory. So I'm taking the approach now that the most important part of accountability is not overcoming my sin but being aware of it.

Speaking of the current Pope, he gets a lot of criticism; this article in Newsweek is typical. But personally, I really love him. Partly because he really loves children and gives great answers to their questions like the one above. But for other reasons as well.

For one, I really respect how he takes a stand for truth. I don't jive with Catholic theology, but I respect that he's been so vocal about there being just one truth and defending that. I went to a Jesuit high school, and was shocked at how liberal the theology there was. They taught relativism in religious studies, literally saying that there are many paths to truth, and that Jesus is but one way. In a Catholic religious studies class. For the life of me, I can't understand why someone who honestly believed this would ever become a priest; I can't even understand why they would be a Catholic. Relativism has been infecting Catholicism, and even religion in general, and it's refreshing to see the Pope taking a stand against it.

I also respect how he's bold in challenging radical Islam. He got a lot of flak for that speech in '06 where he criticized some Muslims belief that it is acceptable to convert others by force. I respect it. And since that controversy, he's gotten dialogue going with more reform-minded Muslim leaders. It's uncouth nowadays to show "disrespect" to other groups, but to not speak out against violence is just cowardly, not respectful. There is a right and wrong, and people need to worry more about doing right than about being non-offensive.

So yeah, Pope Benedict XVI. Big fan.

The problem with life is, it costs money. And when you're the primary bread-winner for the family, you feel all this implicit pressure to make more. Don't get me wrong, in the grand scheme of things, by any objective standard, I'm doing well. And to be clear, Jieun has never ever pressured me to make more money, or made demands that would require us to need more. But she doesn't have to. It's all implicit (well, mostly. With the extended family... let's just say there's also a tension between being Korean and being Christian that isn't always well resolved), both socially and maybe even self-imposed. And it all stems from wanting to provide more for the family, to give Jieun and Abby stuff they need and want. Maybe some help at home. Or educational / recreational opportunities for Abby. Stuff that would be good for the family. Stuff that invariably costs money. Money we don't really have.

The tension exists in that, to make more at work, to progress further, I would have to take time away from the family. At every company I've been at, the superstar engineers work like crazy. And that's a sacrifice I'm simply not willing to make. But that naturally caps my earning potential. And it still isn't enough to avoid the tension. Even with the hours I work now, which I feel is just keeping up, though she never says it, I think Jieun would rather me be at home more. To be home more and maximally provide for the family - it's an impossible situation. That Jieun doesn't complain about either - things she wants or me being at home more - helps, but it's still fundamentally an impossible situation.

The ideal is to have a job that pays really well and is not a lot of hours. And that's great if you can get it. But that's not what God has for me. In my weaker moments, I think I should have gone to med school, law school, or business school, now that I know the salaries involved. I have to remind myself: 1) I hate law 2) I hate business 3) I did the pre-med thing, and was much happier doing computer science. I am where I am for a reason, and I need to be content with that and trust it.

But I still can't help but be sad sometimes that I don't provide more for Jieun and Abby. Better housing. Furnishings. Food. Education. Play. Just a better life in general, things that, even if they don't ask for them, they would invariably enjoy and thrive with. How to get that without hurting the family in the process, I don't know if that's possible.

I do think the struggle is good though. I've been convicted in recent months how the process is much more important than the goal. How we get there is what forms our character, not where we end up, so when we get things too easily, we lose out on the character forming process. So in a meta sense, I'm glad for the struggle. And in the end, I have to just trust in God. Draw a line regarding how much I'm willing to work, do my best under it, and trust God with the rest. And that's relatively easy for me to do on my own. But forcing my family to have to trust in God, leaving them no options otherwise... it's likely good for them but difficult nonetheless. Every father wants to give his family what they want. But when some of those things are at odds - namely, time with family and providing well for family - I haven't figured out how that works.