"Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream..."

I should begin meditating.

Malcolm X on the CBC. The first 4 minutes are not increadibly compelling, so pass them by if you're under the clock.

The weak get even, and the great get over it

I have a nasty tendency of remembering, and obsessing over, every slight and offense against me. Because their memory never escapes me, dug as they are deep in my bones, I have a very difficult time forgiving those people that I feel have done me wrong.

I should heed the words of this author, and just get over my self.

During the last few weeks, there was much talk about how placebos may be as effective as Prozac and other SSRI's in combating depression, anxiety, etc.

Being very anti-pharma, I was happy with this. Well, it turns out there are some complications. Read here:

That said, the study does come with one big caveat: the trials it analyzed are all 6-8 weeks long. In that short time frame, Prozac is often no better than a placebo. (Keep in mind that SSRI's rarely produce any positive benefits for the first several weeks, a phenomenon known as the Prozac lag.) However, the performance gap between placebos and SSRI's tends to widen the longer a person is taking the drug. After a while, the placebo effect tends to wear off, which is why people on an "active drug" are less likely to relapse.

This passage from an article in the Walrus reminded me of Hillary Clinton's tendency to mock Barack Obama's gift for speech making:

Our low regard for rhetoric may make traditional eloquence impossible. “Mere rhetoric” is the favoured putdown, implying that any verbal conceit or flourish cloaks a lack of substance or even sincerity. Politicians strike folksy notes as a result, preferring to err on the side of faux humble.

a dilemma

Nicholas D. Kristof, a New York Times columnist, once purchased the freedom of a couple of modern day slaves. In his article on the experience, he acknowledges the complexity of the transaction. Yet, he seems not to realize the wider complications arising from the practice of buying the freedom of slaves. Read here for some notes on a conceivable quagmire. Since it's hard to find on that page I'll just paste the section I'm talking about here:

Should you buy freedom for slaves? Readers of The New York Times Op-Ed page will know that Nicholas Kristof has recently purchased the freedom of two young girls in a brothel. It appears that the young girls were held there against their will and tricked or coerced into joining in the first place.

As an economist of course I wondered whether buying slaves will lower net enslavement. I can think of at least two general mechanisms suggesting that Kristof's purchase will increase the number of slaves in the longer run, or at least not lower the number of slaves:

1. Slaveholders and brothel owners presumably hold profit-maximizing inventories. Depletion of inventory will lead to replacement under a variety of assumptions.

2. I suspect that Kristof, a Westerner, overpaid for the two slaves. Slave owners expect such higher prices in the future, which may lead to more slaveholding. Furthermore the cash flow may stimulate investment in more slaves. Even for firms in advanced economies, current cash flow predicts investment better than does real interest rates.

Overall we can think of the slaveholder as more able and more eager to get more slaves. That being said, the marginal slaves will be harder to trick or capture than the previous slaves. So we cannot be sure whether net slavery will go up or down. Kristof's efforts also have a publicity effect, which may either help or hurt the slave trade. On one hand the Cambodian government may be embarrassed and crack down. On the other hand, the slaveowner has received amazing free publicity. On net, Kristof's actions may be less heroic than they would appear at first glance.

This is an interesting example of the social world's complexity. Unlike, say, physics, we cannot keep other variables constant while we tinker and experiment. One practice, although good and prudent prima facie, will doubtless cause unexpected effects. It makes the world infinitely interesting and wonderful, but also uncontrollable.

For all her talk of "experience" it appears Hillary Clinton has very little of it when it comes to foreign policy. Read here for a summary of her inadequacy.

I am because you are

I was moved by what Bill Clinton says at the end of this clip:

The world is too small, our wisdom too limited, our time here too short, to waste any more of it in winning fleeting victories at other people's expense. We have to now find a way to triumph together.

Hugo Chávez, the disappointment

"I must be going now, for there go my people and I am their leader." - Gandhi

Look here:

Obama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom up: "And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!"

For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens.

Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o'clock in the morning.

But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software CEO - as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.

animated debates

Here's an interesting bit of political analysis. The writer of this article sees parallels between the Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and two of the most famous Loony Toons, Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Obama is Bugs Bunny; Clinton is Daft...oops, Daffy. This bodes well for Obama's campaign. It turns out candidates like Bugs Bunny (calm, restrained, and confident) always defeat those with a little Daffy Duck in them (the hostile, suspicious, and defensive candidates).

initiation with ants

I saw this video of the initiation process Sateré-Mawé men go through. It looks extremely painful, but they insist there is a payoff. The chief puts it this way: "if you live your life without suffering anything, or without any kind of effort, it won't be worth anything to you." I hope he's right.

very funny article on George W. Bush's remaining days in office