The Earth, The Sky and Everything In Between

Beautiful Game...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:53:00 +0000

I'm obviously heartbroken for my Texas Rangers. I don't remember any of the comments made after the game -- I just remember Ron Washington's sunken, tired face that mirrored the exhaustion of Ranger players and fans who came to the very crest of achievement and fell away. Twice.

I've spent some time trying to make sense of the whole thing, asking just as much 'what happened' as 'what do we do now?' When the world caves in, it's easy to question the fundamentals of the team - to ask whether there is some central flaw that makes a championship forever just out of reach. To this thought, which I perceive is prevalent among Rangers fans, I urge caution, perspective, and some much-needed time to rest, reflect, and refocus.

Exhibit A: Atlanta Braves
The Atlanta Braves of 1991 & 1992 were the last team to lose back-to-back World Series. No less coincidental, the 1991 series featured a David Freese moment of its own. In Game 6, Kirby Puckett hit a walk-off home run to force Game 7. Like Freese, his home run also came in the bottom of the 11th inning. The Twins went on to win Game 7 on the arm of Jack Morris, who pitched 10 scoreless innings to seal the victory. Heartbreaking for the Braves, right? And that was just their first World Series defeat.

I bring up the Atlanta Braves because they are a great example of resiliency in the face of defeat. Bobby Cox, their soon-to-be Hall of Fame manager, led them to a total of 5 World Series in the 1990s. They won the 1995 series, lost in 1996 to the Yankees, and lost again in 1999, again to the Yankees. So how are the Braves viewed, 15 years removed from their run? At first glance, we might call them baseball's version of the Buffalo Bills, who lost 4 straight Super Bowls right around the time the Braves lost their first two. Yet, we don't see them that way. The Braves are celebrated as a dynasty, partly validated by the series they won, but more defined by their ability to improve themselves while keeping their core together, and somehow managing to complete at the highest levels for 14 consecutive years.

Exhibit B: Free Agents, or lack thereof
I will not labor this point, except to say that the Rangers have 2 free agents this offseason: C.J. Wilson and Mike Gonzalez. Everyone else is on board for at least one more year. Our core is in tact, which frees up Jon Daniels and Nolan Ryan to focus entirely on player development and seeking out a few extra pieces that could improve on an already-great team.

Exhibit C: Player Development
The big question mark in this area is how certain players will respond to the adversity they have just faced. Chiefly among these is young Neftali Feliz. He is in the conversation, already, as the best closer in baseball. He didn't have his best performance Thursday night, but in a role that unfairly requires perfection every night, he has proven his worth over the aggregate. Hopefully he understands this, and looks forward to the next big opportunity.

The Rangers have a mix of established veterans who are peaking, and young players who are good and still improving. My favorite example is Derek Holland, our young starter who pitched a lights-out Game 4, allowing 2 hits over 8 1/3 innings. He hasn't always been consistent, but he was dominant in his biggest performance of the season. That should be a great comfort to Rangers fans everywhere. Elvis Andrus is still improving. Nelson Cruz grew into a monster. Ditto for Mike Napoli. Matt Harrison had his best season so far. There's a lot of room to grow with the guys we already have.

In Conclusion
The beauty of baseball is that it is an inherently patient game. The reason the Braves are not likened to the Bills is not because they won a World Series (though that helps). More, baseball just plays out in a way that doesn't lend itself to marginalization. Football is regimented, sharp, and ruthless. It is a game of black and white. It is pitiless. Baseball is a game of second chances. It may hurt now, but we're in league with some great, celebrated stories, and come April 1st, all will be forgotten, and we'll start a new 7-month journey. Hopefully, with a result one pitch better than this beautiful year we've had.

Been Awhile...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:41:00 +0000

Hello patient, faithful readers,

It's been awhile I know, but I think the end of the year should be fairly active. I have a writing concept in mind and I'd love your help. In light of Steve Jobs's death, I started thinking about him in relation to other great American entrepreneurs, and how they would look if I could somehow put them on a level field of comparison. This isn't an effort to name anyone the 'best' -- I think most such lists are born out of arrogance and lethargy. A simple comparison is all I'm after. There are circa 10 weeks left in the year, so I'm thinking 10 entrepreneurs, 1 each week, will do. Then, somewhere near the turn of the year, I'll wrap it up with a synthesis of the series, and hopefully drawing some interesting comparisons.

This is the part where you come in: Obviously I'll make Steve Jobs one of the 10, but who should I use for the other 9? Names like Edison, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Stanford, Buffett, Gates, etc... these all come to mind, but I'm just as interested in 'movers and shakers' who are apparent to many as I am those who are apparent to few. If something comes to mind, or if you want to commit a little time to thinking about it, I'd love to hear your suggestions. Email me at: nathanski@gmail.com

Be sure and let me know soon, as I really need to get going soon to have any chance of finishing by year-end. I'll send out a post this weekend with the final selections.

Thanks! Looking forward to it!

Why, why why....

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:04:00 +0000

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-senators-handling-her-gun-draws-fire-013945866.html

I really can't stand crap like this. What was she thinking? There are so many problems with her actions.

Also, who makes a gun without a safety switch? Seriously? Let's put it another way: What should we think is the intent of a gun with no safety switch, and what should we think of a gun purchaser who explicitly seeks out a gun with no safety switch? I'm not saying she is explicitly among the latter, but I'm saying that, at best, she made a poor purchase.

When sensational stupidity like this occurs, it's easy to take that circumstance as a referendum on the broader principle. It's easy, that is, to react by saying 'people shouldn't carry guns', and one can certainly find a lot of people to agree with on this point. But, the necessary question behind the question is: why should guns be or not be abolished? When we reach past the point of 'do or do-not', to the 'why do, or why do-not', we will find a multitude of reasonings. Appealing to the do-not, one might fear guns, another might desire universal pacifism, and another might desire a totalitarian central government. Likewise, in the 'do' camp, one might desire anarchy, another might desire to shoot his neighbor, and another might simply desire the ability to defend himself as he sees best. If we only address the question of 'do or do-not', we do not address the multitude of contradictory ideals that are advanced in each decision.

In other words, it's easy to lock arms to achieve an action. But, in order for that action to be meaningful, we must understand and agree why to take an action. The latter is always more difficult, because it requires people to think and communicate independent of their self-interests. That doesn't always come easy.

River Flooding...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Wed, 11 May 2011 16:05:00 +0000

Here is a fantastic way to view the recent flooding of the Mississippi River and its tributaries...

http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/nasa-satellite-miss-river-flooding_2011-05-11?page=3

Now, Was That So Hard?

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:50:00 +0000

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate

I Can't Believe I'm Writing This...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:48:00 +0000

I have not actively followed the Obama Citizenship question. I saw references to a Certificate of Live Birth, and it looks legit as far as I can tell.

What I read the other day that perplexes me is this: The new governor of Hawaii says a physical Birth Certificate (apparently better than a Certificate of Live Birth, including things like doctors signatures, etc) is on file with the state, but that he cannot release it without President Obama's consent.

If I'm understanding this question correctly, then I cannot understand why Obama has not given consent to release this record. Obama's references to the issue are usually anecdotal and accompanied with a laugh. I would love to join him in that expression, and I'm inclined to say this whole argument is ridiculous. How could the political process ever allow anyone to run for President that could not absolutely, clear or doubt, be verified as a natural-born citizen?

What irks me is that a supposed record that would squash all doubt exists with the state of Hawaii, and Obama will not consent to have the record released? The idea that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. is a hard sell, and I'm not inclined to believe it. But, that Obama won't consent to release of the actual birth certificate gives those questions power. That he won't release it tells me that either he just likes the attention or playing games with doubters, mostly republicans -- or, that he actually has something to hide.

I want to believe this is the dumbest argument ever. Why won't he let Hawaii release the document?

Am I understanding this correct? This just doesn't seem like something to throw jokes and anecdotes at if Hawaii needs only his word to put this question to rest.

I feel like I'm a broken record, but I am revolving in the wierd logic of this issue, trying to figure out how he isn't either obstinate, immature, or lying. But if he isn't doing all he can (and apparently he isn't) to end the question, then either of those seem fair game.

Assuming, of course, that I'm understanding the question correctly.

100 Posts!

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:49:00 +0000

Hey friends and readers,

Turns out the post this weekend was the big 100, making this 101. Insert dalmatian comment here.

Thanks for hanging in there, since it only took me 6 years to get here. I promise #200 will come a lot quicker.

Because I respect your eye-time, I won't cheap-up this blog and leave it at that. Let's pick a mini-topic for today: Facebook.

I saw the movie a few weeks back. Wonderful score, entertaining movie. Completely misrepresents a lot of people, from what I hear. Even so, it was entertaining, and again, wonderful score -- tastefully understated.

I had a little realization the other morning - I'm not giving it 'epiphany' status, but certainly a lightbulb moment. In terms of revenue streams, Facebook Google and Yahoo are really in uncharted waters. Never before have companies become so big on the backs of advertising revenue. My gut tells me this strategy isn't sustainable, and we will all look back and laugh that people ever thought companies could scale the way these three have on the backs of what seem so fickle and inauthentic forms of revenue. We can hardly argue that they are producing anything that wasn't already available, and therein lay my 'ah hah' moment.

I always assumed Google, Facebook, and Yahoo started something new. The truth is, they didn't start anything at all. We assume that an effect of the internet is that the proverbial 'middle man' is removed from our transactions - that anyone, anywhere, can buy from anyone, anywhere. That is true, but you also need to know where to look. That need hasn't changed. Google, Facebook, and Yahoo have no so much invented anything or blazed any trail. Rather, they have merely consolidated a litany of middle men into a towering three.

So what are these companies, uber-capitalists, heroes of American industry, or highly profitable information leeches? I'm playing ESPNU College Town and Carmen Sandiego on facebook. I have no idea what that means as far as the distribution of my information, but I probably wouldn't like it if I found out. Maybe I should shut it down. Ditto for gmail. No doubt every word I write, including this one, and this one, is somehow contributing to Google's bottom line. Am I being sensational? Might I be correct? Would Google create gmail without a plan to make a lot of money off of it? They have a lot to pay for - they feed all their employees very fancy, expensive food, free of charge.

Anyway, I won't ramble on. I'm just saying, as fun as these guys are, especially if you've been a stockholder for awhile, the question still remains: at this fundamental level, do these companies make sense? In a practical, nuts and bolts manner, does Google's capitalization of 190 billion dollars make sense? Would anyone be surprised if something, whatever it is, caused their value to collapse under its own weight?

Tolstoy v. Rizzuto

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:46:00 +0000

Let me say up front that pop-articles must be taken with a dose of discernment, because articles are, among other things, a compressed and buffed angle on the subject at hand. Such as with news reports or other compressed forms of media which, in interest of their cash flows, must maintain your attention so as to plug advertisements. Ad revenue is not the sole purpose of New Media, but it is the way they make money, and such influences cannot be ignored.

I say that to disclaim that the article I reference below is certainly one take on the author, but it just-as-certainly not representative of the whole person. So, when I evaluate this person, her actions, and the trend in thinking she represents, I must distinguish my reaction as only that which is possible in the context of this compressed and buffed pop-article. The link is below, and I recommend you read it before continuing:

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/the-opposite-of-a-tiger-mother-leaving-your-children-behind-2460982/

----------------

I recently completed the book, War and Peace. I hope you read it some day. Tolstoy is a master storyteller, and connects right into the gooey center of the human soul. His philosophy holds relevant 150 years after he wrote it down on paper. I've copied below a section of the book that I believe serves as an acute counterpoint to the article above.

"We know that man has the faculty of becoming completely absorbed in a subject however trivial it may be, and that there is no subject so trivial that it will not grow to infinite proportions if one's entire attention is devoted to it.

The subject which wholly engrossed Natasha's attention was her family: that is, her husband whom she had to keep so that he should belong entirely to her and to the home, and the children whom she had to bear, bring into the world, nurse, and bring up.

And the deeper she penetrated, not with her mind only but with her whole soul, her whole being, into the subject that absorbed her, the larger did that subject grow and the weaker and more inadequate did her powers appear, so that she concentrated them wholly on that one thing and yet was unable to accomplish all that she considered necessary.

There were then as now conversations and discussions about women's rights, the relations of husband and wife and their freedom and rights, though these themes were not yet termed questions as they are now; but these topics were not merely uninteresting to Natasha, she positively did not understand them.

These questions, then as now, existed only for those who see nothing in marriage but the pleasure married people get from one another, that is, only the beginnings of marriage and not its whole significance, which lies in the family.

Discussions and questions of that kind, which are like the question of how to get the greatest gratification from one's dinner, did not then and do not now exist for those for whom the purpose of a dinner is the nourishment it affords; and the purpose of marriage is
the family.

If the purpose of dinner is to nourish the body, a man who eats two dinners at once may perhaps get more enjoyment but will not attain his purpose, for his stomach will not digest the two dinners.

If the purpose of marriage is the family, the person who wishes to have many wives or husbands may perhaps obtain much pleasure, but in that case will not have a family.

If the purpose of food is nourishment and the purpose of marriage is the family, the whole question resolves itself into not eating more
than one can digest, and not having more wives or husbands than are needed for the family- that is, one wife or one husband. Natasha needed a husband. A husband was given her and he gave her a family. And she not only saw no need of any other or better husband, but as all the powers of her soul were intent on serving that husband and family, she could not imagine and saw no interest in imagining how it would be if things were different. "

------------

Now, what do you think of Leo Tolstoy? Having read the full book, and his philosophical confession at the end, I can assure the reader that the quotation above is, of his philosophy, an accurate reflection.

The reader's perception of Tostoy, or of Ms. Rizzuto, is a question of paradigm.

Each profile focuses on marriage. I do not mean to focus exclusively on the purpose of marriage, nor do I mean to diminish the importance of that question. The paradigm each has adopted guides their commentary on marriage, but also addresses the broader question: by what paradigm should men live? For the sake of the following comparison, I will label Rizzuto's paradigm as 'Independence', and Tolstoy's as 'Interdependence'.

Both paradigms are simple to digest in their basic forms, illustrated here in the topic of marriage:

Tolstoy: In marriage, on forgoes independence, and binds themselves to the provision and nourishment of their spouse and the family they together produce.
Rizzuto: Marriage is a component of life, one of many engagements selected which, together, represent one's best effort to maximize life satisfaction.

Between the two, the primary distinction is this question of independence.

Rizzuto's philosophy is that independence is the governing virtue; the choice fruit of life. She has a lot of support. The word and concept of independence is ingrained in American culture. The modern liturgy are movies and music, and the common anthem is the virtue of blazing one's own trail and breaking free from oppression, adversity, or status-quo. My cabinet is lined with such movies. Out of this liturgy, independence is lionized. The natural logical progression, then, is that life activities must be balanced such as to preserve independence.

I can relate. I don't prefer having a mortgage payment and many of the things that fill up the house. They make me feel immobile, and something about that doesn't sit well with me; never has. Many people feel that way and few do anything about it, which is in part why the few that do are celebrated, such as the lady from 'Eat, Pray, Love'. Like Rizzuto, she left her dull, stuck life to embark on a grand adventure. She did so in order to more completely embrace her chief aim: independence.

And yet, we have in our liturgy stories of grand adventures that are not born out of an independent spirit. What of the reluctant heroes? What of the Baggins' or, as was just recently celebrated, King George VI? In both cases, the heroes are drawn into an adventure against their will, propelled forward by forces they did not choose or fully understand but could not deny. Each triumphed by embracing their role and abilities to function within the circumstances placed upon their heads or, in the former, fingers.

Just this morning I began reading '7 Habits of Highly Effective People'. Among Dr. Covey's introduction is his effort to distinguish 'dependence' from 'independence' from 'interdependence'. He says that progressing through these stages is the path of maturity and of leadership. A person should progress through depending on others for nourishment and identity, to becoming self-sufficient to nourish and identify ourselves, and finally, learning to move past self-identity as the chief aim, but to submit our independent desires to the interdependent reality set before us. I might prefer the flexibility to drift as I please, but to be an effective husband, father, worker, and leader, some sort of inflexibility is required. I can submit to that requirement or I can remove the people and circumstances that force that requirement upon me, but stability is required of me for where I am, and it is that way whether I like it or not.

Covey illuminates this point quite well:

"Independent thinking alone is not suited to interdependent reality. Independent people who do not have the maturity to think and act interdependently may be good individual producers, but they won't be good leaders or team players. They're not coming from the paradigm of interdependence necessary to succeed in marriage, family, or organizational reality."

Now, compare this with Tolstoy's conclusion to 'War and Peace':

"As with astronomy the difficulty of recognizing the motion of the earth lay in abandoning the immediate sensation of the earth's fixity and of the motion of the planets, so in history the difficulty of recognizing the subjection of personality to the laws of space, time, and cause lies in renouncing the direct feeling of the independence of one's own personality. But as in astronomy the new view said: "It is true that we do not feel the movement of the earth, but by admitting its immobility we arrive at absurdity, while by admitting its motion (which we do not feel) we arrive at laws," so also in history the new view says: "It is true that we are not conscious of our dependence, but by admitting our free will we arrive at absurdity, while by admitting our dependence on the external world, on time, and on cause, we arrive at laws."

In the first case it was necessary to renounce the consciousness of an unreal immobility in space and to recognize a motion we did not feel; in the present case it is similarly necessary to renounce a freedom that does not exist, and to recognize a dependence of
which we are not conscious."

As in the comparison of liturgical heroes, the guiding difference between the philosophies of Tolstoy and Rizzuto is acceptance of unconcious forces, apart from our experience and will, whose governance of our lives we cannot escape or circumvent. Once accepted, the remaining question is whether one will submit and productively behave within that contra-independent reality.

There still remains, then, the question of which paradigm leads to greater maturity in a man? Often, a good place to begin that journey is by examining the credibility of each paradigm's present and historical champions, and the credibility of each's liturgy. There may well be no new beliefs, but instead many liturgies, traditions, and well-trodden paths that we knowingly or unknowingly walk. Examining the histories and paths of those who have walked before us is akin to widening the scope of our viewpoint. In doing so, perhaps we can then discover if our path is clean, or if on the margins of the pavement lay the dead and the dying.

Immigration Reform Misses the Point

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:41:00 +0000

Today's topic is immigration. This won't be long.

I feel a great deal of sympathy, especially right now, for a Mexican national who enters the United States in hope of a better life. The violence in Mexico is heartbreaking. My thoughts are often directed to the children and staff of an orphanage I served at, located near one of the cities where Mexican citizens are inflicting unspeakable terrors upon their brethren. I pray for their safety.

These circumstances cast an important light upon the question of how to handle illegal immigrants. I cannot argue against due process of citizenship, and the legal channels by which a person can establish residence in the United States. What I also cannot argue against are the motives of any who, with just and good intent, take action to separate themselves and their families from poverty and violence. I cannot argue against a parent birthing an anchor baby in the United States so that, whatever may happen to them, the child's citizenship provides for a better opportunity to live a life of peace.

I can argue all day at the trafficking of drugs across the border, and can argue that American users are complicit in funding terrorists who exist below the realm of civilized man. They are beasts; dogs. Yet even dogs understand the basic rules of business. They provide a service to a willing customer.

We talk about immigration reform, and we talk about securing the border. The United States would do better to stop consuming drugs, or legalize and regulate the production of drugs, and remove the market from the border. I have always felt the latter is a base and self-centered argument made by people who seek to please themselves through addiction, and seek justification for their folly. Their position would be better served if preceded by the 'self-sacrifice' needed to dry the market for border drugs and pacify the need for Mexican nationals to flee their homes. The contra-position is more popular, that users would continue until our government's only option to curb drug trade is to legalize and regulate. I say that the former position is better because it is a position of peace. The latter, in it's displayed consequence, is a position of death.

So long as the latter is the reality, I cast no blame upon those who do whatever they can to enter the United States and burden further the same wallets that fund the terror they are trying to escape.

Education Dilemma

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:39:00 +0000

When did education become the whipping boy for excessive government spending?

When, at any point, has a state increased their budget line for education? Education seems right in there with police & fire as those services that only trim budgets. I cannot recall the reverse happening, ever. Am I crazy, deaf, blind, correct, or all of the above?

Surely, surely, surely, we can find non-critical government agencies, or silly grant programs, or silly aid, or (shocker) trimming social benefit programs, or (&^&**SHOCKER&**(0&*) raising taxes?

I can't say what goes into these decisions - I'm not in the room. Thanks to blogs, I have the luxury of firing my artillery shells from my couch with a viewership of 20. I'm barely accountable for my under-informed opinions.

All said, I think targeting education is a lame excuse. Like many lame excuses, the comedy is how universally true this excuse has suddenly become. Earlier today, Providence, RI, put all of their teachers on layoff notice. All. Of. Them. I will venture this guess: Without the precession of excuse-laden state governments saying the same thing, Rhode Island's actions would count as some sort of social treason. We might even read about it in our history books someday, right up there with South Carolina firing on Fort Sumpter, thinking 'this should work out well'.

Let's assume that the first state to target education (for confidentiality reasons, we'll call this state 'Aggies') had legitimate reason for doing so. What makes their 'legitimate' problem equally legitimate in every other fiscally gluttonous and unrelated state in the union? Where is the correlation, other than 'well, that excuse seems to work for them, so maybe we should use it, too?'

I think teachers and kids are getting royally screwed. Again, I am beyond uninformed in this arena. But, I also think I'm right.

TV Antagonists...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:44:00 +0000

At this point, I guess I have around 20 steady readers, to which I say...

Little Red Riding Hood: "But grandmother, what great patience you have!"
Wolf: "Yes yes. Now, hurry it up with the 'teeth' line!"

That said, I'm going to do something different this time. I want you to comment in your favorite TV antagonists. Once I have the responses, I will randomly pair them, and we will vote them forward, tournament style.

I'll start with my favorite:

Newman - Seinfeld

Quote of the Day...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:14:00 +0000

I got Cara playing the Wii today. We got her very own pink controller last night.

The game du jour is Wii Sports Resort, which has, among other things, airplane-based games. We selected that menu, and the quote ensued...

"Dogfighting?? That's terrible!!"

I love my wife.

Liberty...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 06:33:00 +0000

I've been reading a lot lately. Among my current books are 'Heretics' by G.K. Chesterton, and 'War and Peace' by Leo Tolstoy. I am about 2/3 through the latter - it is the finest book I've ever read.

Tolstoy really gets human nature. He wrings the very last drop of humanity out of his characters, and conveys with a direct and honest hand the fickle nature of men, and the mystery that, in the midst of all the bad we make for ourselves, God still interjects himself into our midst, and there we find love. I've realized lately how many people hate God for interjecting himself into our lives. They wish he'd go away and let them do what they think is best for themselves. They call such an aspiration 'liberty'. G.K. Chesterton describes this misguided philosophy in his book 'Heretics'. (aside: he wrote that book circa 1900, establishing that all important truth that, in the realm of failed and failing philosophy, there are no new ideas, just new people who don't read old books.)

In short, Chesterton's charge is that liberty was intended to loose the chains of the inquisitioned - the heretic and orthodox alike; that an equal dialogue should be established to uncover truth and goodness. The contrasting effect of philisophical liberation is, in an age where the most radical have a voice and a freedom to use it, governing philosophies are forbidden from discussion. A man can have opinions on the weather, the athlete, beer, the President, and traffic. A man can opinion any thing, so long as he dares not opinion all things. The general philosophy is outlawed, and those who seek such are mocked as 'fundamentalist' or 'idealogue'. The joke of the matter is, until a very short time ago, the great aspiration was to be those things - to be orthodox. Now, the aspiration is to be the heretic - the provacateur who will stand for comfort, so long as he must not stand for an ideal that transcends comfort.

Enlightenment unlocked the doors of liberty - the freedom of all voices in the common pursuit of good. What was a noble idea has since become a terrible perversion. Good is no longer the aim of liberty. Rather, liberty has become the aim of liberty. We cannot say what good is, but we seek greater freedoms to pursue what we cannot and shall not define. We are in effect widening the net to catch the great fish, and never daring to cast it into the water. We have mistaken netbuilding as our occupation, and we are thence utterly useless as fisherman. If we would only remove our attention from that ever-liberating, ever-unproductive task of widening nets, and but lift our eyes, we would see a stranger on the shore, daring to interject; daring to impress upon us what is good - that we drop our nets and follow him.

Elections...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:11:00 +0000

Yay for Election Day 2010. Is this the first time in circa 15 years we've had split control of Congress? Either way, maybe now they'll learn to work together. Maybe, maybe not, but at least now no single power-intoxicated party can ram legislation down my throat. Instead, two power-intoxicated parties will barter with each other to ram legislation down my throat.

In all seriousness, I am a big fan of a split congress. Single-party congress is like giving power to a socially inept nerd (otherwise known as PolySci majors). Most all of us can't handle unchecked authority, and both parties have proven themselves overly eager to stab each other in the back if given the room to stretch their arms wide enough to strike. I hope good things come out of the next Congress. At least now we can say most everyone's interests are capable of being represented at the negotiation table.

Quick NBA Thought...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:21:00 +0000

All the talk is on the new-look Miami Heat. Have we forgotten about the 03-04 Lakers, who stacked Shaq, Kobe, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton together? They must have been a better team than the current heat. They had a real bench; role players -- real, team player kind of guys, not a basket of old veterans self-selecting themselves into a last-ditch ring chase. I'm not saying the Heat won't win it all this year or some year very soon. Safe money says they will.

I'm only saying that I think the 03-04 Shaq + Kobe were a better 1-2 than 10-11 James-Wade. S+K covered the perimeter and inside games, and they were the best at each. J+W play the same isolation game, and that's not championship basketball. Beyond the 1-2s, the 03-04 Lakers could beat the 10-11 Heat up and down the floor. It's just not close. I'll say it again -- for all the hype the 10-11 Heat have received, we saw a better, more-team-oriented mash up of superstars in the 03-04 Lakers. And the 03-04 Lakers lost to the Pistons. In a two week span, Richard Hamilton, Chauncey Billups, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace, and Ben Wallace became Kings of the Hill, allstars, and the new team to beat. They won with killer defense. The 03-04 Lakers didn't defend well. The 10-11 Heat don't defend as an entire team; they rely on a few people for that job.

Again, the Heat could win it all and I wouldn't be surprised in the least. I'm only saying that I would not be surprised if they get blown up in the playoffs by a team that emphasizes team play over individual stars, and one that really, really knows how to defend. Just don't tell that to David Stern. I don't think such teams are the ones he has in mind when he counts his money and changes the rules.

Shout out to my Lady Friend...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:33:00 +0000

I'm a big fan of my wife. This is one of my favorite pictures of her.

Well, Crap.

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:18:00 +0000

TCU loses to UCLA. We're still in it, but the road is tough. Provided we can beat the tar out of Florida State (again), we get a few do-or-die's against UCLA. Hopefully it'll work out. But, worst case, we finish somewhere in the top six. That'll do, pig. That'll do.

In other news, if you aren't watching the World Cup, a possible massive upset is in the works. Currently, South Africa is beating France 2-0 and Mexico is losing 1-0 to Uruguay. If, between South Africa's margin of victory and Mexico's margin of defeat, 3 more goals are realized, South Africa will advance, and Mexico will go home. If only 2 more are realized, FIFA will determine who advances by 'the casting of lots' (flipping a coin). The big point is, South Africa has a very real chance of advancing to the elimination rounds, and France is this tournament's official goat.

Moving Along...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:51:00 +0000

Just giving a shout out to my TCU Horned Frogs, and their 8-1 schellacking of those fiendsish Seminoles of Florida State.

Also, extra props to my classmate, Eric Marshall, who closed the game with style.

Next up, either Florida or UCLA on Monday. 1 Down, 4 to Go.

Go Frogs.

Re: Brilliant...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:20:00 +0000

Well, crap.

I clearly missed out on the link on my prior 'Brilliant' post. One month later, here you go.

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/

ps - I fine myself 1157 Deanbucks for the blunder.

Idea...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:04:00 +0000

I have an idea, and I'm completely serious.

Have you thought about donating money to help affected people in the Gulf? My suggestion: buy BP bonds. That's right. Lend your money to BP.

BP currently has a little under $7 billion in cash on hand. They have just agreed to fund $20 billion to support those who have suffered loss due to the oil spill. Whatever they use to back that funding, they are no doubt borrowing money to do so. Right now, Atlantic Richfield Co., a BP subsidiary, is offering short, mid, and long term bonds with high coupons and high yields at a very small premium. In laymans terms, they're offering some killer bond deals, cause they're desperate for money. Here are the possible outcomes of investing in BP bonds.

Worst Case

BP goes bankrupt. In restructuring, assets will be sold off to cover their debts. These debts includes your bond principal, and it includes the relief fund your bond helped to fund. You will likely get some or all of your money back. Either way, as a bondholder, you have priority of repayment over BP's stockholders, so you are in good position to recoup.

But this is a worst case, right? So lets say BP folds, can't pay your bonds back, and you lose your investment. As unlikely as this is (and it is highly unlikely), you could still claim a capital loss on your bond position, meaning your income taxes are deducted the amount of your losses multiplied by your income tax rate. So, say you invest $5,000 in BP bonds, lose it all, and your tax rate is 25% that year. Your tax liability is reduced by $5,000, and your tax refund is suddenly $1250 greater. In case you weren't counting, that's the same tax effect as donating that same $5,000 to charity!

Best Case (and the likely case)

BP continues to service their bonds, and pay coupons. This means that, over the life of your bond (which should closely mirror the life of the oil spill restoration efforts), your bonds will earn a rate near 6.5%. Savings accounts might earn 1% right now, at best. T-Bills are about the same, and so are CDs. 6.5% is better than 1%. Say your same $5,000 bond runs for 2 years, and earns 6.5%. That means that, over the life of your bond, your $5,000 will have turned into $5,650. That is assuming you took your coupon payments and either spent the money, or in some way just did nothing productive with it (like a savings account ;).

In recap, assuming you have $5,000 you're thinking about donating to help people with the oil spill. You can either:

A. Donate the money to charity.

You get a $5,000 tax credit = $1,250 refund.

B. Buy BP bonds that fund the recovery. BP can't pay, you lose all your money.

You get a $5,000 tax credit = $1,250 refund.

C. Buy BP bonds that fund the recovery. BP pays on time, and the bond matures, no biggie.

You get $5,650 in 2 years, and pay taxes on the $650 gain = $162.50 tax payment = $5,487.50 in your pocket, or $487.50 more than you started with. And you funded the recovery effort.

What say ye?

Brilliant...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Fri, 14 May 2010 16:22:00 +0000

Whichever side of the aisle you lean, this is a fun and brilliant idea by the Republican Party.

If you listen closely, you can hear the collective groan of the Democratic Party as they say 'Why didn't we think of this first!'

Now that I've said that, I fully expect someone to show me that they really did think of it first and the Pubbies ripped it off. Until then, credit is given where due, and I'm a big fan of this idea. The right side earns 1246 Deanbucks, and is hereby bestowed gloat privileges for the next 87 hours.

Warren Buffett

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Tue, 04 May 2010 04:26:00 +0000

I was in Omaha this weekend attending the Berkshire Hathaway shareholder's conference. In list form, here were a few notables from the weekend:

- Warren defended Goldman Sach's Abacus deal --- and his reasoning (shocker!) made a lot of sense. They aren't completely out of the woods in my book, but his perspective helped calm and shift a lot of perspectives away from some of the more ravenous reporting that has taken place on the issue.

- Charlie Munger is a funny, funny man. I'm sure he knows he is, but he's so subtle that one wonders if he is brilliant or if he is an old loon. My money says he's both, but alas, I have no money.

- Buffett was on stage, and Bill Gates was in the front row. Very cool.

- Omaha's Old Market is a fine, quaint public square with some great restaurants and a great local scene. Omaha the city continues to leave an impression. I declare it impossible not to love.

- If you ever plan on attending the conference, I recommend flying to KC and driving up to Omaha. Beautiful drive, and you'll save hundred$ in the process. Then, once you get there, Warren will sell you on Geico, and you can save hundred$ more.

- The Warren & Charlie show is a can't miss. B shares are $85ish. Completely worth the price tag, both as an investment, and as a ticket to an incredible, funny, insightful conference.

Graduation...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Tue, 04 May 2010 04:16:00 +0000

Well, I'm graduating in a few days. I can't believe it's this close. I can't believe how fast it's gone by. Somewhere in this big, life event I have a blog entry. I mostly just wanted to get that out there to keep some blogging activity going, but I am also running desperately low on battery life.

For the moment, I'll just say that it's been a great journey, I've learned and grown so very much, and I trust that God is leading me where he wants. I know that sometimes he's going to lead me to places I don't want to go, and that's ok; for now, I'll celebrate that I enjoy this direction.

I'll write more later. I promise.

Yard Work

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:13:00 +0000

This morning, I and some friends dug up half of my front yard, replanted with fresh sod, and retook the landscaping on the side of the house and part of the back. I am so stinking tired. Grass is a very stubborn creature, especially when you try to uproot it. Now my lot has only one type of grass present, meaning I can save 10 minutes every year reading fertilizer bags to see what grasses are covered. Now, I'll just look for the big 'ST. AUGUSTINE' sign, grab a bag, and go.

10 minutes a year... I'm sure that is worth 11 people working 7 hours...

Actually, my non-St.A yard was infested with weeds, and seemed immune to whatever anti-weed stuff I put down. Now, I just see a nice green lawn. Hopefully I can remember to water it enough so that it stays that way.

Nothing about this post attempts to illustrate the enormity of this project. I have no words. Only aches, stink, and a lighter wallet. But, I can look out my window now and see a lawn that says something other than 'I have no work ethic.' I'm pretty happy with my lawn. I sincerely wish I'd taken before and after pictures. Perhaps I'll just post an 'after' and spare you the misery of my non-lawn that was.

Either way, I raise my glass of rehydrating agua to the fine young men of the UTA BSM:

May you each have long lives,
shared with pretty wives,
a house full of kids,
each with smart lids,
that one day will say,
in grateful display
"Your retirement I will pay,
since social security went away"

I can actually guarantee one of those lines...

The Fly and the Window

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Dean) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:11:00 +0000

Thank you, God, for your love. You are better than the furthest reach of my imagination. You are stronger than the tides that beat the mountains smooth. You are taller than my mind can perceive. You see all things.

You see me at my worst and you see me at my best. My best isn't all that much. It's not good enough for heaven. You're good enough for heaven, and I can't understand just how good you are. I'm a long way off from 'good', even at my best.

You command worship, and your creation responds. Nothing is as it seems to my eyes. Yet you see. Trees stretch out as hands lifted. Waters sway back and forth, a dance you have always lead. The rocks cry out.

My eyes wonder at your creation. Your ways are bigger than my little head.

---

I am so quick to cast blame. I am anxious.

I set on you a crown of thorns. I am the thornweaver.

I rail against your gifts. I am the blind discontent.

In my blindness, I declare a new law. I am a revolutionary.

I declare my law the new law. I am an old story.

I carry malice. I carry prejudice.

My prejudice is against you.

But you see me. Your eyes reveal the truth.

---

I am the fly and the window. My freedom is my arrogance is my prison.

I am the artist and the sage. My wisdom is my yearning is my desparate folly.

I am desperate for a truth that lets me hate you.

I am desperate.

You are not desperate.

You are content.

I hate that I can't fool you.

You are not a fool.

I long to fool the unfoolable.

I want to back you into a corner of logic.

You are unmovable.

Why aren't you corruptable? Why can't you compromise? Do you ever get tired of interrupting the life I want for myself?

Yet I am the fly, and I am the window.

That monstrous interruption of my existence is your hand. If you were so big, you could break the window and set me free. You probably wouldn't get hurt. Can God bleed? Instead, you sit there. You speak.

You want to take me away from my window. But my window is me. I am the fly, and I am the window. Would you reject what you have made? Did you make a mistake? Was I a mistake, that you now seek to correct? If it's your fault, then you change me. You make it happen. I'll be right here, the fly and the window.

Hear me, God, for I have spoken. Now I look through my window. I see the trees in bloom. I see the waters rise and fall. I see the mountains. Why am I drawn to them?

---

How can I say thank you? What are the words?

Your hands are shepherds hands. You are the good shepherd.

You lead me beside still waters. You lead me through the mountains and valleys alike. Your orchard bears fruit.

You have the world by its corners, and you named the stars, and you call to them, and they answer your call.

I am nothing.

You extend your shepherds hand. You call me by my name. A new name.

My name is David. My name is Adam. My name is child. I hear your voice.

My wings are broken. I have fallen. I am nothing.

Your hand I feared and hated. Your motives I criticized. Your goodness I rejected. I was the fly and the window.

Now my wings are broken. I am no longer a fly.

I fell into your hand. You removed me from the window.

All I was and knew is gone. I am empty. I am nothing.

You carry me to places unknown, untested, uncertain.

Yet you are certain. You are tested. You know.

You know my fears. You know my doubts. You know my ways and you know my secrets. I have no secrets anymore.

You carry me across a threshold. I am consumed by a new world that is as terrifying as it is beautiful. I cling to the hand I once hated.

Clinging, I am led beside still waters. Clinging tighter, I pass through the valley of death, and you are faithful to lead me out the other side. You are faithful.

You are faithful.

I am a wingless fly. I have no window.

I have nothing.

I am nothing.

You are everything.

I am in your hands.

You are faithful.