Hey, I was just about to enforce that! How Arizona forced the federal government to do something about illegal immigration… sort of.

The Obama Administration is filing suit against Arizona for its new illegal immigration law.  As far as I can tell from skimming the Arizona State Senate Bill, the purpose of the bill is to enforce the existing federal immigration laws.  So, the “Arizona immigration law” is really just a declaration by Arizona as to how it will enforce federal immigration laws.

Ultimately, this means three things:  First, the Arizona legislature does not feel that the federal government is doing an adequate job of enforcing its own immigration laws; Second, Arizona has determined that it should do its best to enforce the federal immigration laws within the state; Third, the federal government, instead of enforcing its own immigration laws, will sue Arizona for trying to enforce the federal immigration laws.

The issue has been hot and cold for many years now, but no progress has really been made in all that time.  My guess was that Arizona had identified illegal immigration as a real problem, but that the problem was too expensive to fix on its own.  Also, Arizona’s border is also the US border, so they figured the US should kick in to help protect it.

Here’s a summary of the bizarre pieces of this situation:

  • The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws.
  • Article I, Section 8 – Powers of Congress: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States…”
  • Congress has made laws regarding immigration and naturalization.
  • Here is a good summary of Immigration Law from a 2006 paper from the Congressional Budget Office.
  • The Federal Government has even created an agency – the CBP – to enforce those laws.
  • CBP Wikipedia Page
  • Specifically, the President is tasked with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.
  • Article II,  Section 3 – State of the Union, Convening Congress:   “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”
  • The Laws are not being executed (either by the CBP or the President).
  • This is mostly anecdotal, but I think it can be implicitly confirmed by the general public consensus that something needs to be done about illegal immigration. The debates over the past several years have focused on what to do about it, not on whether it’s a problem.
  • The US Constitution says that the States’ judges are bound by the US Constitution and federal laws.
  • Article VI – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths:  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (If the States were NOT to enforce immigration Federal laws, I assume it would be stated in Article I, Section 10 – Power prohibited to the States. There is no such statement in Article I, Section 10.)
  • Arizona passed a law whose stated intent is to enforce federal immigration law as completely as possible.
  • Arizona HB2162: “No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”
  • The Federal Government, which is not enforcing the immigration laws as it has been tasked to do, is suing Arizona for passing a law stating that it will enforce the federal law as completely as possible.

When the story about the Arizona immigration law first hit the mainstream, I immediately suspected it was an attempt to goad the federal government into action on the illegal immigration issue:

  • @DanielPAnderson said: “@JoshDoody I’m curious as to what you think about what is happening in Arizona with regards to the immigration bill?”
  • I replied (Part 1, Part 2): “I don’t know much about it. My gut says illegal immigration is a prob. Fed isn’t dealing with it. Border states are disproportionately affected by the issue and they’re mad. I think they may be trying to goad fed into action.”

Arizona was basically saying, “Well, we tried doing everything through diplomatic channels and several consecutive presidential administrations have ignored us, so we’re going to try something a little more direct to see if we can get some action out of the federal government.” I don’t think they anticipated this kind of action, but it isn’t necessarily a bad result for them.  If the federal government is going to sue Arizona for its new immigration law, it should also be willing to finally do something about the issue.

Out of Work and Loving It: How I handled my four-month jobless stint (Part 1 of 3)

[Josh’s note: This is Part 1 of a 3-part series. Part 2 is here and Part 3 is here.]

After being out of work for almost five months, I’ve finally gotten a job offer. I consider this to be both excellent news and sort of a bummer.  I’ve actually had a great time while I was out of work, and my financial situation is actually better than it was before I was let go.  I’m sure each jobless person’s situation is unique but, maybe in sharing mine, I can help calm the fear of the unknown and the anxiety that some experience when they first lose their jobs. Continue reading

(500) Days, and then what?

I finally saw (500) Days of Summer, and I liked it. A lot. But I also found it to be exceptionally depressing, although I couldn’t initially figure out why. The narrator is up front about what we’re getting into – “You should know up front, this is not a love story.” – and we quickly see that it’s meant to be a story about love, and it’s probably not going to have a typical romantic comedy ending.

And yet we’re conditioned to watch movies a certain way, with certain expectations, and it’s difficult to shake that conditioning even when we’re warned ahead of time that that ain’t where this thing is headed.  But I digress. On balance, the movie ended with me feeling sad. And I’m not sure whether that was what was intended. After all, the point seems to be that, sure Tom has his heart obliterated, but there’s always another season waiting around the corner!

But what’s the point, Tom? Ok, you met someone new. But how many (days) do you get this time, and to what end? In a way, I feel that the central theme of the movie is dark: fatalism. No matter what we do, no matter what we think is going on, we’re steadily plodding along toward the end, even from the beginning. The best we can hope for is to make our journey as satisfying as possible. Some journeys will end happily, like Summer’s, and some may never end or will end badly, like Tom’s probably will.  Tom decided that architecture would be more satisfying than writing greeting cards, and he seems really into it. But he was also really into Summer, and we know how that turns out.

But there’s also something even a little darker, if only because it seems to be true. The crux of the movie is wrapped up in a Tom-crushing line from Summer. Tom says to Summer, “I need to know you won’t wake up tomorrow and feel a different way.” Summer’s honest reply: “I can’t promise you that. Nobody can.  Anyone who does is a liar.” And she clarifies this idea the next morning in response to Tom’s inquiry as to why Summer’s past relationships didn’t work out: “Nothing happened really. It’s what always happens. Life.”  And we’re suddenly dropped down the existentialist rabbit hole.

Well. Ok. So. Why did I like this movie so much? First of all, while I don’t necessarily agree about life being fatalistic, I probably agree so far as romantic relationships go. We’re programmed to look for love, to find a soulmate. Shoot, even the creation story describes the first woman as a helpmate for the man. She was created to help him live life, to be a companion. And so we pursue relationships like our lives depend on it. And we continue to do this despite the overwhelming evidence that the ultimate romantic relationship – marriage – ends in disaster more often than not.  So why do we pursue relationships when we know all the good times will most often be trumped by the bad? I think Tom would like to know as well.

But there were some artistic touches that stood out beyond all the sadness. The copy-room kiss was one of the better-written and acted scenes I’ve seen in a while. Tension is built, resolved and replaced in a matter of seconds, and I think we know how Summer and Tom feel in that moment. The “Reality” and “Expectations” split-screen was fantastic. I think most people have experienced that and just about everyone knows that the two screens will rarely match (if ever). In fact, the entire movie could be said to describe the differences between Tom’s expectations and reality.

There was a nice bit of Sixth Sense-like directing. There are a few scenes where I wondered “Are they really there together, or is Tom imagining this?” At the end of their trip to Ikea, Tom and Summer hold hands, but there’s a distance between them that seems large. The hand-holding seems almost imaginary. On the train to the wedding, I wondered if Tom really saw Summer, or if he was just hoping he saw her, using her to cope with this uncomfortable situation so he wouldn’t have to go solo. On the bench at the end of the movie, if Tom were sitting there alone, and another person saw him there, the observer would have no idea he was interacting with Summer. Was this just Tom’s way of finally saying goodbye? Ultimately, all of these scenes efficiently accomplish their objective: to emphasize the ambiguity inherent in relationships. Tom was constantly wondering, “Will she ultimately reciprocate? Am I alone here?” And we, as viewers, were asking the same questions.

Should Belichick have gone for it on 4th and 2?

All the pundits are discussing this tonight, and most of their discussions are worthless. Football is a game of numbers, maybe more than any other game. Ten yards for a first down. Four chances to get ten yards. Penalties are assessed in yards, and are intended to directly influence the offending team’s chances of getting another first down or scoring points.

So, the right way to analyze the situation is actually the easiest: make some assumptions, run the numbers and see which option was best.  First, I’ll show the numbers and the result, then I’ll describe my assumptions.

The answer:

Belichick was correct to go for it on 4th and 2 (and it’s not even close).

The math:

On average, the Colts will end up scoring 2.45 points if the Pats punt to them. And, on average, the Colts will end up scoring 1.14 points if the Pats go for it on 4th down. Going for it on 4th down is clearly the best option since it yields the fewest points (on average) for the Colts.

UPDATE: I saw an article on CNNSI.com that compares the likelihood of the Pats winning using percentages, and I think that method is better than mine. So, for completeness, here are my numbers for this scenario: using the same assumptions I mention below, the Pats will win 84% of the time if they go for it on 4th and 2, and they’ll win 65% of the time if they punt.

My assumptions:

  • If the Pats convert the 4th down, they will win the game.
  • The Pats will convert the 4th down 75% of the time (based on the Pats’ previous 4th down conversion rate against the Colts).
  • If the Colts receive the ball on downs, they will score a touchdown to win the game 65% of the time.
  • If the Pats punt, the Colts will get the ball on their own 30-yard line (and need to drive 70 yards and score a touchdown to win).
  • If the Pats punt, the Colts will score from their won 30-yard line 35% of the time.
  • The Colts will get 7 points if they score a touchdown (e.g., they will never miss the PAT).

My methodology:

In general, I wanted to compare the Expectation of the Colts (in points scored) in two situations: 1) The Pats attempt to convert the 4th down; 2) The Pats punt to the Colts.

For 1), here’s how I broke it down: The Pats will convert the 4th down 75% of the time, and the game will end. Or the Pats will turn the ball over on downs, and the Colts will score a touchdown 65% of the time and win the game.

For 2), here’s how I broke it down: The Colts will receive the ball and begin their drive on their own 30-yard line. From their own 30-yard line, they will score a touchdown 35% of the time and win the game.

What would it take for Belichick to be wrong?

If the Pats would only convert the 4th down attempt 60% of the time, AND if the Colts scored a touchdown 90% of the time when they got the ball on downs, THEN Belichick would have been wrong to go for it. But only barely. (I did not modify the numbers for the punting scenario.)

The math that would make Bill wrong:

Given the above statistics, on average, the Colts will still end up scoring 2.45 points if the Pats punt to them. And, on average, the Colts will end up scoring 2.52 points if the Pats go for it on 4th down. So, given the above assumptions, Belichick would have been marginally wrong to attempt the 4th down. But those assumptions seem very optimistic for the Colts. Even Peyton Manning wouldn’t score a touchdown 90% of the time from his opponent’s 28-yard line, and even when he’s using all four downs to do it.

UPDATE: I saw an article on CNNSI.com that compares the likelihood of the Pats winning using percentages, and I think that method is better than mine. So, for completeness, here are my numbers for this scenario: Using the assumptions mentioned above, the Pats will win 64% of the time if they go for it on 4th and 2, and they’ll win 65% of the time if they punt.

The great thing about my method is that it can be made more precise with more accurate data. For example, it should be possible to figure out how frequently Manning will score a touchdown from the Pats’ 28-yard line if he’s using all four downs.  It should be pretty easy to find out how often the Pats can expect to convert a 4th down in that situation. It should be pretty easy to determine where, on average, the Colts would begin their drive if the Pats punted to them. And it should be pretty easy to figure out, on average, how often the Colts would score from that spot.

I’m not going to do that research because it’s not my job. Ironically, the people whose job it is probably won’t bother with it either because then they couldn’t pontificate about Belichick’s call for the next week.

UPDATE: I was wrong that nobody in the media would seriously analyze Belichick’s decision! Someone actually did a similar analysis for CNNSI. So, in the interest of full disclosure and eating a little crow, here’s a link to the article: CNNSI.com – Why Belichick Made the Right Decision

Machiavelli redux – I look back on me looking back on The Prince

Preface

I recently bought a new laptop and, as I transferred my old stuff to my new laptop, I found this unfinished blog post.  I’m pretty sure I initially wrote this some time in early 2006 (possibly late 2005).  I wish I had found this before the 2008 election as it would’ve been fun to revisit in light of the major issues that drove the election.  Anyway, I want to get this posted while I’m thinking about it.  I’ve copied it here unedited, but I’ve added an afterward at the end (it was unfinished and I wanted to wrap it up instead of leaving it so open-ended).

Me on Machiavelli on welfare and government redistribution of wealth

I’m just about to finish up Machiavelli’s The Prince. Last night, I went to dinner at my favorite local cafe and my server asked if I was reading it “for fun”, to which I replied, “I wouldn’t say it’s ‘fun’, but I’m between books right now and I had this laying around, so I figured I’d give it a shot.” Even in his introduction, the translator says that he’s not sure we can really “learn” much from Machiavelli, but that his writing is insightful, at least as far as the mysterious Machiavelli is concerned.

As I began reading, I couldn’t help but agree with the translator–I didn’t see myself learning a whole lot from this experience. That was true until about half way through the book when I stumbled upon his chapter on “Generosity and Parsimony”. There, I found what I thought was some interesting insight into today’s politics in America.

A brief summary of a tiny part of The Prince

Before I go any further, I should probably give a brief summary of The Prince. I almost wrote something like, “For those who haven’t read and have no desire to read The Prince…”, but that’s just fluff. Really, I’m summarizing for myself so I don’t have to ever read it again. Anyway, a “prince” is basically a “ruler” and Machiavelli talks about how princes come to power, how they maintain their power and some general rules to live by for princes as they try to maintain their principalities. So, his chapter on “Generosity and Parsimony” is another section designed to point out traits of an effective ruler.

Machiavelli essentially says that, although it may be immediately beneficial, giving lots of stuff to people to win their favor is ultimately a trap that will bury a leader. I think he’s talking about bribery, but he’s also talking generally about giving gifts and freebies to the populous at large. He contends that there are several problems with giving things to people to gain their favor. The first is that all the things given have to be taken from somewhere else: he’ll either have to give of his own possessions, which will eventually run out, or he’ll have to take from others and give of their possessions which will eventually make those “others” his enemies and will also eventually run out.

Once the giving stops, the populous, having been spoiled by his generosity thus far, would be discontented and he would lose favor with them. A couple clichés come to mind: “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” and “Ignorance is bliss”. If you give stuff to people, especially if they haven’t earned it, and you stop giving them that stuff, they’ll become very restless; if you never give them more than they need, they’ll never know what it’s like to have excess.

Back to my point

But I said this has to do with today’s politics, didn’t I? Here’s how: Socialism, welfare, unemployment and entitlement are all hot-button issues today. Right now, the two opposing schools of thought are: 1) We recognize that people have needs and we believe the best way to satisfy those needs is to give them opportunities to work, earn a paycheck and fend for themselves and 2) We recognize that people have needs and we think that those whose needs are fulfilled should help out those whose needs are not fulfilled. In a nutshell, it’s “bolster the economy and create jobs” versus “tax the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have-nots'”.

Although he wasn’t talking directly about welfare, I think Machiavelli’s point is valid: giving generously to the “have-nots” by taxing the “haves” seems wonderful until the “haves” get sick of it and demand that the “have-nots” work for their wages. Of course, I don’t believe that people should starve because they can’t find a job, and I believe America is a country that shouldn’t let that happen. People will fall on hard times and our country is wealthy enough to help those people out until they can get back on their feet. But they’ll never get back on their feet if they don’t have any incentive to stand up.

A sidebar on Giuliani’s Leadership

A few months ago, I read Rudy Giuliani’s Leadership and I was very impressed with some of his political philosophies and tactics. Most impressive, though, were his results. He only briefly discusses his take on welfare, but I think it was a great philosophy: When people are without jobs, other citizens should be helping them survive. But, part of helping them “survive” is helping them learn a trade, find a job and get off of welfare. Giuliani’s system provided seminars, vocation training, job hunting and other resources to those on welfare and, as a result, he dramatically reduced unemployment. I think the most substantial tenant of his welfare philosophy was this: If you’re on welfare, we’re going to provide you with all the resources we can to help you find a job, but you only have a certain amount of time to draw benefits and then we’re cutting you off. His philosophy was to “teach a man to fish”.

Back to my point again (and some butchery of my own interpretation of Giuliani’s philosophy)

I suppose my real problem with an open-ended welfare system (and the same goes for strict socialism) is that the system is not designed to actually help anyone get off of welfare. Instead, the system is designed to endear those who are on welfare to the providers, and ultimately to provide votes for the providers. I think it’s easiest to explain this by going back to the adage I mentioned earlier. The adage goes something like this: “Cook a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime.” To take this a step further, say there were two businesses, each related to the fishing industry, but in different ways. The first business sells fishing gear–poles, lures, line, etc.–while the second is a fish restaurant. The first business would be most interested in increasing the number of fishermen in its area. This business understands that more people fishing means better sales for poles, line, lures and such. The other business would be interested in keeping people hungry for fish and would prefer that people spend their time at the restaurant buying and eating fish because the more people that eat fish, the more revenue they’ll get. More importantly, the latter would realize that it’s bad for people to learn to fish. If people are catching their own fish, they don’t need a restaurant to cook and sell them fish for a significant mark-up.

In both examples, the analogy would extend into the political world as “revenue” equals “votes”. Giuliani’s philosophy was to teach people to fish, but also to give them a couple vouchers to the fish restaurant so they can eat in the mean time. The opposing philosophy would be to have the general population provide unlimited vouchers to those in need so the needy can eat and aren’t motivated to learn to fish on their own (I wouldn’t learn to fish if I knew I’d get three square meals a day at no charge to me).

Afterward (and a bait-n-switch from welfare to populism)

As I read back over this post, I feel that maybe I was talking more about populism than social programs.  I was a little off on some of my terminology (I guess I know what I meant by “open-ended welfare”, though it seems like I could’ve worded that more eloquently), but I think was mostly on point.  The 2008 election was largely driven by populism: Obama ran on a fundamentally populist platform, focusing on “change”, “hope” and other feel-good words for the masses while remaining fairly opaque about himself, his own ambitions and his specific plans; he also focused on taxing the rich and redistributing wealth, creating tons of social programs and spending many billions of dollars while offering little by way of explanation as to whom would fund these programs. It could be many years before we know how many of his promises he’s able to keep, or the cost of trying to keep those promises.

But politics and elections are based on promises (empty and otherwise), so what differentiates normal politics from populism?  To me, the differentiator is not so much the target demographic, class or audience, but the advisability and feasibility of the ideology being preached.  Are we making these promises because they’re best for the country, and ultimately for “the people”? Or are we making promises because they’re the key to maximizing votes for this particular election?  Are we bailing out the Big Three because that’s what’s best for the industry and the country? Or are we bailing them out because we need to save some jobs in the short-term, and a lot of those jobs are union leaders and lobbyists in DC?

Ten weeks later…

Remember that time when I said I was going to try and make a substantive post every two weeks? Me neither.

So, here’s what’s been up since my last post:

Well, obviously, we’re more than SEC Champs these days. Since we whooped up on OSU, we’ve become the first school to hold both the basketball and football National Titles in the same calendar year. I don’t have much to say about that except that it’s great to be a Florida Gator. Oh, and I feel we’re a strong favorite to repeat in basketball… and look out for us in football next year.

Speaking of next year’s football team, it looks like Urban Meyer is a recruiting genius. But we don’t have a chance next year because we’re losing so much on defense, right? I don’t think so. I think our defense was great this year because we had a lot of talent, but also because we were so well coached. I think after spring practice and our first couple games this fall, we’ll be back on track. Also, our schedule is much more favorable this year and our offense is going to put up some serious numbers. I think our coaches will have the defense ready (though maybe not quite as good as last year), and our offense is going to put up better numbers this year. I think this year’s offense will make last year’s look pretty timid.

Moving on, um… I’ve been reading a lot. I recently finished reading Tipping Point. It was excellent, and it helped me have a new perspective on causality. It was interesting to get a better picture of what can make things “tip”. Here’s the analogy that comes to mind for describing what a “tipping point” is: Paper burns at 451 degrees Fahrenheit; it doesn’t burn at 450 degrees (in theory, or whatever). It’s not that 450 degrees isn’t hot, but that 450 degrees isn’t hot enough to cause the paper to burn – to tip. At 450 degrees, the paper is just hot; at 451 degrees, everything is on fire. But there’s not much difference between the two numbers. That one degree is just enough, in addition to the previous 450 degrees, to make a bunch of stuff happen and finally catch the paper on fire. And so it is with social epidemics – things will often be going on as they always have, and then some small thing suddenly causes those things to become something bigger and much more obvious. The book basically tries to break down the individual factors that contribute to something reaching its tipping point.

I am currently reading Fast Food Nation, which is pretty boring, but educational. I guess I’m learning a lot about what goes on behind the scenes in the “food industry”. The book goes through a brief history of “fast food”, then goes into the specifics of where most of that food is produced, who produces it and how very evil the whole process and industry is. Ironically, I keep finding myself craving a good hamburger while I read it. That ain’t right.

I’ve had a good run playing poker online recently. I spent some time working on my cash game, had a really, really good run, then took a break when the law of averages roundhoused me in the face (but still ran at about 5BB/100 hands for about 5K hands). I jumped back into MTTs and recently had a pretty big score in a $30 tournament. There were 113 people and I took 2nd for $678. Normally, I’d be very pleased with that finish except I battled back from a 2-to-1 chip deficit to a 10-to-1 chip lead (over about 25 minutes of solid heads-up play)… but then I lost a coinflip (AKs vs. TT), a 70-30 (King high vs. QQ), then lost another coinflip (all-in on a QTx flop with two hearts – I had KJo, he had 8h7h and flushed the turn). By the time all that was over, the blinds were so high we were just gambling. I lost one more flip and that was it.

Anyway, I’ve been to Jacksonville several times over the past couple months and I’ve enjoyed being able to get home so easily. I’ve seen my family several times and I’ve spent time with some friends too. It’s nice to be able to head up to Jax whenever I want, and it’s especially nice that I don’t have to burn vacation time or like $500 a trip. As I think back on my time in Dallas, it really seems like it was just an extended internship or something. I never really felt “at home” there, and I was always in a “wait and see” mode. I knew I’d either move west to pursue acting, or I’d move back east to be near my friends and family. Texas was never really a long-term option, and I’m really glad I ended up back in Florida. It’s hard to describe the overall increase in my quality of life since I moved, but it’s pretty drastic.

I bought a digital piano a few weeks ago. It’s a Kurzweil PC88 and it’s in pretty great shape, especially considering it’s probably 10 years old. I have been surprised how much dexterity I still have, and it’s been fun playing “by ear” instead of just reading sheet music. I can tell my musical ear has definitely matured since I’ve been playing the guitar. It’s nice to be able to just sit down and play something that’s in my head (at least a slimmed-down, easy version). Hopefully I’ll stick with it and become pretty decent.

I think that’s about all I have for now. I’ll try to make it back before April.

Road trips!

Road trip 1: Tonight, for the first time in about three years, I went running (outdoors and everything!). I’ve been doing various cardio exercises–ridin’ the bike, the crazy elliptical thing–for a few years, but I hadn’t gone for a run in a while. It was actually pretty relaxing and wasn’t as tough as I anticipated. I went about 3.3 miles in 30 minutes (nine-minute miles). That ain’t great and it ain’t awful. On the up-side, I did have to run a bit of a hill, so I’ll tell myself that slowed me down a bit.

Road trip 2: Tomorrow night, I’m heading to Atlanta to watch the Gators in the SEC Championship game. When I was a student, we pretty much expected to play for the SEC Title and we were always hoping to get into the National Championship game. Nowadays, playing for the SEC Title is a big deal and I want to be there if we win it. Also, it’s a pretty good excuse to go hang with my friends in Atlanta (I haven’t been since last Christmas). So, I’m leaving right after work tomorrow and I should get there around 10:00 tomorrow night. I’ll be heading back on Sunday afternoon.

Road trip 3: In honor of all the road-tripping, I picked up Jack Kerouac’s On the Road (audio book). I figure it’s just a bonus that Beatniks likely weren’t opposed to partaking of the acid from time to time (of course, that’s speculation based entirely on some stereotype I have for reasons I can’t recall).

Turning over a new leaf

I’ve been posting on my blog for almost five years, and I’m probably the only person who consistently reads what I write. While it’s always been true that my primary audience is myself (more specifically, it’s my future self; Marty?), I know that there are a few others who sometimes read it. Over the past few months, a few of those readers have mentioned that they liked what I wrote before the poker posts infested the place, but that they’ve been pretty bored since then.

My friends’ subtle reminders have reminded me that I should take more time to get my thoughts down, so I can refer to them later. Of course, I enjoy all things poker, so I don’t anticipate I’ll be abandoning the poker posts, but I hope to begin supplementing the blog with some more substantive posts more reflective of my life and thoughts. So, I’m going to start trying to post something meaningful at least bi-weekly (I almost wrote “weekly”, but that seemed a little too ambitious since I’m extremely lazy). I have no idea what I’ll write about, but I’m hoping inspiration will strike at least a couple times a month.

I’ll start working up my first post this week. I think I’m going to write about two financial philosophies I discussed with some friends last night. I’ve also got an almost-finished post I wrote a while back after I finished reading The Prince.

We’ll see how long this lasts.