Week 36: Self Defense 101

I just returned from an awesome trip to Spain - it began with seeing my brother in Barcleona (his semester abroad blog can be found here), followed by some time with friends in Ibiza and Formentera, culminating with a quiet four days in sunny, beautiful Mallorca.  For all the great stories and experiences from the trip, there was one that stuck out as decidedly un-fun.  

The not-so-abridged version is as follows: my girlfriend and I were walking home from a dinner in Ibiza Town on our way back to the hotel.  This involved walking both up and down several steep flights of stairs.  It was eerily silent as we went up the many steps - almost too quiet, I commented to my girlfriend.  A few flights from the top we noticed a ragged, shirtless man standing at the top, staring down at us.   As he walked away we continued walking, carefully.  Right before the top flight of stairs, where he had been standing, I sensed that someone was near us.  At the last few stairs I moved to the opposite side from which he had stumbled away, in order to be able to see him were he to be hiding around the corner.  Unfortunately for us, he was.  It is difficult to articulate what happened next, because it was so visceral. He stepped in front of us, preventing us from continuing to the stairs down the hill. I stared into his eyes to size him up, and can honestly say it was one of the most ghastly things I've ever seen. His face was covered in pus and blood, his teeth were bared and his eyes were red, wild and glazed over. Without overdramatizing the situation, I can honestly say I feared for our lives - this dude was so far gone he could kill and not even realize it.

I want to describe both what happened and how it felt, because today's topic is about self defense. The most striking feeling I had was first the sense of something being very wrong - almost a sense of dread - then, upon having my suspicions confirmed, I remember an intense adrenalin rush unlike any I've experienced in sports. The hair on my neck was up, my heart was pounding and my body felt numb. Surprisingly, I felt lucid and was able to neither freeze nor go into a frenzy. Instead I put myself between my girlfriend and him - while keeping eye contact - maneuvered around the guy, firmly saying "NO" to his growling demands for money. Many people to whom I've told this story ask why I didn't give him a few euros. The answer is simple: I felt that if I were to stop, reach in my pocket, or do anything to slow down, we would have been in a much more vulnerable spot. The guy was clearly explosive. Indeed, after saying no and walking by him (and telling my girlfriend to start running down the stairs), he started lumbering down after me angrily and sarcastically saying "MUCHAS. GRACIAS." repeatedly. I'm not trying to sound like some kind of hero - to be clear I was terrified. This guy had nothing to lose - by the blood on his mouth looked like he had just devoured some animal - and was now following us down the stairs. We had just arrived and knew nothing about the town or the area, and there was literally nobody else around. I turned back and stood my ground and from a distance of 10 meters or so we stared at each other, and eventually he backed off. I ran to catch up with Rebecca and that was that.

But I was shaken. While ready to fight, I began to question what would have happened in that scenario. I don't have military or martial arts training, and at 165 pounds, I will not typically have a size advantage (and didn't, in this case). So in the spirit of the blog I decided to see what the internet's free resources could teach me - and you - about self defense. I learned a lot, but most important (and perhaps obvious) is that there is no "solution"... Each scenario is different, and all you can do is think about and plan for specific types of scenarios. The general themes were helpful, and from my experience in Ibiza turned out to be true. The first was that a confrontation happens much faster than you expect. This was definitely the case in my encounter. The time from that initial sensation of danger to us facing off took no more than a few seconds. Overwhelmingly, the advice I read emphasized getting away as the primary goal, and fighting as the last resort. However, it was also fairly consistent that if your gut tells you you're about to be attacked, you should strike first. This only makes sense to me now, after the experience. Everything I felt at the time was instinctive and animalistic - I came very close to striking preemptively, because my gut feeling was telling me we were about to be physically assaulted. Fortunately nothing more serious happened.

But the real meat and potatoes of all these videos was focused on the following - if you have to strike, how? Where? With what? The first point was that in these situations, you do what you must to survive. That said, the goal is to debilitate the adversary and run, not stick around and beat the person to death. Somewhat surprisingly, punching was almost never mentioned as the best option. Knees to the groin, eye poking, elbows to the head, head butts, kicks to the shin and open palm hits to the nose were all mentioned prominently. Another theme was the importance of the element of surprise. Whether throwing your glasses in the person's face or spitting out your last sip into their eyes, anything to give you one second to take your first blow of choice was described as crucial. Another move I hadn't thought of was the double hand clap around your opponent's ears. Apparently this is very disorienting and will give you the opportunity to strike or run. The use of tools around you was also mentioned - in my case it was a barren street, so a rock or a stick would work, but generally a bottle or chair also do the trick. The problem with any weapon, of course, is that it can be used against you.

In terms of where to strike, it was advised not to hit hard tissues of the body. Vulnerable areas include the knees, groin, eyes, bridge of the nose, kidney, heart, neck, throat, and the solar plexus. As I understand it, these are the places where you can expect the most "bang for your buck." I would encourage anyone who wants to learn more to do a simple YouTube search for "self defense techniques", as a video is worth more than a thousand words in terms of the execution of these ideas.

Most important is proper training and practice, which I fully plan to pursue following this encounter. I am sure none of you will take self defense tips from this blog, so I won't go on ad nauseum. But the quick summary of my introductory learning is: keep your wits, always look for a way out, understand your relative strengths and weaknesses, and if you strike, strike decisively and then get out. My story may not sound terrible, but it is the kind of thing that shakes you to your core, because that situation can happen anytime, anywhere. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world, and cannot entirely prevent these types of events (although not walking in an unknown city at night is a good start).

We can, however, be prepared for when it does.
   

Week 35: Case in Point, Khan Academy

I created The 52 Week Project in part to prove my evolving thesis that anyone with an internet connection and the desire could learn for free about almost anything. In conversations with family and friends, I pointed out that the revolutionary part of this idea was already complete - tons of free, web-based educational content was online. From content providers like MIT, Stanford and Cornell to the various content delivery platforms like iTunesU and YouTube, an almost unimaginable amount of facts and lessons can be accessed. In fact, there is almost TOO much out there. How could too much free education be a bad thing, you might wonder? Thirty five weeks into this project, I can tell you that at some point those looking for learning (me, in this case) are so inundated with non-standardized content - often without context - it can become almost not worth the time to learn. For instance, I have never thought of a weekly topic for which no free online content exists, but I most certainly HAVE abandoned topics because finding and accessing this content has been too tedious. One post-52 Week Project idea of mine is to create an e-guide of all these education sites just to help people make sense of what's out there. In the interim, my problem - the problem - is that nobody has pulled together a focused curriculum for those wanting access to free online education - a simple, but crucial, step.

Well, I am extremely happy to say that Salman Khan has taken the time and immense effort to begin solving this problem. The Khan Academy is a non-profit site with the stated goal of "providing a high quality education to anyone, anywhere." The site has over 1,600 videos, all done by Mr. Khan, and all covering some lesson ranging from the most basic arithmetic to liner algebra, chemistry, finance and world history. The lessons are grouped together in a way that allows users to either click to a certain lesson (e.g., Calculus 1), or follow a progression of lessons (e.g., from geometry to trigonometry). Mr. Khan started the online academy a few years ago, developing his site while simultaneously working full-time as a hedge fund analyst (sound familiar?). The tremendous positive feedback he received from students and parents around the globe convinced him to quit his job and work exclusively on the project. The success to date has been incredible - aside from millions of millions of clicks and tens of thousands of Facebook and YouTube followers - Mr. Khan got a personal endorsement from Bill Gates, whose children now use the site.

The lessons began with Mr. Khan's strong suit, math, but have branched out at a rapid pace and will ultimately cover the basics and much more. Before endorsing the quality of the lessons, I decided to try a few on a topic that I know something about: banking. I was planning to watch Banking 1 and perhaps 2, but somehow I found myself all the way down to "Banking 6: Bank Notes and Checks", before realizing how much time had passed by! The lessons were excellent - it turns out you never actually see Mr. Khan - the video consists of his voice walking you through his scribbling on an e-blackboard. He distills complicated concepts to their simplest building blocks, repeats often, and helps give the viewer an intuitive feel for the content at hand.

I cannot overstate the importance of his ability to do this for the core concepts of economics, finance and banking. In my opinion financial illiteracy is a major problem in the United States - it was in many ways at the core of events leading to the 2008 financial crisis. While I have always thought the problem emminently solvable, Mr. Khan has actually provided the solution. I am not remotely kidding - here is a way, in under two hours, to learn the basics. I urge you to look through some of these lessons and send them to your children and friends. What is a bank? How does it work and why? What is an interest rate? These are crucial, elementary concepts that unfortunately even people of power simply have not mastered. Now, instead of having to ask the embarrassing question at a cocktail party or read a dull text book or pay thousands of dollars for a course, you can view a free twelve minute video on each of these concepts.

Mr. Khan is on to something huge here. Any jealousy I might have about the fact that I never followed up on that tutoring website idea of mine is overwhelmed by the excitement I have for what he is doing. Once a database of all the basics are put together, using what is by now a tested teaching methodology, the scale and breadth that can be achieved are breathtaking. This is quite literally the type of thing that can help eliminate future poverty, folks. Give people the opportunity to help themselves and you will start a positive feedback loop that nobody could have imagined. You have heard a similar riff from me on Kiva and Apple. Khan Academy is a another example of brilliance that should both inspire us and give us hope that in spite of all the current gloom, the future is indeed bright.

Week 34: Los Diablos Rojos

Fark.com is one of my favorite websites. The premise of the site is simple: random people ("farkers") submit real news stories that are distinguished by their hilarity, stupidity, or strangeness. Each article is submitted and linked with a funny but fake headline - of the thousands of articles submitted each day, only a few dozen make the main page. So regular readers of Fark end up with a free gonzo news clipping service, with the witty headlines as a bonus. Last night one of the Fark headlines caught my eye: "Bad news: Man-eating squid on the loose in the Pacific. Worse news: Each female produces up to 30 million offspring. Fark: Please tell us you're squidding." Needless to say, I clicked on the link to the article.

The article is fascinating - it claims millions of predatory Humboldt giant squid have in the past few years moved north from their typical equatorial waters to the Californian and even Alaskan coasts. It goes on to say that "two Mexican fisherman were recently dragged from their boats and chewed so badly that their bodies could not be identified even by their own families." So notorious are these squid that they are called "diablos rojos" - red devils - by Mexican fisherman. By this point, my BS meter was running high. For one, if two Mexican fisherman had literally been eaten by these super squid it would likely have been reported on the major news channels. And second, 30 million offspring per mama squid just seemed downright inconceivable (pun intended). I decided to investigate.

The truth about Humboldt Squid, while not necessarily as fantastic as the article suggests, is still pretty nuts. They can grow to be six feet long, and can swim up to 15mph (three times faster than Olympic swimmers). They have three hearts and a very large brain, to go with their ten tentacles. Each tentacle has over 1,000 sucker disks, and each sucker disk has over 20 teeth. They hunt in packs of up to 1,000 and change colors and reflect light to communicate and possibly confuse their prey. When the fish are in sight, the Humboldt Squid go into a feeding frenzy, aggressively attacking everything around them, using their baseball-sized beaks to devour what they catch. To add to their legend, Humboldt Squid eat each other - scientific estimates suggest fellow Humboldts make up perhaps 20% of their diet.

But what of all the man-eating reports? As it stands, there are no scientific reports confirming this has ever happened. Any claims have come from fishermen's stories passed on through the years. Then again, there are relatively few scientific reports on the species in general. A few things are clear - according to leading squid expert William Gilly of Stanford these squid do two things in life: they eat and they reproduce. They are intelligent, inquisitive, and communicative (even if we don't yet know what they are saying). They have indeed moved north to California waters, and there is no question they are eating a significant portion of already depleted fish stocks. Ongoing studies are taking place to determine the long-term ecological implications of these new staples of the California coast. Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about their mating habits or their total population. Even their life expectancy is unknown, although estimates range from 1-2 years.

This lack of solid information probably plays a role in this particular squid lore. In a vacuum of scientific data it is easy to call these bizarre and ferocious predators man-eaters. Then again, those who have been brave (or stupid) enough to swim with Humboldts while they were feeding have been attacked quite viciously. If not for armored wet suits designed specifically for these missions, a squid-Jaws moment is certainly conceivable. No matter what the science shows going forward, I know enough to keep me far away from los diablos rojos.

Week 33: Navy SEALs are badass.

My first exposure to the Navy SEALs came from reading The Lone Survivor, written by former SEAL Marcus Luttrell. It is the harrowing story of his four-man SEAL team's location being compromised in the mountains of Afghanistan, and their subsequent battle against hundreds of Taliban (waged while simultaneously scaling down a mountain ridge to attempt to escape). Needless to say, the book piqued my interest. Why was the Navy operating in the mountains of Afghanistan? And who are these guys who show up deep inside enemy territory - typically at night and with painted green faces - execute their mission, and get out before sunrise?

To help understand the SEALs - whose name is derived from their ubiquitious "sea, air and land" mandate - and why they are so extraordinary, I will begin with a few facts. No Navy SEAL has ever surrendered. No Navy SEAL's body, dead or alive, has ever been left in combat. There are fewer than 10,000 Navy SEALs - retired and active combined. Navy SEALs are typically the first on-the-ground troops in any thorny situation, anywhere. They are trained to operate in the arctic, the desert, the jungle, underwater and in the air. SEAL training is notorious for being the hardest military training on the planet. Every SEAL is trained to be proficient in all types of operations, from shooting to demolition to recon to counterinsurgency. From the Viet Cong to terrorists in Afghanistan, enemies of the United States have often reported being absolutely terrified of the stealth and ruthless efficiency of the SEALs - and for damn good reason.

How do they get so good? It starts with attracting those who are basically unmatched in both physical and mental strength and endurance. It ends with uncompromising, intense training that makes these men warriors. The initial six months is called Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) Training. Perhaps the most widely known part of BUD/S is Hell Week, which consists of five and a half days of continuous physical training with a maximum of four hours of sleep. Not four hours of sleep per night - four hours of sleep total. The Navy's website echoes what many SEALs said in the interviews I watched: "Hell Week proves to those who make it that the human body can do ten times the amount of work the average man thinks possible." Written at the training facility in large letters for all to see is a quote that taunts the new trainees: "The only easy day was yesterday." One SEAL laughed at his trainers in the Army's parachute school, because their sets of push-ups were only ten at a time. Navy SEALs do fifty. SEAL snipers are expected to be able to hit within one inch of a target a football field away. Among the more hated drills is "log training", during which teams of six wannabe SEALs lift, push and pull 200+ pound logs for ninety minutes straight. The overwhelming majority of those trying out to become a SEAL quit during initial training. But it is this type of almost sadistic training that weeds out the weak, and prepares the new SEALs for battle.

But "battle" for Navy SEALs is different than for others in the armed forces. For Navy SEALs, battle is done on their terms. SEALs are the hunters, not the hunted. They embrace complexity and welcome bad conditions. In fact, for their missions they seek out bad conditions, because they know that their ability to deal with a monsoon (or jungle... or blizzard) is a competitive advantage over their adversaries. This is also why most SEAL operations are carried out in the dead of night, when the element of surprise can be further leveraged.

Today, SEAL teams are playing a leading role in the war against Islamic terrorists. They have been a huge - and hugely successful - part of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. And while their operations are typically clandestine, there is the occasional high-profile event. Earlier this year, Navy SEALs were responsible for the successful release of an American boat captain from Somali pirates. Five days into the standoff, with tensions rising and an AK-47 to the captain's head, SEAL snipers simultaneously shot dead all three pirates. Each sniper shot only once, and all three were headshots. I might add that this was in a patch of particularly rough seas, making an already difficult shot even more tricky.

So the next time you feel too tired to get up for work, or don't feel like running the extra mile at the gym, think about the fact that in Cornado, California there is a group of young men who have not slept for days and are doing sets of fifty push-ups in the cold ocean water. All I can say is I'm glad we have these guys on our side...

Week 32: New York's Hapless Homeless

I've been meaning to research and write about this topic for some time now. Since I started living in New York City in 2007, there has been an undeniable increase in the sheer number of homeless people on the streets. Just last week, a group of three chose the stoop outside my girlfriend's house as their new pad before yesterday deciding to move on. The Coalition for the Homeless claims New York City shelter inhabitants are at an all-time high of 39,000 per night. If accurate, that represents about one half of one percent of the city's population. The range of homeless in the city spans from the depressing - from Vietnam vets to the severely mentally and physically disabled - to the entertaining
Fifth Avenue drummer and the many subway system
quartets.

In resesarching this topic, I'm sad to say it was difficult to find an objective view or analysis of the problem of homelessness in New York City. Almost every video or article began with the homeless but ended with some kind of politics-driven diatribe. My perhaps cynical impression is that many making these documentaries were using the homeless as nothing more than a political tool. That said, I'm not blind to the fact this is a social issue and social issues are inherently political issues as well. And it isn't terribly controversial to say the bleak economic situation is driving the wedge between the "haves" and the "have nots" even farther apart.

But from these documentaries there was one oft-repeated refrain: how could there be so many homeless in such a rich city? Many made references to the fact that Mayor Bloomberg is a billionaire, and suggested it is outrageous that a city run by a billionaire should have any homeless people. Aside from the simple answer - it's just not that simple - I'd like to point out that Bloomberg just accepted Buffett and Gates' challenge to donate over half of his net worth to charity. And as for a rich city, I'd like to note that both New York City and New York State have incredibly high tax levels and both institutions are running massive budget deficits. But the point isn't really about what is or is not "rich" - the point is in New York we are surrounded by tall buildings and fancy restaurants and men in suits... sharing the streets with some down on their luck people who for many reasons are not in a position to help themselves. And trust me - as someone who gets asked at least 5 times a day for money, the stark contrast between these two worlds is eye-opening.

To be frank, these repeated and forced encounters are awkward. Of course I want to help, and I suspect others do as well, but how? One solution is to give food and not money - a few weeks ago I gave a homeless person a granola bar - he seemed surprised but happy. It reminded me of a time when my Mom was once approached by some homeless children in a parking lot. They asked for money and she refused, but gave them a pack of yogurt. Out of empathy or perhaps guilt I do occassionally give a token amount of money (when I don't have a granola bar). And yes, I know it will not change the situation... I also know they will probably spend it on booze or drugs. But I do it anyway. What else is to be done? The scary part is that at some point - perhaps the 4,000th time you've been asked if you can spare some change - your mind glazes over and that initial empathy isn't there. Hey not my problem, man.

But if you don't want to give money directly to the homeless because it might go to poor habits, surely you can give to an organization that advocates for the homeless? Unfortunately, it's not that simple either. Perhaps the biggest and certainly the most visible organization in Manhattan was the United Homeless Organization (UHO). Their tables were planted on just about every other block with a red table cloth and an old water jug into which you were implored to contribute. Well, it turns out the whole thing was a fraud. The founders used the money for themselves and the volunteers took the balance of the funds. None of the money went to help anyone else. A judge recently ordered the "charity" to be shut down. I'm positive that most charities are not like this one, and that there are many worthwhile organizations that strive to serve the homeless. My point is, it's difficult to make an individual contribution to this problem on the margin, because everywhere you look there are "feel good" opportunities that ultimately do nothing and perhaps exacerbate the underlying problems.

From a practical perspective, it seems to me that there is no way to solve the immediate problem with a sweeping, top-down idea. One of the homeless women whose interview I watched put it best: "how do you even begin to find a job with no address, no phone number?" Without treatment, how can those who have serious but treatable mental disorders be anything but homeless? The fact is, I am incredibly lucky to have never been in a situation without some support network. I can't imagine how scary it would be to have nothing. So I do believe there has to be a focus on the basics - that which is just enough to help people help themselves... to get the positive feedback loop going. While this may not be enough for many of the worst cases, there are no doubt some bums who just need another shot.

As I anecdotally notice a larger and larger homeless population, I can only imagine that the status quo is becoming less and less acceptable. The humane case for help goes without saying. For those who don't care about the humane case, they should care that the streets are noticably more likely to be covered in urine, for instance. After all, we aren't talking about the 46% of Americans who don't pay federal income tax - we're talking about an incredibly small, hapless portion of the population...

Unfortunately I've got no overarching solution this week, but I will end with a question that has challenged me a great deal in the last few months: what is the best way to help people help themselves?

Week 31: Are we alone?

Three weeks ago, a Harvard astronomer named Dimitar Sasselov gave an 18 minute TED conference talk that caused quite a stir.  His contention is that recent research suggests there could be 100 million "earth-like" (read: earth-size) planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone!  This is the perfect topic for a blog about learning new things - there is arguably nothing I know less about than planetary science.  But given the press coverage and controversy resulting from Professor Sasselov's talk - oh yeah, and that whole nagging issue of "are we alone in the universe" - I've decided to take a stab at the topic. I will start with a very brief overview of what he said, quickly explain the controversy and finish with a few big picture thoughts.  For those who don't want to read on, I'll make it simple for you: I don't think life exists only on earth.     

Sasselov starts with Copernicus, from whom we learned that planet Earth is not the center of the universe.  This realization led to 400 years of curiosity and scientific study focused on the possibility that other forms of life exist.  Indeed, every new, more powerful telescope has shown us a bigger and bigger universe.  Put another way: the more we learn about what is out there, the smaller we realize we are on a relative basis.  The latest and greatest telescope - Kepler (think souped up Hubble) - is at the center of a $600mm NASA project to identify other planets in our galaxy.  More specifically, the goal is to find other planets orbiting stars in our galaxy that are similar to Earth.   

The process by which the Kepler does this is fascinating.  It monitors over 100,000 stars in the galaxy, and tracks the dimming of spots of light on the stars.  This small dimming of light can potentially represent a planet orbiting that star - as the dimming mass moves, you can deduce things like planet size, rotation, orbit, and closeness to the star around which it is orbiting.   The Kepler has identified many potential planet candidates, and the scientist teams follow up on promising leads from there.  Perhaps the most important planet characteristic sort is by size.  If the goal is to find earth-like planets, this makes sense.  For a variety of scientific reasons, small planets are better suited for water and for life (or at least life as we know it).  In our solar system there are four planets besides Earth that fall into the "small" category: Mars, Venus, Mercury and Pluto.  Looking out to our galaxy, we had previously found a disproportionate number of planets bucketed in the large planet category (think Jupiter). We now know this was because our telescopes caught only the biggest masses.  The latest Kepler data have found about 1160 planet candidates.  Compositionally, this group of planet candidates seems to have significantly more smaller planets relative to larger planets! This is hugely important; for the first time we have real scientific data verifying the proportionally large existence of small, potentially earth-size planets in our galaxy.   

Now, there were a number of blogs and articles that reacted somewhat negatively to this talk.  One objection was that he used "planets" to describe the newly found masses, and not the scientifically correct "planet candidates."  There is apparently a scientific process that must be followed before something can be officially called a "planet." A second objection was that he used the term "earth-like" to describe the planets they found, when they are not necessarily earth-like, but rather are earth-sized.  Both of these are fair contentions, but in my mind they do not take away from the significance of the research being done or how exciting this is for all of us. If after all the analysis is done there are only one hundred thousand truly "earth-like" and not merely "earth-size" planets in our galaxy, that would still be an incredible scientific finding.

Of course a tremendous amount of work remains: the scientists must now study the existing sample size to determine the habitability of some of these planet candidates, and there is a constant stream of additional data to be reviewed and analyzed.  What's REALLY cool about this is the overlap between the Kepler project and Harvard's Origins of Life Initiative. This is an interdisciplinary institute with all types of scientists (biologists, chemists and astronomers among them) whose goal is to learn about the beginning of life on Earth and perhaps in other places. This gets at the still unanswered question of: if there is life on other planets is it similar to life on earth? Is life as a chemical process universal - like gravity - or is it tailored to a specific environment? One example of how biology experiments can help astronomers is a recent finding that some clay and liquid water, when mixed, can produce naturally available molecules that form spontaneous bubbles, whose membranes are similar to every living membrane on Earth. As Sasselov puts it, this interdisciplinary group at Harvard is building a bridge from two sides of the proverbial river. There are those like him who are looking at planets (think pond scum) and those on the other side who are in the lab (think DNA/RNA). Both groups are trying to get to the foundation and formation of life, and they hope to do so by meeting somewhere in the middle. Right now it is not a full bridge, but if you believe Sasselov it is an important stepping stone to what he says is science redefining life as we know it.

Copernicus helped us realize our spatial insignificance relative to the universe around us. It is possible that through our evolving discoveries about life we will again change our thinking. As Sasselov points out, life may be insignificant in size but it is not insignificant in time. The Earth's biosphere (i.e., life) has existed almost one third of the time the universe is predicted to have been around. And the importance of life relative to the universe increases even more if earth-like or even earth-size planets are nearly as prevalent as they seem to be. Perhaps, then, we aren't alone... and perhaps we will soon learn more about our intergalactic partners in this funny thing called life. 

Week 30: What Ronald McDonald House did for Justin

Last week, the 13 year old nephew of my girlfriend died after his second battle with cancer. Justin Hudson was one of the most friendly, gregarious kids I've ever met. His excitement and positive attitude were contagious. Justin's years-long battle brought together his community, as his death broke its heart. There are two things that stick out to me at this point - the first is that Justin was a fighter. He surprised his doctors and beat the odds, time and time again. And second, boy was Justin loved. From the memorial service to his Facebook page, the outpouring of support for Justin preceding his death and for his family following his death has been incredible. While the loss of someone so young leaves a feeling of unfairness and perhaps bitterness, the bravery with which he faced his situation and the love inspired by his short life must be celebrated and learned from.

Earlier this week I spoke with Justin's mother and asked how I and others could help. She said that the Ronald McDonald House of Central Pennsylvania was invaluable to Justin and the family through their ordeal. Before I get into some of the research I've done on the charity, I will start by giving readers the opportunity to leave a donation in memory of Justin Hudson (link to donate is here). My family and girlfriend will match the first $200 received. Please let me know if you plan to donate so we can track the amount to be matched (email: the52weekproject@gmail.com); of course, if you do not feel comfortable emailing, anonymous donations are welcome as well. Donations can be made either to the General Operating Fund or to the new "Room to Grow" campaign. I will be donating to the latter.

Now, on to the more familiar part of the blog - learning about something new. Ronald McDonald House certainly fits the bill. If you've been to a McDonald's, you've probably seen the change collection canisters in front of the cash registers. In truth, I always imagined that whatever charity these canisters supported would be something hoakie. Well, I was wrong. Ronald McDonald house has a presence in 52 countries around the world, and its primary focus is on sick children. Its flagship service has been to provide low or no cost lodging near hospitals to families of critically ill children. It also provides in-hospital educational and recreational resources for kids. Finally, the Ronald McDonald Care Mobile project consists of many mobile treatment centers that provide primary care, immunizations and other vital services to areas that are underserved.

At the local level, the Central Pennsylvania chapter (based in Hershey) was extremely important to Justin and his family. While in the intensive care unit, Justin had board games, books and movies to pass the time (with his most recent cancer, he was hospitalized for the better part of 7 months). His mother was of course by his side throughout, and when she was not able to sleep in the hospital with him, she stayed nearby in a room provided by the Ronald McDonald house. This service made an already unimaginably stressful situation much more logistically feasible. In Hershey, there is currently a waiting list of families of sick children without a place to stay while their children are treated.

Charitable giving is an individual matter; there is certainly no lack of problems needing attention and resources. So whether giving to the Ronald McDonald House in memory of Justin makes sense for you or not, I encourage you to think about what matters to you. Perhaps his death can remind us of the ways in which we can, on the margin, make the world a little bit better.

Week 29: The Lost Colony of Roanoke

I am on my way to the Outer Banks, North Carolina for the first time. As regular readers may have realized by now, my posts are often inspired by the people, places and events around me. While driving through Chesapeake, my girlfriend's parents told me about what is now called The Lost Colony of Roanoke. Apparently Jamestown was not the first English settlement in the New World. A small group of settlers preceded both the Jamestown settlers and the Pilgrims. But these settlers disappeared mysteriously, never to be heard from again.

It began in 1585 with the arrival of about 100 former soldiers to Roanoke. This voyage was the result of a mandate given to Sir Walter Raleigh, one of Queen Elizabeth's favorite explorers. Raleigh had convinced the Queen that a footprint in the new world was important in combatting the ever-expanding influence of the Spaniards. The first settlers were very harsh with the Croatoan, a local and by most historical accounts, friendly group of Native Americans. It is thought that after blaming the natives for stealing a silver goblet, they burned the tribe's leader to death. Soon after these tensions, the settlers hitched rides back to England. It wasn't until 1587 that a second group of 116 settlers, this time consisting of agrarian men, women and children, crossed the Atlantic and landed in Roanoke. They had planned to land in Chesapeake but due to poor weather ended up farther south.

Due to the terrible treatment by the English a few years earlier, the Croatoan were initially very skeptical of these new settlers. It was only due to the cool heads of Governor John White and the Croatoan leaders that larger fighting didn't break out when one of the settlers was killed by natives while crab fishing. In spite of better relations with the tribes, a better mix of settlers (full families with farming skills), and a more competent leader, the settlers still had a major problem: there simply were not enough supplies. So they decided to send White back to England to arrange for more support from the Queen. He was leaving behind a very vulnerable population: in addition to a dearth of supplies, the settlers were also faced with the constant risk of attack by Native Americans, a harsh winter, and inconsistent crops at best. Before departing, White and the settlers agreed that they would leave signals if, for whatever reason, they had to leave the area. In particular, they agreed to mark crosses on trees in the event of a forced evacuation.

Unfortunately for the settlers, White returned to England just as the Queen was preparing for war with the powerful Spanish Armada. All English ships were directed to the battles, and White was unable to secure any supplies or transport back to Roanoke for the next three years. Upon his return he was heartbroken to find nothing but a deserted stockade around a nonexistent town. Even the sturdiest buildings were simply not there. The only clue was the word CROATOAN written on a tree at the center of where the town had been, and three letters on surrounding trees: C R O. White took this to mean they had moved to nearby Croatoan Island. But his efforts to sail there were thwarted by bad weather, and he was forced back to England, where he died. Future voyages to the island, however, found no trace of settlement.
 
The fate of the Roanoke settlers is to this day a mystery. None of the settlers were heard from or seen again. Initial theories were that either the Spaniards or the local tribes had killed them. But if this were the case, there would be some kind of remains. Furthermore, a thorough check of the meticulously kept Spanish archives found no reference to any killings of English settlers. And neither hypothetical would explain the disappearance of the buildings. Another theory is that the settlers built a boat and tried to sail back to England, but died at sea. However it is unlikely the settlers would have attempted such a voyage given a lack of supplies, no nautical equipment or expertise, and the extremely dangerous weather conditions of the area (Cape Hattarus was called the "Graveyard of the Atlantic").

Far more likely is that the settlers joined with a Native American tribe. It could have been the nearby Croatoans - there are reports of North Carolina tribes with members who spoke English, and who had European features like blue eyes. Alternatively, they could have gone south and joined the Hattarus tribes. In this case they would likely have been wiped out with the tribe during a smallpox epidemic in the 1700s. Finally, they could have headed north and joined the Chesapeake tribes, who were massacred shortly before John Smith settled Jamestown. This version is supported by John Smith's memoirs, who in speaking with Pocahontas' father learned that some white settlers had joined with certain tribes.

The fact is, nobody knows. Why was there a stockade left around a deserted town with no buildings? Why would the settlers leave a message saying CROATOAN, with no cross SOS symbol for Governor White, unless they left voluntarily? Why didn't they leave better clues? My best (uneducated) guess is that they joined with the Croatoan tribes. Regardless of what happened, it is clear that what I was taught in grade school - that Jamestown was the first new world settlement - is revisionist history at its finest.
     

  

Week 28: Old Swatty, The Best Beer You've Never Heard Of

This post was inspired by a recent weekend trip to see a great friend of mine.  We have always enjoyed a few beers together - initially this meant drinking whatever we could afford or could get our hands on (I'm talking Keystone, Natty Light, Milwaukee's Best...).  I can't speak for my friend, but at the time it seemed to me that Bud Lite was a high-end, classy beer.  Beer was beer, and we didn't think too much more about it.  A couple of years wiser and a couple more beers consumed have changed our tastes.  And more recently, they have made me aware of a rapidly growing craft beer movement taking hold in the United States.  For under $100, you can now purchase a home brewing kit and - with a little homework - can brew and bottle your own beers in an astoundingly quick and easy way.  Trying my friend's surprisingly tasty brew (affectionately named "Old Swatty" for the creek that runs behind his house) motivated me to learn more about the movement.

The roots of the microbrew renaissance in the US have to be viewed in the broader historical context of American beer making.  As a country with strong European influences, beer brewing was extremely popular in the US prior to Prohibition.  But the dry period devastated beer brewers, wiping out an estimated 800 breweries.  Following Prohibition was a period of massive industry consolidation that took place for decades (and is still taking place today). This brought the total breweries in the US down to just 50 in 1982.  Incidentally this also led to the flavorless lager/pilsner mass market beer that we have suffered through for far too long.    

The great news is that there are currently almost 1,500 small breweries in the US. The home brewing movement began in the late 1960s in Northern California with breweries like Anchor Brewing. It was very much a grassroots movement, with people sharing tips and recipes.  However it caught on quickly, and was influential enough that a group of computer developers, who likened the home brewer networks to their open source visions for technology, called themselves the "Homebrewer Computer Club." These same developers ended up founding Apple Computer.  Over time the craft beer movement picked up stream and soon state fairs were holding large beer competitions.  Different regions developed distinct styles and brewing preferences - two of the my personal favorite east coast brewers are the Boston Beer Company (owner of Samuel Adams) and Dogfishhead.  Northern California, Oregon, Massachusetts and Vermont are particularly well known for their craft beers.

Most successful breweries began with exactly what my friend is now doing (and what my college roommate and I quite unsuccessfully attempted during sophomore year) - buying equipment, mixing ingredients, and developing flavors and brewing tactics that you like.  A science project for adults, if you will.   Highlighting the success of craft beer is that politicians are taking notice at the national level. John Kerry recently proposed legislation to cut taxes on craft brewers, one of the few recent examples of successful American manufacturing.  Unfortunately politicians are also screwing things up - the Oregon Liquor Control Commission very recently, confirmed the illegality of transporting one's own fermentation (beer or wine) outside of one's house.  This has already cancelled wine and beer competitions that have existed for decades.  Fortunately there has been widespread public outrage over this ruling - I hope justice for beer and wine lovers prevails!

After my research on the topic, my conclusion is that home brewing is pretty damn cool.  It is creative, it is fun, and it is both customizable and flexible.  It is customizable in the sense that you can be as sophisticated or unsophisticated as you'd like... You can dig into the science of it, or just make the standard brews. And  it is flexible in the sense that beer brewing can be done just about anywhere (including from an apartment in Manhattan!).  I haven't yet taken the plunge, but I'm getting closer. Until then, stay tuned for Old Swatty brew, the best beer you've never heard of!  

-----------------------------------------------------------
Here are some links for those who want to learn more:

Homebrewers.com
Basicbrewing.com
Craftbeer.com
Homebrewjunkie.com
How to brew a batch of beer (video)

  

Week 27: Freedom!

This holiday weekend began with a wonderful dinner with a few friends, one of whom is Canadian. My cultural ignorance shone through when I asked why she had prepared Canadadian-flag themed cupcakes to accompany the American-flag cupcakes... I was completely oblivious to the fact that July 1 is Canada Day! Upon reflection it hit me that outside of the U.S. and perhaps France and Hungary, I know next to nothing of the road to independence for other countries.

It is a holiday weekend, so I will spare readers with the full histories, but I looked up a few countries and have given a very brief overview of their respective independence days (or lack thereof!). I purposely chose nations about which I'm curious but have little existing knowledge.

So, Happy Independence Day. Here's to America, and here's to all those around the world who have the courage to challenge injustice, the tenacity to fight oppression, and the ingenuity and capacity to inspire others.

-------

Ghana: On March 6, 1957 Ghana gained its independence from the British, thereby becoming the first black African country to become independent (according to the BBC's standards of independence, that is). The newly created flag features a black star representing the African struggle against colonialism, a green stripe representing the natural beauty of the country, a gold stripe representing the country's mineral wealth and a red stripe representing the blood shed for those who struggled for the country's independence.

South Korea: While this one is a bit more controversial given the ongoing split between North and South Korea, I am including it because I learned something new here. I somehow had no idea the Japanese controlled the Korean peninsula until the end of World War II. Independence day is officially recognized as August 15, 1945, in accordance with the Japanese surrender. The deal was brokered by the USSR and the U.S.; to the north of the 38th parallel the Japanese surrendered to the USSR, and to the south they surrendered to the US. This has marked the dividing line between North and South Korea ever since.

New Zealand: After the British experienced the fiasco that was the American Revolution, they were keen to avoid a redux. So the colonies housing relatively large British populations, among them Canada, Australia and New Zealand, were given proressively more autonomy. The New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852 gave the colony's settlers the right to self-government. The country's independence was cemented by its inclusion in the League of Nations in 1919.

Peru: The Peruvians declared their independence from Spain on July 28, 1821, although they did not have full freedom until after a three year war with the Spaniards. If you think fireworks are over the top in the US, go to Peru on July 28th: in addition to fireworks, they celebrate with bull fights and greased-pole-climbing contests!

Thailand: Thailand has no official independence day; rather, they have a "national day", celebrated each year on the king's birthday! The current king's birthday is December 5, for those inquiring minds...

Week 26: The End of the Rubber Room

Last week, classes ended for New York City public schools. But something else ended as well, something so outrageous I literally do not know where to begin. "Rubber Rooms", more formally called Reassignment Centers, housing roughly 700 New York City public school teachers were officially shut down following a deal between Mayor Bloomberg and the city teacher's union. It's about time.

Rubber rooms consisted of education department facilities filled with teachers who for a variety of alleged disciplinary reasons were "reassigned" from their teaching jobs. Instead of facing allegations against them in a prompt, thorough way, these teachers were forced to sit in crowded, Spartan rooms from 8 AM to 3 PM each day, receiving full salary, awaiting their respective hearings. In many cases it would take months and even years before cases were heard. The allegations against teachers ranged from saying a curse word in the presence of a student to incompetence to physical abuse. Sometimes the teachers were told simply that they were being "reassigned", with no further explanation or justification. The end result? One percent of the city's teachers remained on payroll, sitting idly and waiting to either be fired or reinstated, costing taxpayers $30 million each year. What is wrong with this picture?

Interviews with teachers who spent time in the rubber room describe almost jail-like conditions. When a teacher would first report to the rubber room, he or she would show up with no instructions, and would find an extremely crowded, noisy room. The teacher would then quickly notice that the other teachers had segregated themselves by race. Making eye contact or encroaching in another teacher's space could result in a fist fight, which apparently happened often. Some teachers would turn the lights off to try and sleep, others would turn the lights back on to try and read. One particularly annoying teacher played guitar all day, every day. I heard a recording of the rubber room audio, taken by one of the interviewed teachers - it was pure cacophony. It's so bad a documentary film was made to highlight the absurdity of the situation(see the trailer here).

This system was clearly a disaster, on many levels. Teachers should not be treated like prison inmates, and disciplinary and performance issues should be addressed quickly and fairly. Taxpayers should not be paying $30 million per year for teachers to sit and watch paint dry. Students should not be able to blackmail teachers powerless to enforce discipline. How did this system exist to begin with? It is a complicated problem, encompassing macro and micro politics, principals' personal grudges, and poor school administration, to name a few... but the overwhelming problem across the board seems to be incompetence.

I'll end with a particularly depressing case and point. New York City has spent $2 million this year hiring lawyers to help fire incompetent teachers. (Of the roughly 80,000 NYC teachers, I'm sure there are more than a handful who fall into this category...) Guess how many were successfully fired? I'm serious, guess.



Three. The students deserve better than that.

Special Post: The US Should Play With a Chip on its Shoulder

Click here for this week's standard post, below is a short, non-52 week project related post...

The US Should Play With a Chip on its Shoulder

Which US team will show up Wednesday morning against Algeria? Will it be the team whose shockingly poor defensive coordination allowed a goal in the first 15 minutes against both England and Slovenia? Or will it be the gritty team that battled back to tie both games, the team who in a just world would have won on a brilliant three-goal second half against Slovenia? (For those living under a rock, an inexplicable foul called against the US negated what would have been the game-winning goal in the 88th minute.)

But as frustrating as a stolen World Cup win is, there is a silver lining here. This call might be precisely what the US team needs to advance or even win the group. You see, this team performs well, but only with the right motivation. It can't seem to win simply because it is favored to do so. It needed a terrible first-half showing against Slovenia (population 2 million) to rally and play to its potential. It played well as an underdog against England. It is clear this team plays well with a little fire in its belly.

Following the game players rightly felt "gutted." But now that the dust has cleared, that emotion will shift. It will shift to anger. "We were robbed" will become the rallying cry at the US camp. So while an objectively bad call cost the Yanks two points in Group C standings, it could be what propels them further in the tournament.

Thanks to a 0-0 tie between Algeria and England, a simple truth exists: the US team controls its destiny. One win and they are through. The low scoring by others in the group, coupled with the fact that "goals for" is the first tie-breaker, puts the boys in red, white and blue in a strong position. They had some good luck against England and some tough luck against Slovenia. Now it is time to channel their frustration, play with a chip on their shoulder, and for God's sake get the ball to Landon Donovan.

Week 25: How to publish a book for under $200

I am no expert on the book publishing industry; any experience I have is anecdotal and incomplete at best. But this week I came across a podcast from Wharton describing a really cool start-up called FastPencil. The company helps aspiring authors focus on their core competency - writing - by dramatically simplifying the book formatting, design, publication and distribution process.

For a relatively modest fee, you are able to both acquire an ISBN number for your book (think new-age card catalog/digital legitimacy) and sell the book on the many e-book distribution platforms, from iBooks (Apple) to Amazon to Barnes & Noble. Furthermore, the company flips the existing profit-sharing model on its head. Traditional publishers often don't give the author more than 15% of profits, while FastPencil and other start-ups like it are now giving the authors 80% of the profits. This is an incredible shift, and rightly puts the incentive to create with the creators, as opposed to the "suits."

FastPencil CEO Steve Wilson thinks that existing brick and mortar chains like Barnes & Noble and Borders may not exist in a few years, and I agree. It's clear that e-book sales are taking an increasingly large share of the total book sales market. As someone who just bought an iPad and is about to move apartments, I can tell you that I welcome the idea of having all of my books in one digital device (as opposed to 15 boxes). But the question of digital vs. hard copy is one of distribution; just like in the music industry both digital and hard copy distribution will exist in some form regardless of how technology changes.

The real battle here is over production. In the past, a few record labels and publishers could control the pipeline of talent by hand-picking those who would fit their mold - and by making these artists successful. In today's world, word-of-mouth is the most important metric for success. So a company like FastPencil's business model is dedicated to providing a platform through which creative people can tap into and build their existing networks, distribute their work, and generate through social media the highest level of buzz possible. Instead of making outsized bets on a few John Grishams (a strategy guaranteed to both sell books in the near-term and box out up and coming talent), these new publishers are allowing a much wider net of talent and counting on the market to decide who succeeds.

Make no mistake, this has become remarkably easy: one of the featured authors on FastPencil is a child psychiatrist who wrote and published his book in NINETY days. Compare this to the usual publication process, which takes 1-2 years. The site will also link you to a network of potential collaborators (illustrators, editors, other authors), a marketplace for your finished product, and both print and e-publication options. For under $200, you quite literally have a product that will take your manuscript/blog/whatever from start-to-finish and introduce you to a market of millions and millions of consumers.

The point here is not to blindly promote FastPencil. The point is that the barriers to entry continue to come down, across the board. Just like this blog attempts to prove that the tools to learn about anything are readily available, FastPencil is proving that those with the ability and desire to pursue writing will no longer be held back by the political or financial barriers imposed by the large New York publication shops. As companies like FastPencil develop and grow, the excuses for not following your dreams ring hollow... so what is your next move?

Week 24: The obligatory World Cup post

I love the World Cup. For me, it's better than the Olympics, the Super Bowl, and the World Series combined. I still remember going out late with my Dad to a Budapest bar (my first, I'm sure) at the age of 9 to watch Brazil play the United States in the '94 cup. And how could I forget watching the Brazilians win their record fifth title with thousands of screaming Brazilians on Copacabana Beach? Or seeing France upset the Brazilians from Paris in 2006... While I've yet to attend a World Cup (although I've promised to take my Dad to 2014 in Brazil), I've been lucky enough to watch the World Cup in six countries: US, Brazil, Portugal, Spain, France and Hungary. And the raw emotion and sheer excitement has been palpable in every single country. It's a remarkable feeling, as though an entire nation collectively suits up on game-day, ready to go to battle on the pitch.

This week I decided to watch FIFA's greatest World Cup moments. With goals form legendary players like Puskás to the greatest saves to World Cup bloopers, this is a must-watch. This video timeline reflects the depth, breadth, and timelesness of the tournament. It also highlights the mini-miracles of the past. How unbelievable that North Korea beat Italy 1-0 in 1966 to advance to the next round, and would have made it to the semi-finals had the Portuguese not scored four consecutive goals to earn a 4-3 victory?!

In my opinion, the World Cup tournament is the closest that exits to a shared human experience. FIFA estimates that over 715 million people watched the 2006 final, and the tournament drew over 26 billion cumulative views. The myriad subplots and layers of meaning enveloped by the World Cup - and certainly this World Cup - are enough to overwhelm even the most ardent football enthusiast or global citizen. From the story of South Africa's triumph over apartheid to Maradona's demands for a $2,000 bidet in his hotel suite, there is plenty to follow.

I couldn't be happier that the historic first World Cup on African soil has started with a bang, with two of the three African countries to play (South Africa and Ghana) performing extremely well in the first round. Who wasn't thrilled when the tens of thousands of noise-making vuvuzelas willed the brilliant strike of South African's newest hero, Siphewe Tshabalala, into the upper corner of the net? And who wasn't impressed with the ruthless efficiency of the Germans in dismantling an Australian team that many expected to advance to the round of 16? Anyone who has played sports has to sympathize with English goalkeeper Robert Green's botch, which cost the English a win against the Americans. These moments will live forever.

The World Cup truly is a unique global experience, encompassing creative goal celebrations, individual and collective glory and heartbreak, drama, absurd dives and of course heavy doses of nationalistic fervor. Enjoy it, embrace it, learn from it. Whatever you do, don't ignore it.

Week 23: Around the world...

This post is going to combine two aspects of life that I absolutely love, but do not get nearly enough of - music and travel. I recently received a National Geographic travel magazine showing all the incredible places you can go (with time and money, of course). I loved the idea of going on their "Around the World" package until I noticed the $64,000 price tag. So in lieu of going around the world, and in an effort to both expand my musical horizons AND show readers an awesome music website, I am going to take a musical trip around the world. For each country I'd like to visit (the below is an abridged list), I picked a native song that stuck out to me for one reason or another.

In the spirit of the blog, I did all this using only free web based resources. In this case, I was able to do this thanks to Grooveshark, a free, legal streaming music website. Between Grooveshark, Pandora, and YouTube, you should be able to find just about any music you'd like to listen to. Through advertisements, Grooveshark pays the artists on its site, and removes those who do not want to be listed.

With that, put on some headphones and listen to all the new music I heard today... You can either click song by song, or load the entire playlist. The playlist will take a few minutes to load. Once you're in Grooveshark, double click the song title to listen.

Colombia: Pepe by famous Cumbia artist Lucho Bermúdez.

Cuba: Son De Negros en Cuba by an awesome singer/guitar player called Compay Segundo.

Senegal: Bul Ma Miin by Orchestra Baobob. I had to post a video here because seeing them play with Dave and Trey is really cool - if you don't want to listen to the whole thing just watch minutes 3-4. The version without Dave and Tim is also incredible.

Egypt: Mabrouk Wo Arisna by Ali Hassan Kuban, the "Godfather" of Nubian music. In this song you can really hear the fusion of African percussion, Middle Eastern melody and jazz.

Mongolia: Another video for this one, which is really a mix of Mongolia, India and the Flecktones - A Moment So Close, which starts with a Mongolian throat singer. These guys are just awesome, they can sing three tones simultaneously. The rest of the song is also insane; I'll be impressed if anyone knows what time signature it is in.

Australia: A neat little mix of English/Kriol, reggae/jam, Australia folk - Drangkinbala by Blekbala Mujik, an Australian band with a huge cult following.

Iraq: Halat Wayd by Naseer Shamma, one of the most famoust Oudists in Iraq. This song surprised me; I definitely did not expect the song from Iraq to be among my favorites from this exercise, but it is. There is so much tension in the song, both due to the percussive spacing and the really unique mix of instruments. If you're too bored to listen to the whole thing, just listen from minutes 5 to 6.

Costa Rica: Found a really cool song called La Bikina by a Costa Rican Grammy winning jazz band called Editus.

Argentina: The obligatory tango, but one I really like... Si soy asi by tango legend Hugo del Carril.

Finland: I'll leave you with a song by Finnish accordionist Maria Kalaniemi; the song is called Ahma.

Week 22: Coquí! Coquí!

Last weekend, a few friends and I went to Puerto Rico. While we had a great time, we neglected to do our research and were surprised to realize May is the rainy month on the island. Each morning we would go to the beach for the few hours of sun and then migrate to the pool bar for the inevitable afternoon thunderstorms. As evening came, rain or shine we were met with a chorus sung by hundreds of frogs. And not just any frogs - these were the tiny, magical Coquís, who thanks to their distinct, persistent calls are the pride of Puerto Rico. From songs to folklore, the Coquí is an indelible part of la cultura del Boriqua.

Legend has it that the indigenous Tainos knew the more powerful Spaniards were about to take over their island. The Taino leader, named Coquí, was well aware of his inability to defeat the Spanish by force, so he instead had his people transformed into frogs. In doing so he both saved their lives and guaranteed they would always remain in their native land. The nightly symphony of frogs is therefore considered a tribute to their dear leader.

While the Coquí is a treasure in Puerto Rico, you would be hard pressed to find any nostalgic Coquí tales in Hawaii. Apparently some frogs made it to the Hawaiian islands via transplanted plants, and their population grew rapidly. While the Coquí! call is celebrated as a beautiful song in San Juan, it is loathed as a cacophonous nuisance in Waikiki. The battle against the Coquí has raged for years, from town hall meetings to mass eradications. It's obvious that the poor little frogs have few friends outside of Puerto Rico.

Where do I stand on the issue? I love the Coquí, its distinguished chirp, and the history surrounding it. It just might be my favorite frog.

Week 21: Charter Schools

Distribution Source: iTunesU
Content Source: Stanford University
Format: Audio
Length: 1 hour, 14 minutes, 20 seconds

This Saturday, I was fortunate enough to share drinks with a group of friends including a young woman who teaches at a charter school. The simple description she gave of her job immediately caught my attention: "I teach underprivileged fifth graders in New York City, I expect all of my students to go to college, and I can be fired at any time if I am not helping them reach that goal." This was NOT what you'd expect to hear from most inner city elementary school teachers. My experience with charter schools prior to Saturday night had been peripheral at best - I know donating to charter schools is in vogue for hedge fund managers and investment bankers. And I know that a group of my fellow jurors vehemently opposed charter schools during a lunchtime discussion a few months ago. Anytime I see such passion on both ends of the spectrum of a debate, my kneejerk reaction is twofold: 1) I want to learn more and 2) the underlying reality probably lies somewhere in between those parameters.

First, what are charter schools and why should anyone care? The why to me is fairly obvious - I believe education represents the single best chance at human progress. As such, our educational system is worthy of intense scrutiny and discussion. For all practical purposes, primary and secondary education in the United States has historically been public - a monopoly. (Yes, of course private schools exist, but a cursory search suggests they make up only about 10% of total students in the US.) As a student of economics, I despise monopolies. They inhibit competition, provide end users with poor choices, and are terribly inefficient. By definition, monopolies are institutions with "sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." Without getting too political, let's just say that the government is not the institution I'd like defining the terms on which our future minds have access to education. As for charter schools, they are publicly funded schools that are free from many of the onerous regulations on other public schools. In exchange for this freedom, they are expected to perform. The metrics by which performance is measured are outlined in a given school's charter, or mandate. In other words, while they have to meet all state curriculum requirements, charter schools often have an additional specialty or focus (e.g., music or languages). Private funds are often raised in conjunction with public funding (which for charter schools is identical to other public schools), giving charters more freedom to increase teacher pay or fund teaching tools.

Charter schools are intellectually interesting to me for two key, related reasons. The first is the many levels of accountability within most of these schools... accountability at the organizational level in the sense that the schools must live up to their specific charters... accountability at the teacher level in the sense that charter school teachers are not given guaranteed tenure after a few short years, and can be fired if they are objectively bad at what they do... and accountability at the student level in the sense that children are expected to complete their work, finish school and go to college. Because of this accountability at different levels, which some claim is "cruel" to teachers who they say should not have to worry about job safety, students may have marginally fewer uninspiring teachers and more inspiring teachers. I despise the fact that the "compassionate" political push for teacher job safety in many cases creates a system that has no mechanism for eliminating bad apples. And the losers are, uniformly, the children. The second and related part that I appreciate is the schools' intense focus on the kids. Everything revolves around the students. The schools exist because the current system doesn't work well. It is classic creative destruction, which I believe creates innovation and progress. I'm not saying there are no phenomenal teachers or administrators outside of charter schools. It also is not a blanket support for charter school personnel. My point is that if an organization is created with an intense, transparent and pervasive focus on the core issue - student education and success - that framework will over time foster better learning, better teaching and better management than the alternative.

The flipside is that research on charter schools has been mixed. For one, there are very different rules regarding charter schools depending on what state you're in. Furthermore, charter schools are not really bound together by a common thread, other than that they are all nominally charter schools. So there is nothing that ensures a charter school will be a GOOD charter school. According to Wikipedia, 12.5% of the roughly 5,000 charter schools in the United States have closed due to problems (financial, managerial, etc.). To me, this number seems way too low for a system that hopes to challenge the education monopoly. It seems that this is indicative of the still nascent movement - the hope that comes with opening a new school is powerful. But like everything new, it quickly becomes not new. And once something is not new but rather systemic, the associated inertia keeps it in place for longer than it should be (regardless of its initial intent).

Where does this leave us? The goal of the charter school movement is, of course, to promote its students and their education. But the broader goal is to show that by presenting an element of choice and competition to public schooling, a tipping point of sorts will be realized whereby the old, entrenched modus operandi becomes unacceptable. I love the idea, and I love many of the anecdotes the fifth grade teacher gave me about her school. She even invited me to speak to her class next year about finance and possible careers in business. Of course I readily accepted. The charter school movement has clearly gained significant traction in the United States. It is now entering a new phase in which it has to prove itself and justify its existence and its growth going forward. This can only happen over time and by measuring results and strict accountability for those results. Needless to say, I'll be tuned in to the action. For the record, I will be rooting for charter schools and for any other innovative system that attempts to breakdown bureaucracy and any other barriers to what is such a critical issue in a globalized world: giving young people the tools and the opportunity to succeed in life.

Week 20: What makes Apple so great?

Distribution Source: TED.com
Content Source: Simon Sinek
Format: Video
Length: 18 minutes, 5 seconds
Link: Simon Sinek on TED.com

What makes Apple so great?

I'm sure many of you are rolling your eyes, especially given that I've already posted indirectly about the company once before.

I'm sorry, I can't help myself - I believe strongly that companies like Apple are our only hope for getting out of the current mess. But really, even if you hate the company, either for its success, its products, or its fanatic followers, the question still stands: how has one company managed to become so synonymous with what hundreds of companies strive for - innovation?

For me, Apple has always been intuitive. Not necessarily their products - although you can make that argument as well - but their ethos. Marketing words like "sleek" or "revolutionary" are projected onto the company's products, but its success is rooted in something deeper - a connection with people who innately desire what its products provide. The iPhone of course has had resounding commercial success, but at it's core it came from a fundamental belief: given the technological capacity that exists in the world today, there is no reason we should not have a device that seamlessly combines a phone with a music player with a gaming platform with an email server. And the tireless efforts to realize and perfect the product of this belief have revolutionized the world.

But this post is about more than Apple. It is about the way in which leaders, at an individual and an institutional level, inspire and mold our lives. I use Apple as an example because it is something we can all relate to, a case study in successful institutional leadership. This week's video really struck a chord. It describes why very different leaders are able to be so successful - to resonate with us.

Simply, the argument made by Simon Sinek is that people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it. He says - and I agree - that the true innovators are those whose message comes from the inside-out, not the outside-in. Yes, I admit this sounds hokey, but his framework for explaining this makes a lot of sense. He starts by drawing concentric circles, with the outermost circle saying "what", followed by "how", and finally the bulls-eye, "why." Everyone knows what he or she is selling, from the Girls Scout who is hawking those delicious thin mints to the beer vendor at a baseball game. Fewer people know how their product or concept creates value or meaning. How in this case refers to both the mechanics and the actual value proposition of a concept or product. And fewer still have the answer to the elusive question of why...

In this case "why" is not something obvious; the answer is not "to make money." The why is much more about the core of an idea. The why is ultimately why you subscribe to an idea or buy a product. As much as we'd like to believe otherwise, this is not based exclusively on rigorous, rational analysis. How many times have you heard a completely logical argument for purchasing something, and then decided not to because it didn't "feel" right? Conversely, how many times have you seen someone buy into something - an idea, product, whatever - based purely on "intuition"?

It turns out there is some cognitive science underlying all of this. The brain's neocortex is what controls rational thoughts (ie, "what"), while the lymbic brain is focused on the feelings ("how"/"why"), and also on the decision making - with no capacity for language. When we communicate from the outside-in people can understand the words and the logic but it does not drive behavior. But when we communicate from the inside out it speaks directly to this part of the brain and allows people to then rationalize the message using the neocortex.

To bring it back to Apple using Sinek's example, if Apple were like everyone else, their marketing might sound like this: "We make great computers, they’re beautifully designed, and they’re easy to use… want to buy one?” This is how most people operate - they say what we want and expect some behavior. But guess what? This approach is neither inspiring nor successful. What if instead Apple starts with the why: "In everything we do we believe in challenging the status quo… we believe in thinking differently.. the way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautiful and simply designed. They just so happen to be great computers. Want to buy one?" Anyone who has seen the Apple iPhone or iPad commercials will recognize the company's approach as the latter as opposed to the former.

Again, why harp on Apple? To me, it's obvious: where others have had the same opportunity with as many or more resources, they have fallen short. As Sinek points out, Gateway made a flat screen computer and nobody bought it. Dell made mp3 players and PDAs and I challenge any of you to find someone who owns one. Why would you buy an mp3 player or PDA from a computer manufacturer? It doesn't make sense... But in Apple's case, it does. From Apple, people are more than willing to buy a music player, or a phone, or a computer. Apple's genius has been its ability to be defined by its ingenuity and not by a product category.

Of course the underlying message goes beyond Apple. Consider Sinek's examples of the Wright Brothers, or Martin Luther King Jr. MLK had no internet or mass media through which he could invite people to hear his speech at the Lincoln Memorial. So why did 250,000 people come? Instead of talking about what was needed to change America, Dr. King had made a name for himself speaking about what he believed - the "why." People who heard his beliefs and believed in his beliefs told others... and others... and people showed up. A lot of them. They showed up not for him, but for themselves, in the same way that the buyers of Apple's products do so for themselves and not for the company's profit margins.

It is the capacity to create something so instinctively purposeful that also happens to make the company one of the most profitable on the planet. There is a fantastic lesson here for individual leaders: the difference between Apple and other companies is the difference between leaders and those who lead. To paraphrase Sinek, leaders have a position of power or authority, while those who lead - those who start with "why" - are the ones who inspire us. We follow those who lead because we have to and because we want to. Those who truly lead help us by reflecting a piece of ourselves back to us. This reflexivity develops our self-awareness, fosters our growth, and hopefully over time builds in us the capacity to lead others.

Week 19: Eyjafjallajökull

Distribution Source: Multiple
Content Source: Multiple
Format: Audio & Video
Length: 1 hour +

Last week I promised another write-up on Warren Buffett and his annual shareholder conference. But with the unpronounceable Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull blowing smoke again, I decided to move on to a more explosive topic. For those of you who haven't heard, Eyjafjallajökull's first eruption since 1821 single-handedly shut down European air traffic in mid-April, costing airlines over $3 billion. In addition to forcing the cancellation of thousands of flights, the relatively small volcano prevented President Obama from attending the Polish President's funeral, forced FC Barcelona to take a 14 hour coach bus ride to their Champions League semi-final match in Milan, and most tragically prevented Miley Cyrus from attending her European film premiere.

As you may have noticed from my post on grizzlies, the more I learn about nature the more I respect and fear its power. Volcanoes - or the "pimples of the earth" as my girlfriend calls them - are a perfect example of this awesome power. And Iceland, a country of just over 300,000 people, has plenty of them (35 active volcanoes, to be exact). But this particular volcano has literally wreaked havoc on millions of travelers. Seismically, the eruption is quite small, but it has produced an unusually large amount of fine ash. Apparently the chemical interaction between cold fluid (ice) and hot fluid (magma) produces more explosions, which in turn fragment the material being spewed out of the volcano. The more fragmented the material, the lighter it is and the easier it can be carried with the wind, in this case thousands of miles away to continental Europe and over international aviation corridors.

Why does volcanic ash cause problems for big, sturdy airplanes? The ash clogs important sensors and can prevent pneumatics from working well, but most dangerous is the detrimental effect on turbine blades in the engine. The hottest part of a jet engine is 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, while volcanic ash melts at about 1,000 degrees. When the ash melts, it turns into molten glass, which coats itself onto the engine blades. These blades are made with extreme precision, so even a slight change in their physics will likely shut down the engine. The only way to fix this is to actually turn off the engine, allow for cold air to shoot into it (thereby blowing off the glass coating), and then re-start the engine. Even for Captain Sully this is a dangerous mid-flight proposition. This actually happened in 1982 when a British Airways flight had all four of its engines shut down simultaneously after flying through volcanic ash spewed from Mount Galunggung in Indonesia. Remarkably, the crew was able to re-start all engines and nobody was hurt.

Given all the risks, the European travel authorities erred on the side of safety in April, effectively shutting down transatlantic and European travel for days. As bad as this was, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the worst is behind us. Most volcanoes erupt for only a day or two, but some take weeks, months or even years to become dormant. Unfortunately, the last time Eyjafjallajökull erupted in 1821, it did not stop until 1823. While this week's ongoing ash-spewing has not grounded as many flights as in late April, a simple shift of the fickle trans-Atlantic winds could change that. What if Eyjafjallajökull goes for another year? There is literally no backup plan. All the incredible aviation technology and innovation of the past decades will not be enough to overcome a large cloud of volcanic ash.

More ominous is the prospect of Katla, the much bigger sister-volcano to Eyjafjallajökull, erupting. Every documented eruption of Eyjafjallajökull has occurred in tandem with a Katla eruption. And Katla has historically blown every 40-80 years; its last eruption was in 1918, making it well overdue. It has been showing sings of unrest since 1999. And Katla is scary. Ten times more powerful than Eyjafjallajökull, it is the volcano most feared by the locals. Iceland's president, Olafur Grimsson, recently said: "If Katla blows up, the current eruption will resemble a small rehearsal." It is estimated that the amount of water that could flood Iceland per second if Katla erupted would be six times the water in the entire Amazon river! The last eruption extended the coast by 5 km due to lahoric flood deposits. The volcano's current repose is its longest on record. It is simply a matter of time before it erupts...

While this may seem like a gloomy post, it isn't intended to be. I chose to research and write about the Icelandic volcanoes because of the perspective they give, on many levels. For one, it dates the extremely recent advent of commercial aviation. The last major Icelandic eruptions were not that long ago (not even 100 years), yet they preceded most human air travel. The story also highlights the extremely fragile systems we often take for granted. Just like it was a given that your stock-trading platform would function properly until last Thursday's market fiasco, it was expected that you could easily find a flight from New York to London. But this April not even the President of the most powerful country in the world could make the trip, and all because of that pesky, unpronounceable Icelandic volcano.

Week 18: Buffett's Gold Standard Reiterated in Omaha

At 7 AM this morning, I walked into a crowded indoor stadium in Omaha, Nebraska with 40,000 others. Our goal was the same: to listen to the musings of two 80 year-old men sitting at a very tiny table at the center of a very large stage. The two men are well known, particularly to the investment community: Warren Buffett, Chairman & CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and his partner Charlie Munger, Vice-Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. For years, my Dad and I toyed with the idea of attending the annual shareholder's conference, and for my 25th birthday, we decided to finally make the hike to Omaha. Boy, am I glad we did.

The perspective, wisdom, and elegantly simplistic words and ideas I heard expressed today have inspired me. In some ways, the message is exactly what I - and perhaps we - need. We are at a crossroads. The economy is still in limbo, politics are divisive, and a widespread and legitimate uncertainty underscores our collective sentiment. Personally, I needed to believe again. I needed to hear that the principles of capitalism remain sound, and its byproducts virtuous. The cacophony of Wall Street and Washington has to some degree hijacked our discourse. Instead of focusing on what has to be the way out of our economic mess - the ingenuity, leadership, and integrity of our people - we have been focused on passing (and in some cases avoiding) the blame.

Which brings me to today's content. I will be focusing next week's post on a few of the meaningful topics discussed by Buffett and Munger. But today, I will give highlights and end with some of the incredible (and funny) quotes from the day. I'll start with this: these two guys should really have a television show. Not only did the two octogenarians (for accuracy's sake, Buffett isn't 80 until August 30) play off each other well, they showed incredible stamina. The two in good spirits answered roughly 40 questions over five hours, and had no inkling of the topics beforehand. However it was the first question on which they spent almost 30 minutes. The topic was Goldman Sachs.

For readers not coming from a finance background, Warren Buffett made a $5 Billion investment in Goldman Sachs during the height of the financial crisis. This both strengthened Goldman's capital reserves in a period of severe illiquidity and extended Buffett's venerable seal of approval to the bank at a time when market confidence was crucial to any financial institution's survival. As many of you know, Goldman Sachs and its executives spent a full day this week testifying before Congress. The bank was recently charged with fraud by the SEC. Rumors of criminal charges by federal prosecutors have been swirling as well. While I will save pontificating on this particular situation for another date, suffice it to say Goldman did not have a pleasant time in front of Congress this week.

Perhaps ironically, Warren Buffett had a similar situation to Lloyd Blankfein (the CEO of Goldman Sachs) almost 20 years ago. Buffett became the Chairman of Salomon Brothers in the midst of a trading scandal, and was called to testify to Congress as a result. His words resonate in a way that cannot be recreated - I urge you to follow this link to a two minute clip and hear what he has to say. The climactic quote underscores the seriousness with which Buffett approached the ethical issues of the firm: "Lose money for the firm and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm and I will be ruthless." Since giving this testimony in 1991, Buffett has played this clip at the beginning of each and every Berkshire Hathaway shareholder's meeting. But this year it resonated. His candid, unequivocal approach to challenging issues is what we need today.

In my judgment, unfortunately, the Goldman executives fell short. I say unfortunately because there is a very solid response for some of the issues facing Goldman. Most striking today was Buffett's strong support for the firm. When asked who he would want to replace Lloyd Blankfein, Buffett responded: "Lloyd's twin." Quite an endorsement from the Oracle from Omaha. Much of the problem with the Goldman situation, in Buffett's opinion, relates to the media and its inability (or unwillingness) to accurately represent the nature of the transaction in question. Without getting into the details, I will say that Buffett made a wonderful comparison between his own approach to the bond insurance business and that of some customers of Goldman's CDO underwriting and sales business. Importantly, he said that he stands by Goldman because nothing has been proven to be wrong and the facts as he sees them do not suggest any illegality. Equally important was his statement that if the facts did lead to a breach of law he would revoke his support. It is this kind of unbending critical but fair approach that we need more of.

It's easy to be negative about the future - capitalism needs a hero, we all need a hero. Warren Buffett and trusty sidekick Charlie Munger provided that today. Their unique but consistent approach is to be admired, their unparalleled investment track record lauded, and their honesty and transparency emulated. Below are some of the quotes that stuck out to me from today's session. It was a wonderful birthday gift (along with meeting Bill Gates, Peter Buffett, Ralph Nader, Andrew Ross Sorkin, and others), and I look forward to writing more about this next week.

Warren Buffett:

"If you want to give away 100% of your estate, it's a wonderful tax dodge."

"I want to hear about problems."

"We won't trade reputation for money."

"There's a point at which adding 100 pages... obfuscates, rather than illuminates, information."

"(Newspapers) were the only game in town. Now they're not the only game in town. And boy does that make a difference when you're trying to sell something."

"If the best reason you're doing something is 'the other person' is doing it, well that's not good enough."

"People will be living a lot better in India in 20 years, as in China, as in the US."

"In the end what counts is buying a good business at a reasonable price and forgetting about it for a very long time."

"I like the idea of being judged by my own words rather than others writing a few paragraphs."

"You don't have to be brilliant, you just have to avoid the dumb things."

Charlie Munger:

"We celebrate wealth only when it's fairly won and wisely used."

"I developed courage when I realized I could endure hardship. Maybe you should get your feet wet and try failure more often."

"Take the high road, it's far less crowded."

(Quoting Ben Franklin) "It's hard for an empty sack to stand up straight."

"(Ratings agencies) drifted with the stupidity of their times in a way that is regrettable... But I've also yet to hear a single apology from business academia for its significant contribution to the current problems."

"If a small group of people with lots of influence feel very strongly about something and everyone else is indifferent, that small group will get what they want."

"Warren never looks twice at anybody who isn't a little eccentric... all you have to do is look at me."