The Revolution

Among the Republican candidates for president, two stood out for being different: Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes sounded more like he'd forgotten to take his medication, and certainly somebody I want as far away from the Oval Office as possible (Maybe they could give him a padded Oval Office). Ron Paul on the other hand, though some certainly thought he was nuts, was consistent and honest in his views. The remaining candidates, in my opinion, seemed indistinguishable from each other. Ron Paul represented what can be called the true essence of republicanism, if there were such a thing: Small Government, Non-interventionist, and Liberty as the core belief.

I often referred to Ron Paul as the Al Sharpton of the Republican Party. He had little chance of getting the nomination and he was unbelievably honest in his views. The comparison ends there. Though Paul had virtually no chance to win the Republican nomination, he was hard to ignore. He raised an unbelievable amount of money and garnered news attention. He challenged his fellow Republicans on the core issues of freedom and liberty, and questioned the Iraq war. The other Republicans could not ignore him, despite the fact that he was a long-shot. His candidacy was a revolution and this book brings the philosophy of libertarianism to the people.

Revolution, as it states in the title, it is a Manifesto. It's a Manifesto for freedom. Paul starts with the constitution and the founding fathers. Paul asserts the importance of understanding the intent of the founders. I've initially found this concept antiquated. We don't live in the past, but the present and things change. We will see things through different eyes with different experience. I still feel that way in general, but Paul makes a good case for turning back to the intent of the founders. While the idea may seem antiquated, knowing the intent of the founders give the constitution its meaning. Not knowing the spirit in which it was written reduces the value the document has. If we can interpret the Constitution however we see fit, then it does us know good. It might as well be blank. I think this is an excellent point, because having a constitution is central to the mission of the US. A key quote is:
Once we lose our respect for the Constitution and begin interpreting it so that it happens to permit our pet programs, we have no right to be surprised when our political opponents come along with their own ideas for interpreting the Constitution loosely.
It's like reading an ancient document and not know the culture in which it was written.

Paul is a devotee of the Austrian school of economics, as he demonstrates in his book. The Austrian school's star economists were FA Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. The school of thought is based on pure economic freedom, what some might call Capital Anarchy. It's an idea where just about anything goes economically speaking. The government is in place to make the basic rules, but other than that people can act as they see fit. When it comes to freedoms, economic freedoms are essential. Without the right to earn money and spend money as you choose, there is not real freedom. Just looking at the difference between the mobility of the rich and poor, and it's easy to see the importance of economic freedom. Resources, money, are essential in exercising our personal freedoms.

Paul hits our personal freedoms and civil liberties. We often fall into the trap of saying "There should be a law against that" when we face annoyances. I remember in high-school a teacher imploring students to avoid that phrase. There might be somebody fool enough to make such a law and the consequences might be more severe than the annoyances. This is especially important when we consider some of the federal legislation that's been put in place. The PATRIOT Act comes to mind. Republicans were all for it because their guy was in the White House. Now that Obama is in there and it's likely the Republicans might find some of the application of the laws. Of course the Democrats have complained about it, but now that their guy is in office they might not think it's such a bad idea, see the quote above. It's especially interesting when Paul discusses the outlawing of pot since it came largely from racism. One of the legislators in favor of outlawing used "Crazy Mexicans" as evidence that pot was dangerous. The laws passed, despite of evidence that the substance posed not major health hazard.

Revolution was a good read. It's not an evidence based book, so it's weak in that area. Since that's not the intent of the book, that's not that big of a deal to me. I think it is a starting point for folks to become acquainted with the philosophy and ideology and at least re-think some of their positions. On the downside, I think many readers will find the book to be an end point to their philosophy rather than a starting point. It's a good read, especially if you're unfamiliar with libertarianism.

Traffic

While Traffic may not sound like the most exciting subject, Tom Vanderbilt gives it its due. The cover of Traffic was the first thing that enticed me to pick it up and browse through at the local Borders. It amounts to a Freakonomics for the road. I admit to some disappointment that it didn't hold up all of my libertarian ideals, but I will do what I can to see past that. I still found it to be engaging and informative. Vanderbilt contributed to some changes in my perception of a few traffic issues.

Vanderbilt starts Traffic with what might be one contentious issue when it comes to traffic. It comes from those lanes that force traffic to merge, most prominent for construction zones. These are made worse during heavy traffic and usually the lane that ends usually ends up being empty for the 500ft or so. Empty except for those punks who decide to merge at the last possible moment. These folks cause enough ire among the other drivers that they will not let these late mergers in. Most of thoses are the early mergers who are insensed at the ego of the later merger. I confess to being an early merger with a intense dislike of the late mergers.

My intense hatred has tempered since reading Traffic. Vanderbilt makes a case, one that is easy accept since he too used to be an early merger (he's like a traffic brother in that respect). The fact is late mergers actually help the flow of traffic, because they utilize all of the available road. In the end the amount may not be signigicant enough to end a traffic jam, but you have to hand it to them for being gutsy, even if it is ultimately for a selfish reason.

I am against metering lights for sure. To me they just move the traffice jam to the side roads. According to Vanderbilt, they are acually good and overall help the freeways move more vehicles during rush hour. It's compared to pouring rice into a funnel. If the rice is just dumped in there all at once, then it jams and less rice gets through. When the rice is poured at a slower, steady rate, more rice gets through the funnel much quicker. Metering lights do much the same thing, at least in theory. I'm notactually 100% against metering lights as much as I'm not sure I'm convinced that they really work. They still seem to just move the traffic jam and I've been on freeways with metering lights where traffic moves as if there were no metering lights. I'm willing t o accept the theory and trust that they work, but cynically.

The most fascinating chapter by far is entitled "When Dangerous Roads Are Safer". It makes sense when you think about it. On the windy mountain roads with a 1000ft drop and rusty & rotten guard rails we tend to drive more caustiously. In these instances we can percieve the true danger of the situation. It's the same with snowy roads. Though there tend to be more accidents, most are not near as fatal as crashes in good weather. Because we compensate for the perceived danger, the accidents that do happen, happen generally at lower speeds. It's this phenomenon that explains why so many accidents happen so close to people's homes. There is the fact that more driving is done here, thus there are more opportunties for accidents. In addition to that, people are more complacent on familair "safe" roads that they drive regularly. In these situations, folks pay less attention to the road and are less likely to notice dangers. They drive as if they are on a safe road, oblivious to the inherent dangers.

I liked the book as a whole. I did get bored in parts. The research appeared pretty solid, but Vanderbilt failed at times to keep my interest. I came away with a new understanding of traffic and an appreciation for what municipalities have to do in order to keep things flowing. After reading the book, I am now more in favor of toll roads, at least freeways. I think that actually has potential to cut traffic more that the metering lights. When the highway funds come out through taxes, nobody considers the cost, however, if folks have to use their wallets on a regular basis it might cut usage at least a little.

The Secret: Update

I read The Secret a couple years back and gave it a really bad review. Recently trolling through amazon.com I came across a review of the book that changed my perspectivc on The Secret. The review can be found here.

Crop Circle Mania

One of the most interesting phenomena of the last 35 years have been the crop circles. Most folks by now know how they are made, at least those who live in reality. If you want to go out and make your own, try the circle makers to get started. Here's a quick clip on crop circles. It's not revolutionary, but it's concise and the guy has cool hair.

Cannonball

The Cannonball races were the brain-child of one Brock Yates. Yates is the former editor of Car and Driver magazine. Inspired by the cross country antics of Cannonball Baker, Yates created a race. Not just any race. It was the greatest underground illegal race of all time. There was only one rule, "there are no rules". In total four races were run, plus a test run, during the 1970's; the final race being run in 1979. The book Cannonball is Yates attempt to document the event and provide a compiled history for posterity sake.

Most folks probably assume the Cannonball only refers to the Cannonball Run movies. That's only partially true. Until I saw this book, I thought the movie was just plain old fiction. Oh no, the races were real. Drivers traversing the country from New York City to Redondo Beach in as little as 32 hrs and change. Part thrill ride, part endurance race, the Cannonball is a drivers dream race. The first Cannonball Run film is based on the final race run in 1979; in fact many of the antics in the film come straight out of the race.

The book itself is a thrill to read. Brock Yates not only created the race, but he participated as a driver in each race. He one only the first one, run in 1971, with race car driver Dan Gurney at his side. Yates doesn't just give his account, but he pulls from numerous other drivers who ran the races and allows them to detail their experiences. I mentioned above the book was compile, because it was. The words from the other drivers are in their own words detailing the exciting events as they traversed the country. Stories range from brief descriptions of the drive to exciting run-ins with the law including tickets and even arrests.

Most of the contributers did a decent job of telling their story, there were few that didn't capture the excitement of the race. The short bitswere usually the least interesting and could have been left out. In the 1971 race Yates and Gurney had a run-in with a cop. They drove past a coffee shop doing about 120 or so. The cop was in the shop and just witnessed a car drive by at an obviously illegal speed, so he took off doing 140 in order to catch up. Yates and Gurney ducked into a gas station to fuel up and avoid the cop, but to no avail. He caught up and promptly wrote a ticket for $91. He then turned the conversation to how fast the Yates/Gurney car could go. They hadn't tested that out yet. When the got back on the highway, they cranked the baby up to 172 mph, just for a bit. They of course one the first of the Cannonball races, driving a Ferrari Daytona (pictured).

The other races had similar stories to tell. Races were held in 1972 and 1975. Yates had not committed to running another race until he met up with Hal Needham, a Hollywood director. He's heard about the races and approached Yates about doing a film, but he wanted to run another race to get stories for it. 1979 was the final race and in many ways the strangest. The original starting point had been the parking garage used by the Car and Driver employees Since Yates had been fired, they move the stating location to a restaurant in Connecticut. The destination remained the same, and of course the "rules". The race included Yates driving an "Ambulance" with a "Patient", who happened to be Yates' wife. The plan of course would be they could drive as fast as they want and not get stopped, or at least not ticketed. Another driver borrowed a police badge from his buddy. He was hoping to get the Cop "Fraternity" treatment. He was careful not to claim he was a cop, only imply by carrying the badge. Things didn't work out so well, since he ended up in the slammer for a few hours. He was finally let go, without the badge.

Those are just a couple of the stories found in the book. It's really a fun book, but more than that, it's a commentary on the traffic laws. Drivers covered 350,000 miles in the four races with one accident, which involved only the one car. The injuries from the accident ended up being quite minor. This is proof to Yates that responsible drivers can exceed the posted speeds and endanger only themselves. More than anything the race demonstrated the ridiculousness of the 55 mph speed limit (aka the double nickel). Yates acknowledges that not all drivers can drive at such high speeds, but those that can shouldn't be considered outlaws. The book is almost a libertarian manifesto for the road.

The book reads great for the most part. The stories are fabulous and exciting. For me it was similar to reading Into Thin Air where I felt like I'd actually set foot on Everest. In this case, I feel like I've driven across the country about 40 times, without a dull moment. What I didn't like was that the book seemed to climax with the first race. It's not so much a problem of the writing, but more the high of doing this illegal thing for the first time. The thrill kind of begins to diminish with each race. The 1979 race seemed very contrived, which it really was. It lacked the same magic of the earlier race. It did come with some really cool stories, but it was less thrilling in many ways. Maybe it just seemed like the drivers were trying too had and the fact it was for a movie. I'd still recommend this book to anybody for sure, but certainly people who love to drive and love cars, fast cars.

THEM

Before The Men Who Stare Goats, the was THEM. Jon Ronson has a knack for finding the quirky parts of the underground minds in our society. In the THEM, Ronson spends time with the kind of people who believe that there is a secret Jewish conspiracy to take over the world to form the New World Order. The groups differ greatly from the KKK to Islamists to just plain old folks. The conclusion of the book brings Ronson to a bizarre ceremony in northern California that may sound too weird to be true.

By far this has been one of the most fascinating books I have read in a long time. Not every chapter was riveting, but for the most part it had no trouble holding my attention. Learning how some of the nuttier factions of society. Chapter two was the highlight of the book. I'd heard reference to Ruby Ridge before, but honestly knew little besides the name. Ronson spends time with Rachel, the daughter of Randy Weaver, and gets her impression of the events that took place. He later meets up with Randy Weaver himself. In short you learn about a family that moved to the mountains of Idaho to escape the corruption of the world with the strange belief in the coming New World Order and that the government was out to get them. In the end, they paranoia played out in some of the ways they may have expected, but not for the reasons they would have supposed. The events left Randy's wife Vicky and son Sam dead and became a rallying cry and pilgrimage spot for the likes of Timothy McVeigh. Since the events at Ruby Ridge, Randy Weaver has dropped his conspiracy view of the world, many believe it's because his wife was the driving force between those believes.

Ruby Ridge happened prior to the events at Waco, so for many Americans, it's less well known. It's true that the Weaver family and the Davidian Cult held many beliefs. In fact Ronson meets with Randy Weaver at the Davidian site, where it was being rebuilt. Weaver was like a Rock Star to the volunteers working at the site, even though he no longer held those extreme beliefs. What I found most fascinating was what actually lead up to the siege. Randy had been spending time with the local Aryan Nation group and he'd been approached by a federal marshall to spy of the group. He was chosen, because he was not committed to their cause. He spent time with them for the social aspect. He declined the offer. Unfortunately, before the request the same marshall had asked Randy to saw off a couple of shotguns, just below the legal limit. This allowed the government to push Randy's hand. He still refused, despite the threat of prosecution. He never showed up in court, and that's when the nightmare began.

Ronson also spends time with a KKK outfit called the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. This happens to be one Klan faction that was trying to build a more positive image. Less with hating blacks more loving the whites. The difference is subtle, but one factor with this group was the fact that they were making an effort to avoid the N-word, at least in public. The group was using personality tests up the wazzoo to help them to improve themselves and make a better impression publicly. Their buddies at another faction called the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan view this effort as the Klan as going soft, but the AK of the KKK are the ones that make the Jerry Springer appearances. As far as I'm concerned, they are essentially the same. Fascinating, but the same.

The concluding chapter of the book offers a view of the powerful, few are aware of. There's a place in northern California known as the Bohemain Grove where many leaders, government and business, go to talk about issues in the world. It's where George Bush Sr. learned that Cheney would be the running mate of his son in the coming 2000 election. It was merely reported that Bush learned the news while camping in northern California. That would be camping at the Bohemian Grove. Among conspiracy theorists, this is a satanic ritual and evidence of the New World Order. Ronson was able to sneak in attend. He did so with some help. A local lawyer took him in, so to speak.

Ronson learned about this event and decided to check it out, so he contacted one of the extremists he'd spoken to earlier in the book and invited him along. His name is Alex Jones. Alex Jones is one of the nuts similar to Randy Weaver and he hosts a radio show. He accepted the invitation. While planning the infiltration, Ronson learned of this lawyer, Rick, who'd snuck in several times before. Ronson contacted him and got his help. Rick's instructions were simple, just walk in and act like you belong. That's what Rick and Ronson did. Alex Jones on the other hand decided to sneak in with one of his buddies a little differently. All saw the same ritual, but they came away with different interpretations. Jones provided the typical nutcase explanations, while Ronson described a strange ceremony as nothing more than a Fraternity party for geezers.

What's most interesting about Bohemian Grove is not what takes place, it's how people view it. There's a population out there that see it as a satanic ceremony for world domination. The thing is it's not. There was a time when it was the most powerful people in the world and maybe a lot of influence came out of the meetings. Now the attendees are mostly older and the younger folks are avoiding these kinds of gatherings, because they see them as lame. So, at some point the amount of power wielded by the Bohemian Grove crowd will rhyme with zero.

The book is great and well written. I had a difficult time putting it down. I don't know why some people have such screwed up perceptions of the world. Some of it must be due to their upbringing. It's not unusual that children will see the world with a similar lens as their parents. They may or may not come through life with the same ideals, but the parents will have a significant impact on that world view. In the case of the extremists, they tend to live in tight communities and so getting contrary information is difficult. They're like a weird genetic mutation or something. Read the book and check out the clips below. Part of the book was filmed for a documentary, Ronson's other job. Alex Jones interpretation of the Bohemian Grove ritual is further down.

Bad Astronomy

Bad Astronomy is kind of a catch-all book for astronomical misconceptions and myths. Philip Plait, the author, sets out to set the record straight a number of issues regarding astronomy. While Plait is a scientist, a man with a PhD, he doesn't write like one. The writing carries the Bill Nye enthusiasm with the college professor knowledge. Plait was, at the time of the book, a professor at Sonoma College.

Bad Astronomy covers a wide range of topics from egg balancing to the moon hoax and several other things in between. As mentioned above, the book does not drip with geek-speak. It's a very down to earth, nearly conversational in nature. I especially like that I could share fact from the book fairly easily. What's the point of reading a book if you can't enlighten those around you.

It all started with chapter one and the myth of balaning eggs only at the Spring equinox. Apparently there's a myth, on I was unaware of, that eggs can only balance at this time of the year. There's supposed to be some gravitational effect. So, often school kids get roped into testing this theory. Of course somebody succeeds, thus perpetuating the myth. The problem is, there's nothing special about the time of year. Given the right patience a steady hand, and the right egg, you too can balance an egg...any time of the year. My wife, brother, sister and I put this to the test over the Thanksgiving holiday. It worked of course. We just had to use the right egg.

Plait goes into a few other misconceptions, most notably the rotation of draining water and the color of the sun. When you ask somebody if they know anything interesting about drains, they'll most likely refer to the Coriolis Effect. The main point here being that drains swirl the opposite way depending on which hemishpere your in (Counter-clockwise up north and Clockwise down south). The Coriolis Effect is too weak and sinks/toilets/bathtubs too small for the Coriolis Effect to have any noticable impact. It should be noted that there is potential impact, but very small. In fact you would likely need to let the water sit for a week* or so then drain the container one drop at a time. When in comes to toilets, the water swirls solely because of the jets in an effort to keep that porcelien shine from becoming too marred, if you know what I mean.

What color is the sky? Blue of course. But why? Well it's not really blue and in fact a lot of people know that. They'll even get the answer partially correct and refer to the pollutants in the air refracting the light. They are correct that it's something in the air, but it's not the pollutants, it's the air itself. When the photons enter the atmoshere, much of the color gets delfected by the molecules in the air. The Reds and Oranges are affected the most. The Violets and Indigoes are affecte the least. The Blues have just the right wavelength that they scatter everywhere, but still make it your eye. They make it to your eye from every direction under the sun which causes the sky to appear blue. So, then what color is the sun? It's white. Most people assume is yellow, because the only time they can look at it is at sunset when it appears yellow. If it were possible to look at the sun directly during the day, it would be white.

Then there's the moon hoax theory. I admit that I dabbled into that territory in the past. I never became one of THEM though. Plait deals with this subject quite well and shares solid evidence and explanation for the veracity of the moon landing. A favorite of the moon hoax nuts is the lack of stars in the still pictures. This is easily explained by the fact that the shutter speed on the camera was short due to the amount of sunlight and the light from the stars was not strong enough to show up in the pictures. Another issue centers around the flapping of the flag, like it's being blown in the wind. What they forget is that without the atmoshpere the flag is more likely to flap because the lack of wind resistence. Any movment affecting the flag would be more exagerated.

While I never became a believer of the moon hoax, I studied in seriously enough to give it fair consideration. In the end, the offcial and sceintific explanations won out for me. They made more sense to start with. The key was their simplicity. Believing in a staged moon landing took more imagination and more effort. How was this pulled off without a single insider blowing the lid? Why did Russia not challenge the veracity of the event if the hoax is so obvious, as the believers claim? On the technical side, the effort to make it look real seems it would cost as much, if not more, to pull it off. Several years ago I saw some footage from the moon landing that settled things permanently (though my conclusion was already pretty secure). The footage was of the moon rover driving around the moon and I noticed two important things. First, I could see stars in the picture. They were faint, but I could see them (only a few at that). That's the benefit of a moving picture I suppose. The other thing I noticed was a perfect rainbow of moon dust kicked up by the tires. There was not a speck of dust floating in the air, just as if they were driving in a perfect vacuum. Not something that's easily created here on Earth.

That's the long and short of Bad Astronomy. It's a worthwhile read, especially with somebody who has a budding interest in astronomy. I think it's a good read for anybody, just to become familiar with astronomical phenomena. It's best to educate yourself so you don't fall victim to stupid ideas like the moon hoax. Below is footage from Mythbusters with their testing of moon hoax claims.





* I've seen estimates range from 2 hours to 3 weeks. I figure a week is a good middle ground.