Well, unless you have been sitting under a rock, you know that the world cup is
currently going on. And let me tell you, I'm quite excited about it. My goal
this time around was to watch every single game. Which lasted about 3 days
before getting up every morning at 5am finally took its toll on me.
So, I missed a few, and then realized that this was okay because some of them
were actually pretty boring.
Last Wednesday my fiance and I got DVR and this makes watching the games even easier. Now I can
record the games and watch them at my liesure, and I can
just fast forward through the boring ones looking for interesting moments.
What makes a game boring? Basically, if I don't care who wins. And even that
isn't enough sometimes.
And unless you have been sitting under a giant rock, you know that the US has
had two very exciting and very close games. And let me tell you, those
games have me so incredibly pumped. Everytime I think about the goals I get
goosebumps.
I'm actually hoping that we can make it to the semi-finals and maybe
even the finals. That's how excited I'm getting. That would be amazing!
I recommend watching this YouTube video of people's
reactions to Landon's goal in the 91st minute of the game against Algeria. I
love the fact that you can see people visibly respond to Dempsey's shot being
blocked right before the final kick in. I can imagine that I was going through
the exact same emotions.
That video and these photos (and these too!)
really emphasize why the World Cup is such an amazing event. When I am watching
the games, I am participating in something that simultaneously millions of
people all over the world are participating in. It is amazing to think about.
The World Cup really is a global experience. There are few other times when
I feel this way. I can't honestly think of another one right now.
And the US is finally getting in on it big time. Sports Center had a
statistic the other day that stated that trading on wall street was down 32%
from normal during the second half of the Algeria game. I really do find that
statistic hard to believe, but if US soccer was really the cause, that's amazing!
Even if the US gets knocked out though, it is still fun to watch. You just have
to choose new teams to root for. So far Argentina and Mexico have been fun.
Though on principle I always root for African teams (unless their playing the
US—I'm looking at you Ghana and Algeria!).
As to what the US is actually capable of, who knows. We have the elimination
round next, where one mistake can mean everything. Let's hope they come out
strong. Nate Silver, the statistician extradonaire (he very accurately predicted
the last election), has the US at 50-50 odds against Ghana in their
match today.
Let's hope they can do it.
And here's to us all watching together at the same time. You, me and the rest
of the world!
Has it happened before? Yes, many times. But mostly my absences
have been short. This time I left you for a particularly long time. In fact,
it was the sixth longest time I have ever left you:
This last weekend my fiance and I went on a backpacking trip to Canyonlands National Park. There isn't a whole lot to say about the trip specifically besides the fact that it was perfect.
Now, when I was seven years old I went on a camping trip with my parents and brother to Canyonlands National Park. During this trip we went on a hike. And for whatever reason this hike has been ingrained in my memory ever since. Seriously, I think about this hike all the time. Probably every time I am hiking in the canyon country of Utah. My dad remembers it well, too. Before Keri and I departed he said that the hike in Canyonlands was one of his favorite of all time.
Specifically I remember three events:
We got lost. Maybe I remember this because it was the first time that I ever knew of us being lost?
I had to step over a large crack. The sort of crack that I envisioned myself falling into and disappearing forever.
My dad, my brother and I all peed at the same time off a cliff. I have no idea why I remember us peeing off this cliff so vividly, but I do. I think it was because all four of us (my mother included) were having such a great time laughing and goofing around (this was after we found the trail again). And it was just so darn funny that Nathan, my dad and I were all peeing at the same time! And the my mom was taking a photo of it!
I think this is really interesting because it says a lot about the way memory works. Or at least the way my memory works. Those three things are all I remember about that hike and that camping trip. I remember nothing about the camp site or the drive or the hiking. Looking back on growing up, life wasn't a continuous stream but a series of distinct events that shaped who I am. I know this isn't the case, but that's the way I remember it. I grew up one distinct memory at a time. There are many, many hikes I went on with my family when I was young but this is one I remember.
Memory especially works this way concerning my brother. I shared 8 years with him, but I only remember a few very specific episodes. I can't remember how he acted at the dinner table or the way he talked or really the way he looked, but boy do I remember losing our Koosh ball in the Christmas tree, or making Trail Blazers signs to put in our windows on a car trip when the Blazers were going to the playoffs (in 1990?), or getting "lost" with him in Laurelhurst on our bikes that one time (we weren't really lost, he was just pretending to get me riled up). And especially, peeing off that cliff with him and my dad.
So, when Keri and I were hiking around Canyonlands, I was on the look out for the places these very distinct memories took place. I didn't have a lot of hope about this, so much so that I didn't even mention it to Keri. I'm not even sure I was aware that I was on the look out myself. I see now that I was. But Canyonlands is a big place! 528 square miles big! The odds of Keri and I choosing to hike in the same place that my parents did and me recognizing it were pretty darn slim.
The crack is my most vivid image of the three memories from the hike. That's because this crack seriously scared me. The way I remembered it, it was on a long ledge sticking out over the canyon. the kind of ledge Wile E. Coyote would saw a hole in to try and finally catch the Road Runner with. But it was in the shade and at the opposite end of the crack was a cave. And I was certain there was a cougar living in that cave. And my dad wanted me to cross the crack at a point that seemed too wide to me. It was narrower farther towards the cave. So, I wanted to cross towards the cave but was terrified to get close to it. And then my dad yelled at me (like Dads are apt to do) to cross where he was telling me to. And I did. And it was fine. But man, I remember just being terrified!
Anyway, I got that Deja Vu feeling twice while hiking with Keri in Canyonlands and snapped a quick photo both times. The first one reminded me of when my family and I got lost, and the second one I was certain was the crack. It looked nothing like the crack I remembered, but it just felt like it.
Well, when we got back I was looking through the old photos from 1990 to see if any of them matched where Keri and I had been, and sure enough there is a photo of me that not one iota of me doubts is the same place from that first photo I took. Here's a comparison of the two. You can find key features in both those pictures that match up perfectly. Those photos are both taken in the exact same place! That bush is a lot bigger!
But this completely amazes me. That I was able to remember from 20 years ago what that place looked like and recognize it. That's just absolutely crazy!
Unfortunately, we don't have photos of the crack in the set from 20 years ago, so I can't compare images to know for certain if the crack I found was the crack that terrified me so much when I was seven. However, looking at the map, I can make a strong case for my photographed crack being the crack. I made a Google Map showing the trails we were trying to take, the location of the my first image (which I had remembered as being where we got lost) and the location of my photographed crack. I then added (in red) the route I think we accidentally took. As you can see it would take you right to my crack.
I'm convinced.
While hiking with Keri, I tried to keep an eye out for the place we peed, but I never found it. I guess you can't recollect everything.
But it's nice to be able to put concrete memories and pictures with those fuzzy ones from so long ago.
And interesting to see how my emotions associated with something shaped my memory of it. The crack really wasn't too bad!
And it's great to think that the place, the canyons and the trails in which Keri and I shared a perfect weekend, were the exact same ones in which my parents, my brother and I shared a perfect day hike so long ago.
I just watched a TED talk on happiness and specifically how hard it
is to evaluate happiness, and it reinforced something I have been thinking
lately.
And that is, I don't think people are very good at governing themselves.
It is no understatement to say that the current political climate is quite
polarized. Just this weekend Obama's health plan was voted in, and democrats
everywhere were rejoicing. Well, my guess is that on the other side of the coin
there were a lot of people out there that were quite bummed by this news.
And this seems like a bad system. How can we celebrate a system where at any
given point in time, half the population is extremely unhappy with what its
government is doing?
After eight years of President Bush, when Obama was elected, it was proof that
democracy works! Finally after the republicans screwed up the country it was
our chance to fix it! Yay! It really is a quite simple system: If you don't do
well, if the voters don't approve of the job you are doing, then you won't get
reelected. But this means in two years, when it is time to elect a new
President, there is a very good chance that we are going to hand the controls
over to someone that I very much disagree with. This seems like a bad system.
The reason it is a bad system is that I don't trust voters. And I'm not
just talking about all those people that tried to elect Sarah Palin. I'm
talking about the people that voted in Obama as well. I'm talking about me. I'm
most likely talking about you, too. I don't trust any of them to have a
properly informed opinion.
What percentage of the population do you think it is that carefully researches
all the issues when it comes time to vote? What percentage of the population do
you think reads arguments for both sides of an issue?
Or, let me put it another way. What percentage of the population do you think
votes the same way their parents do because that is what they were taught? What
percentage of the population do you think just reads the recommendations of
their local newspaper and votes in accordance them?
And don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that people should be voting
differently. Everyone doesn't necessarily have the intellegence or the
schooling to be properly informed. Everyone doesn't have the luxary of taking
the time to have an informed opinion.
My point is not that we need to improve the citizens of the country but that
depending on the citizens of the country to be making choices about the well
being of the country is not a very good system. The citizens shouldn't have to
be experts in economics and politics and government and science and
international relations.
People think of a democracy as The Right Thing because it gives everyone
a voice. And that is nice. But (and I'm tying this back to the TED talk I
watched) if people can't even properly evaluate their own experiences how can
they evaluate what is best for me?
What I think we need in government is more science. Specifically we need more of
the scientific method. Controlled variables, rigourous testing and evaluation.
Right now, it seems to me that policy is based primarily on the gut. People
vote with their gut. People elect officials with their gut. These elected
officials work with their gut. These elected officials depend on getting
reelected by people who vote with their gut.
Once again, this seems like a bad system. There is a reason why supreme
court justices are appointed for life. It is so that they can make hard
decisions without having to question whether their job is at stake.
Anyway, back to science. There is this famous story about Google that goes
something like this: when it was designing a new feature for a website it was
making there was some debate as to what color the website should be. Instead of
just having a designer make the choice, they set up the website to randomly
choose one of over 40 different shades of blue. They then, over the course of
some time perioud, tracked which different shades had the best success with
users. At the end of the time period they chose the color that had the best
success rate.
The government needs to do things like this. Health care was a _huge
debate._ Well, set up random trials across the country. Actually test what it
is going to mean for the people over the course of a year. Have controlled
variables. Find the system that works well. Then implement that. Right now
it is the democrat's word against the republican's. Which doesn't mean a whole
lot.
This way, instead of having the voters choose what system works best, or what
elected officials best represent their gut, you have a system that
evaluates proposed changes based on how they actually worked in the trials.
Never do something without trying it first on a small portion of the population.
Granted, I realize that this does not take the subjectivity out of government,
you still need to decide on which variables you are going to control, and how
you are going to control them. You have to decide on a way to evaluate the
outcome of a trial. Also this wouldn't work very well for issues of human
rights.
But there needs to be some way to make decisions where the opinions and whims of
the citizens of the country are not the main deciding factor.
Subscribe to the feeds: