Miles for Mammaries

The Susan G. Komen Nashville Ride for the Cure is coming up in just a couple of weeks (April 18th), and I will be cycling the long track, which is a half-century (50 miles). This event is (obviously) to raise awareness, and more importantly money, for breast cancer research, mammograms, etc. etc. Really, we cyclists just like to think that there's some reason we're out killing ourselves on the slopes of some hill somewhere.

Anyway, it's for a good cause—after all, the world would be a much sadder place without breasts. I'm trying to raise at least $100 before the event, and would love to have your help. You can donate online through this direct link. Thanks for the help!

P.S.: alternate titles for this post could be "Pedaling for Pillows", or "Biking for Bosoms", if you prefer.

Truer Words...

As we all know, Michigan is feeling the economic crunch more than most states, due to some (*ahem*) bad decisions made over the past 30-40 years. Lots of auto industry problems, union issues, etc. But every part of the industry is affected; the dealerships in the state are starting to close as well, due to lack of business.

Such is the sad state (ha ha) of affairs at a particular Wayland-area dealership forced to close its doors. True to form, the employees are taking out their anger on each other. The kicker?

"'Had they been sober, this probably wouldn’t have happened,' [Police Chief Dan] Miller said."

Isn't that always the case?

I Never Forget a Face

We seem to have forgotten that the people working for large companies receiving bailout money are, in fact, just that: people. In our desire to see them lynched, or calling for them to commit ritual suicide (just scroll down a few posts if you don't have any idea what I'm talking about), we have shown exactly why a populist democracy is such a bad thing. Today the New York Times ran an open resignation letter from one of these recently-vilified executives, who was slated to receive bonus money but instead got a mailbox full of death threats. In case you missed it, you can read the entire letter here.

To me, at least, this could be straight out of John Galt's speech at the end of Atlas Shrugged. Unsurprising, but important for people to note. Populism is a dangerous, dangerous road to go down; and while I am disappointed in the American public for falling at such an obvious ruse as this bonus obfuscation, I am irate at the government's feigned outrage. They know better.

Well, now that I think about that, I'm not sure they do. Perhaps the blame should shift back on the public. Willful ignorance is not a justifiable defense, and voting in all these idiots doesn't help the case. So, just as a reminder, there's a reason we aren't a true democracy. There's a reason it takes so long to get anything actually done in the American system of government. Mainly the hope that, by the time some hare-brained legislation has passed through all the proper channels, cooler heads can prevail. People unfortunately have forgotten how to think straight when confronted with problems, and mob mentality seems to be the norm nowadays. There is so much misdirected outrage and offense that I fear we may never be able to return to that which was originally intended for us, and we sacrifice our freedoms by the minute to fuel the fire of our populist outcries. Why have we lost the ability to think? At what point did we decide to become ruled entirely by our emotions? That is the road to insanity! We pretend to be so cynical and world-wise, yet we take any random piece of data that's thrown at us as gospel without bothering to verify sources or even see if it passes the common sense test. We seem to want to have an opinion on every single subject, without an underlying philosophy. How is this even possible? How can anyone have enough knowledge to independently evaluate such an incredibly vast array of disparate information? Think about what you really believe, people! What are your principles? In what way to they color your view of the world, and how do your emotions and opinions fit with it? Do they fit at all? I'm especially looking at you on that question, Christians.

We will never be able to return to fiscal or political sanity in this country until we can revert back from "I feel" to "I think"...and actually mean it.

This got really stream-of-consciousness, at least for me...I'm going to try to pick through some of this stuff in later posts at a later date. Consider it an overview, if you can manage to wade through it. Stay tuned.

Biking down the Natchez

I biked 60.3 miles down the Natchez Trace on Saturday with a couple of friends, and boy are my legs tired! Ha ha ha!

No, really, it's flatter than some areas in Nashville (read: my house), but we still did over half a mile of pure elevation in the course of the ride. It was my first time out on the Trace, though, and it's very pretty. Seems like it'd be a fun place to go out and spend the day. Minimal traffic, stunning vistas at the scenic overlooks, etc.

But man, after 60 miles, those pretty, old-growth forests on either side of the road start to get boring. Oppressing, even. Like they're starting to bend over the road, leering at you as you struggle vainly to find the last few calories of glycogen stored somewhere, anywhere, in your muscles so that you have the energy to keep the pedals turning over the next hill.

We really enjoyed ourselves, actually, but we did come to the conclusion that every professional cyclist (and many an amateur) is a total masochist. As my friend noted, "They enjoy going to the dentist."

See, It's Because of Crap Like This...

That I hate Apple. When you see that they intentionally cripple their products (this isn't the first time they've been accused of it), and have to buy OS upgrades every year (say what you will about Microsoft, 5 years is the minimum release cycle for them, usually more); it just isn't work it for "t3h shinys".

Rhetorical Rhetoric

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.

"The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."

James Madison, Federalist Paper Number 44, 1788.

How angry are you over the AIG bonus hullabaloo?

At whom are you upset?

If you answered, "very" and "AIG executives", why? Is it because you've heard pretty much every media outlet and every politician railing on the subject for a week?

Why are you so angry? Is it because people are getting paid bonuses after taking taxpayer-funded bailouts?

How much do you actually know of the details?

Did you know that the bonuses are contractually obligated, and protected under Sections 9 and 10 of Article I of the Constitution? Did you know that Congress knew of these bonuses, in fact specifically carved out an exception allowing them, in the last couple of bailout bills? Did you know that the government has given AIG in particular so much money because they're basically using them as a giant money laundering scheme? That, through this scheme, they've managed to send over $68 billion of bailout money overseas? And that, conversely, a mere $44 billion has stayed in the USA?

Why haven't you heard about this anywhere? Why is it that you listen when Congress tells you to ignore the $8 billion, or approximately 2%, of the congressional budget designated for earmarks? Why do you also listen when they tell you to get outraged over $165 million, or 0.097% of the bailout money AIG has received, going to contractually-obligated bonuses for people who actually made the company money?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in this thinking?

Do you understand why the right to contract is so incredibly important in our society? Why it is mentioned so many times in the Federalist Papers, or outlined so firmly in the Constitution? Is it more important to you than holding on to your completely un-Christian vindictiveness? Why or why not?

Did you hear that both the people receiving their bonuses and their families have received numerous violent death threats, including threats to decapitate them one at a time with piano wire? Did you see Congress respond to this news with a collective "meh", then say they were going to try to release the names of these people to the public anyway? Does this not worry you? Isn't the role of the government to protect its people from the initiation of physical harm?

Do you trust your news source?

Just why do you think everyone in government (on both sides of the aisle) are talking about this so much, anyway? Are they trying to distract us? Is this their version of bread and circuses? If so, then from what are they trying to draw our attention? Is it the aforementioned money laundering scheme? Is it their total disregard for the Constitutionally-granted right to contract, protection from ex post facto law, and protection from bills of attainder that they're currently exercising? Does it feel like an under-the-table power grab to anyone else?

Does this not anger you?

At whom should you really be upset?

Today's Sign that the Inmates Are Running the Asylum

AIG has some people's blood pressure running pretty high, but there are a couple of pretty amazing things being said lately. The first, from President Obama:

Noting that AIG has "received substantial sums" of federal aid from the federal government, Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

As a lawyer, Obama should know that this is a truly stupid idea. If they don't pay those bonuses that they are contractually obligated to pay, the guys who were to receive them will sue for breach of contract, and then not only will AIG have to pay the bonuses off, but also will have to pay attorney's fees as well... and I guarantee the lawyers for the executives won't be charging $200/hour, try closer to $600/hour. I've written about this elsewhere so I won't expand on it, but c'mon, guys.

The second, and even more ridiculous item, comes courtesy of Iowa Senator Charles Grassley (R), who insinuated that the AIG executives should either quit or commit seppuku. Seriously? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Cinnymun

Recently I've been on a journey for the perfect recipe of that most ethereal of all breakfast delights, the cinnamon roll. Mine is a long and lonely journey, full of pain, trials, and enough saturated fat to kill an elephant. I have not yet reached my destination. Nevertheless, I'm am at this point fairly happy about my point on the journey. Since I've received a few requests for the recipe I use as of this moment, I thought this would be a good place to post it.

• 1 cup warm milk (2% or, better yet, whole; skim won't work)
  
• 2 eggs, room temperature
• 1/3 cup unsalted butter, melted
• 4 1/2 cups all-purpose flour (I've been meaning to experiment with both bread flour and cake flour, but haven't yet had the opportunity)
  
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 1/2 cup white sugar
• 2 1/2 teaspoons active dry yeast (instant yeast is better, if you can find it)
  

• 1 cup brown sugar, packed
• 2 tablespoons ground cinnamon (the fresher the better)
• pinch salt
  
• 1/4 cup butter, melted

Heat the milk to ~110 degrees, and bloom the yeast in it for 10-15 minutes, or until all the yeast is dissolved (if you're using instant yeast, skip this). Whip the eggs lightly with the whisk attachment in a stand mixer, then slowly drizzle in the melted butter, keeping the mixer moving. Mix in the sugar and salt. Next, drizzle in the milk/yeast mixture until combined. SIFT THE FLOUR. Mix in about two cups of the SIFTED flour to the batter until just combined (lumps are okay). Remove the whisk attachment and attach the dough hook (here's where not having a stand mixer would suck; this would all have to be done by hand). Add the remaining flour (did I mention it should be sifted?) about a half cup at a time, letting each batch be fully integrated before adding the next and occasionally stopping to remove the dough that climbs up the hook (spray the hook with a little non-stick spray to help prevent this). Continue adding flour until the dough reaches a consistency that is soft and moist but not really very sticky (this may not take all the flour), then knead on the low setting for about five more minutes.

Transfer the dough to a lightly greased (I like non-stick spray again) glass or metal bowl, big enough to contain a much larger dough ball than the one you're inserting. Let rise in a warm, preferably moist place for 1-2 hours or until at least doubled in size. If you're at a loss for such a place, pour a pot of boiling water poured into a pyrex dish and place it in the bottom rack or floor of your oven, and place the bowl of dough above it. With the oven door closed, this should be sufficient.

Mix the brown sugar and cinnamon together with a fork. When the dough is risen (it is risen, indeed!), turn out onto a lightly floured surface and knuckle it for a bit to evenly distribute the gas. Let rest for five minutes and then roll into a roughly 12"by18" rectangle. Use a basting brush to brush on the melted butter, then lightly sprinkle the sugar/cinnamon mixture all over the dough, but leave about a half inch to an inch on one of the longer sides unadorned. Lightly press it down into the dough.

Now it's time to roll. Starting at the long end that actually has cinnamon stuff on it, roll the dough as tightly as possible toward the other end. Fingertips are better than palms for this, they aren't as hot. Once you reach the unadorned end, pull it up and over to finish off the roll, then lightly crimp it to attach the end. Using a long serrated knife, remove those unsightly ends and then cut the dough roll into 12 equal portions. Transfer these to a greased 13"x9" pyrex baking dish, cover with Saran wrap, and store in the refrigerator overnight. That's right, you do all the work on these the night before; and the bench proofing they do in the refrigerator overnight is an important step!

When morning comes, it's time to (finally) bake the rolls. Two ways to do this:

1. Easy method: start the rolls in a cold oven. Turn to 350 degrees and bake for ~45 min or until lightly golden brown and cooked through.
2. Better method: put rolls in cold oven along with a pan of boiling water (same as the first rise) for 30 min. Take everything out, set oven to 350, and when pre-heated, pop the rolls back in and bake for 30 min or until, well, golden brown and delicious.

While the rolls are cooling a bit (or if you're impatient, like me, while they're still in the oven), make the cream cheese icing. What, did you think I'd forgotten? I'm still looking for the perfect recipe, but this one is the best I've found so far. I stay at the low end of the sugar range for more tangy cream cheese goodness.

That's it. Not perfect, at least not to my taste, but pretty damn good. Let me know if you try it out!

Steal This Book!

I should preface this by noting that, as most of you probably know, I work in the music industry, specifically for a music publisher—my salary is paid by revenues from intellectual property. Having grown up like a good little boy under the shepherding shadow of the industry, I have always considered IP to be an important product protected under U.S. and international law. This is the preconceived notion with which I approached this book.

So I figured I'd start this blog off with something guaranteed to be quite controversial. I have a book review/recommendation for everyone: Against Intellectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. It's a sturdy, 300-page tome of applied economics (I know, a real page-turner, right?) detailing exactly what's wrong with intellectual property (everything), and what can be done to fix it (nothing). Okay, it's not quite so drastic as that, but they are certainly on the far edge of the spectrum when it comes to IP reform. But they aren't your run-of-the-mill teen pirates espewing such trite clichés as, "Information wants to be free, man" while taking a toke off of whatever rolled leafy substance happens to be handy; this is one of the most comprehensive, heavily-annotated references I've seen in quite a while.

Michele and David are both theoretical economists, and admit without reservation that theoretically, the reasons normally posited by the pro-IP crowd seem correct. For this project, they decided to branch out and actually look at real-world data for once (what a concept!), only to discover that, when taken out of the world of theory and into the world of empirical data, quite the opposite is true. Their findings are so exhaustively well-researched that I, at least, have had my opinion almost completely changed. Every argument is examined, and shown to be lacking. They have tremendous amounts of evidence that the costs to society of intellectual monopoly far exceed the benefits, and they aren't afraid to use it. I won't go into any details here, for this post would triple in length were I to do so; suffice to say that if you have questions and doubts, as I'm sure you do, it's well worth a read. Despite being an economics book it's written toward the educated layman, so as opposed to wading through the impenetrable economic jargon that most practitioners use, anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence should be able to read and understand this book. And I highly recommend you do.

Although Against Intellectual Monopoly can be purchased at Amazon and a few other places, it isn't the cheapest place to obtain it—it would, of course, be intellectually dishonest for them to make such outrageous claims and then charge $30 bucks for their book, so you can download it for free here in PDF form, in addition to reading a few reviews, blog posts, etc., and their brief summary of their work:

It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty.

Boldrin and Levine are able to show that, instead of being a necessary evil, intellectual monopoly is just plain-old-everyday evil. Hopefully when you read how your inalienable rights have been trampled all over you may actually get upset enough to take action. I realize that this is perhaps a tenuous position to take, considering my current employment situation. I'm sure several people with whom I work, or in my industry, will get pretty upset with it (I've actually already had this happen a couple times). But it rings false to me to believe that your basic principles are being violated, yet staying silent—or worse, espousing the alternative—simply for the sake of self-preservation. So if you start ranting about bittorrent or some alternative, you might not want to ask me to join in...what comes out my mouth may surprise you.