Recomended Reading (Part I: Non-Fiction)

I buy many more books than I read. More accurately, I buy many more books than I finish reading. Here are some off-the-beaten-path suggestions that held my attention to the end and have found a permanent place in my library:

E=mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation by David Bodanis and Simon Singh :: a narrative that links the people, places and politics of 21st century physics

Watching Baseball Smarter: A Professional Fan's Guide for Beginners, Semi-experts, and Deeply Serious Geeks by Zack Hample :: an easy to read guide that will help anyone enjoy baseball more fully regardless of your current understanding of the game

13 Things that Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time (Vintage) by Michael Brooks :: a detailed yet succinct examination of things that the best minds in the world still don't understand

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson :: who couldn't use this? Bill Bryson is a humorist but this is an extremely well-researched examination of questions that we all have about why the world is the way it is

A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future by Daniel H. Pink :: a thoughtful thesis on the rising value of creativity and intuition

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner :: like seeing a circus clown in church, Nobel-laureate Steven Levvitt exports his professional talent as an economist into an unconventional setting - daily life

How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer :: it turns out that every decision we make is a product of our intuitive, subconscious mind and our conscious "thinking" is really just a rationalization of the decision. Leher makes behavioral psychology both fascinating and accessible to those of us without time to get a PhD

Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game by Michael Lewis :: on the surface a book about baseball but underneath it's an examination of business, psychology and the politics of institutions

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler :: this book will make you a better parent, manager, teacher, leader and person

Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary by Marcus J. Borg :: a profoundly original and ultimately sensible articulation of who Jesus was and what it means to be a Christian

How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization by Franklin Foer :: another selection that sounds as if it belongs in the sports genre but pushes well beyond the boundaries of sports

The MLS Cartogram

This is a Rorschach test. What do you see? To some, it may look like a random distribution of different colored squares. It is actually a cartogram - a map in which another variable is substituted for land area, in this case population. It shows MSAs in the US and Canada with a population over 1M. New York is the large red square in the northeast. Los Angeles is the large red square in the far southwest. Miami is in white in the southeast corner. Chicago, Dallas and Houston are the three red squares in the middle. Portland, Seattle and Vancouver are the three red squares in the northwest.

Each red squares is an MSA with a Major League Soccer franchise. If you look closely at the map, you may notice that there are several large markets like Detroit, Montreal, Atlanta and Miami without franchises. As a matter of fact, there is an entire region - south of DC and east of Houston - that has no franchise at all. You may also notice several unusually small markets like Columbus, Kansas City and Salt Lake that have teams.

Does this distribution pattern make sense? A franchise model is only loosely planned, especially when there is no physical product to distribute. It evolves based on where both franchisees and the owner of the brand are interested in locating a franchise. A purely rational process would put franchises in cities with the greatest potential return on both the franchisee and owner's investment. However, there is lots to consider: how many soccer fans are there in the city? how likely are they to spend on tickets and merchandise? what is the competitive environment (will the team compete with football, baseball or any other local sports and entertainment)?

The large markets like NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia and Houston are big enough to support multiple professional sports teams. Those unusually small markets like Columbus and Salt Lake City do not have significant competition from baseball, professional football or other summer/fall sports that would compete with soccer (yes, the Buckeyes are like religion in Ohio but Columbus has a significant enough soccer population to offset the Buckeye effect). Kansas City is a curious market for MLS since it must compete with both the Chiefs and the Royals. But what about those mid-size markets without teams like Detroit, Montreal, Minneapolis, Phoenix and the entire southeast? SEC Football may explain why the southeast doesn't have an MLS franchise but Atlanta and Miami are the seventh and eighth largest MSAs in the US. So if Kansas City - with the Chiefs and Royals - and Columbus - with its Big 10 Buckeyes - can support MLS franchises, why couldn't Atlanta or Miami?

The four markets the MLS has either entered or announced upcoming entry are Seattle, Philadelphia, Portland and Vancouver. Seattle and Philly both have football and baseball teams but are large enough markets to support a soccer franchise. Portland and Vancouver look more like SLC and Columbus - small but without any competition from baseball and football. Also, both Vancouver and Portland have teams currently playing in the USL that are moving up to MLS. Philly did not have an existing team but built a new stadium as part of their pitch.

So, where would you put the next franchise? If the two (implicit) strategies are (i) large markets and (ii) small, less competitive markets with existing teams, then the most likely choices are (i) Miami or Atlanta and (ii) Charlotte, Montreal, Raleigh, San Antonio or Austin.

The Organic Fallacy

The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals by Blake Hurst in The American, reminded me of a friend I've known for almost 25 years. She's a physician that specializes in alternative medicine. On more than one occasion she's scolded me for serving my family (gasp) non-organic foods. She is convinced that genetically altered foods, synthetic fertilizers and herbicides are slowly polluting our bodies. It's not clear if this is really true. To be sure, some chemicals - like DDT - have contributed to significant ecological and human damage in the past. But there is science supporting both sides of the argument. For example, worldwide life expectancy has more than doubled and the population has increased by 4 times since 1900 in part because of advances in genetically altered foods, synthetic fertilizers and herbicides.

This leads to the real question: would the world be better without industrial agriculture? The answer is: clearly no. The Nobel Laureate and father of the Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug, estimates that there is only enough natural nitrogen available on earth to feed 4 billion people (fertilizer is basically nitrogen and it turns out that nitrogen is the most scarce resource for farming). That means that almost 40% of the global population would not be alive today without synthetic sources of nitrogen (i.e. - synthetic fertilizers). Moreover, Hurst, who is a real farmer, argues convincingly that organic farming is more expensive and more harmful to the environment.

We embrace advances in technology in almost every other industry but "expect farmers to use 1930s techniques to raise food." Advanced technology in food production has allowed more people to live and those people to live longer. Insisting on organic foods is asking farmers to produce less at a higher cost, do more damage to the environment, under serve demand and drive worldwide food prices beyond the reach of a third of the world population (clearly the poorest will bear the burden). If we demand more organic foods, farmers will certainly supply them. But should we?

Imprimatur

Word of the week: Imprimatur.

My friend Ben McAllister (one of the 'X or So') suggested this one. Latin words used in English, like et cetera, ad hoc and de facto, are often printed in italics, as if to say "we have no equivalent so we're just borrowing this from Latin." I'm not sure why we don't similarly acknowledge words we borrow from French or Farsi with italics. In any event, according to Merriam-Webster, Imprimatur is defined as: a license to print or publish; a mark of approval or distinction.

After further exploration (i.e. - Wikipedia), this word has an even more intriguing context. According to Wikipedia, an Imprimatur is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics. No implication is contained therin that those who have granded the Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed. The term is also used more generally to mean any official endorsement (not necessarily by a church).

Where'd All The Good People Go?

The melodic Jack Johnson song of the same title asks “Where’d all the good people go?” After reading Inside The Great American Bubble Machine, I am left asking the same questions and coming to the same conclusions. In Johnson’s words: Where did all the good people go? How many train wrecks do we need to see? We have heaps and heaps of what we sow.

I don’t want to sound like a nostalgic Pollyanna. But the Kennedys, Goldwater, even the reviled Joseph McCarthy held serving the public good as their highest aspirations (even if it was misguided at times). They served the public with vastly different ideologies but none placed the pursuit of wealth above their belief in the public good. Sure, wealth was nice, but the pursuit of obscene wealth at the expense of the public good was regarded as almost ignoble in the 50s and 60s. But what's happened since then?

Between 1966 and 2006, the median household income increased roughly 30%. However, the total output of our nation (real GDP per capita) more than doubled. So where did all the money go? It is a complicated answer but the biggest contributor is an explosion in income inequality. In 1978, for example, the top 1% of households earned 8 times the average household. In 2006, it was 23 times. Moreover, for the top 0.1% the increase was from 86 times to 546 times the average. The rich are getting richer - and at a faster pace. I have nothing against wealth or the super-rich unless the pursuit of wealth supplants the pursuit of public good. And in the case of Goldman Sachs, according to Inside The Great American Bubble Machine, it has.

This blind pursuit of wealth at the expense of the public good is nothing new. Goldman Sachs is simply the latest and perhaps the grandest example of greed. What’s horrifying about Goldman is that they carry the Gordon Gecko torch unapologetically - as if they are incapable of understanding why anyone would pursue anything other than wealth. After a quarter of record profits and bonuses, despite a sputtering economy that they helped to create, Goldman is now locked in a battle with the US Government to actually reduce the value of the government’s (read: your and my) stake in the company. And even more horrifying, Goldman has now spread itself so deeply into the recesses of power within government and politics that is has insulated itself against its only two threats: competition and regulation.

Is wealth wrong? No. But the pursuit of wealth above the public good is antithetical to American ideals. Where'd all the good people go? They certainly aren't at Goldman.

The Greatest Sports Rivalry Ever

What would come to mind if I asked you to name the greatest rivalries in sports? Go ahead, give it some thought.

I've noticed that there are two types of people when it comes to sports rivalries. The first group immediately begins to list rivalries. Some will start with their own rivalry: New Englanders will overwhelm you with their disgust for the Yankees, Duke alumni will begin to recite their numerous victories on Tobacco Road. Others, maybe those without a personal connection to a great rivalry, will ponder the question more deeply to identify a list of rivalries with real gravitas. These "listers" can be found simply enough. Just google "greatest sports rivalries" and a myriad of lists appear. Listers, I would guess, comprise 80% of the population.

The other 20% is more circumspect. They avoid the urge to begin with individual rivalries. They start with criteria. They ask: what makes a great rivalry? And then they apply this criteria to find rivalries that meet their standards. I am in this minority. So, what makes a great sports rivalry? Here are my criteria:

1. Joy-heartbreak quotient (JHQ). The joy-heartbreak quotient is simply the difference between the joy created in the world when a team wins and the heartbreak created when a team losses. It is the number of people who feel joy multiplied by the intensity of their joy less the number of people who feel heartbreak multiplied by the intensity of their heartbreak. In great rivalries, more people care about the outcome and there is more intensity. Army-Navy is certainly a rivalry but not many people outside the armed forces care much about the game so the JHQ for an Army-Navy game is certainly less than, say, Michigan-Ohio State.

2. Durable. I respect and in many ways admire the old days. Football without helmets. Baseball without lights. Hockey without teeth. Uphill both ways in the snow and all. But I am more interested in rivalries that have withstood the test of time. The JHQ calculus is magnified by years of fans experiencing both sides of the equation as their team flows through the crests and troughs of winning and losing. Steelers-Cowboys and Giants-Dodgers were surely great rivalries in their heyday. But they have faded.

3. Frequency. The best rivalries are forged from frequent battles. Many of the best rivals are in the same division or conference, play each other several times a season and then have to meet in the playoffs where the stakes are even higher. Sure the Cowboys-49ers battles were great games but nothing compared the year-in and year-out Redskins-Cowboys rivalry. Frequency multiples the JHQ.

4. No "I" in Team. This is less a rule and more a caveat. There are terrific rivalries among individuals: Ali & Frazier. Arnie & Jack. Nadal & Federer. These are certainly rivalries but they have no durable anchor beyond the individual contestants. They have no longevity beyond the individuals themselves. Sure, 78-year-old barbers still argue about the greatest boxer that ever lived but choosing sides is often a matter of personal preference rather than allegiance to the home team. The great rivalries transcend individuals because the enemy never goes away. New Yorkers despised the Red Sox with Cy Young just as much as with Roger Clemens.

With these guidelines in mind, I humbly offer my thoughts on the The Greatest Sports Rivalry Ever. But first, the honorable mentions: Redskins-Cowboys, Oklahoma-Texas, Auburn-Alabama, Patriots-Colts, Pepsi-Coke and Mac-PC. These are all worth a Saturday afternoon on the couch. But for real passion, intensity and JHQ, not many rivalries can create the adrenaline as these five:

#5 Maple Leafs-Canadiens. This is your basic French vs English rivalry. But it's hockey, it's Canada and it's faded recently so fifth place may even be generous.

#4 Michigan-Ohio State. This is the best institutional rivalry in the world. They are competitive in football, basketball, and probably even water polo. But it's the football that makes this a great rivalry.

#3 Red Sox-Yankees. This is almost the definition of rivalry. I almost got mobbed once for wearing a Red Sox hat at Yankee Stadium (and the Red Sox weren't even playing).

#2 Tar Heels-Blue Devils. This is purely a basketball rivalry but when HBO makes a documentary about your rivalry, it must be serious.

#1 Tie: Rangers-Celtic and Boca Juniors-River Plate. Surprised? I know what you are thinking: soccer, really? Actually, these two rivalries exceed the rest of the list by orders of magnitude. Fans are separated by riot police. They exit the stadium in opposite directions and walk a mile before being allowed to turn back. Boca-River is class warfare. It is the "millionaires" vs the "people's team." Rangers-Celtic is religious warfare. This cross-city Glasgow rivalry is Protestants versus Irish Catholics. What these two rivalries lack in market size they make up with intensity. They are ancient (1888 and 1931 respectively) and both sets of teams meet at least twice or more a year and then again (usually) to determine the league championship. Nothing in football, baseball or hockey here in the US compares to these two rivalries.

On second thought, what's so great about rivalries so intensely savage that they require riot police and incite not joy and heartbreak but rather perpetuate hatred and even more hatred?

The Road

Critics often use the word "haunting" to describe films that permeate our subconscious deeply. Even the blinding midday sun that washes over us when we leave the theater is powerless to rinse away the most acrid scences. These disquieting memories resurface in slow, contemplative moments. They settle on our minds and demand attention while we sleep. These films are rare.
It is even more rare that a book, without the benefit of surround sound and digital effects, can grip our minds as relentlessly. But haunting may not be adequate enough to describe Cormac McCarthy's The Road. Get past a stream-of-consciousness style that Faulkner would envy (read: sentences without verbs) and it is a truly haunting story. It will bury itself deeply in the recessses of your mind. It will horrify you and yet, in the end, it will renew your faith - not in the world but in yourself. It will remind you, in your own quiet contemplations, that we live by the grace of God alone. And that may be the most haunting quality of all.