review of David Randall's Dreamland

David Randall has written a fun and informative book on an interesting and mysterious topic: sleep. His pursuit starts with a personal interest in his own sleep problems and extends into the world of science and sleep research. The book reads easily through a range of sleep-related topics-- ironically, not helping one to sleep if reading it before bedtime. 

Personal disclosure: I have relatively little trouble with sleep-- infrequently enough where I can remember only a few times when it's taken me more than 5-10 minutes to fall sleep (that said, I often read myself to sleep or do puzzles until I can't stay awake)-- and another handful of times when I wake up in the middle of the night and cannot get back to sleep (often, there seems to be something for which I am supposed to pray). So, I read the book because it sounded interesting-- and I was not disappointed.

Since the book is a compendium of sleep-related topics, this is probably the closest Randall comes to a thesis: "Most of us will spend a full third of our lives asleep, and yet we don't have the faintest idea of what it does for our bodies and our brains. Research labs offer surprisingly few answers. Sleep is one of the dirty little secrets of science...a lot that we don't know about sleep, starting with the most obvious question of all-- why we, and every other animal, need to sleep in the first place." (p. 17-18)

A number of spiritual speculations come to mind, but presumably there are mental and physical components as well. Biologically, there should be (overall) advantages to having significant sleep, but what are they? "If sleep doesn't serve an absolutely vital function, it is the greatest mistake evolution [and/or God] ever made." (19) Further, Randall notes that sleep is not always correlated with size-- and that some animals rest only half of their brain at a time.

Randall notes that sleep is when the body rests, but then again, one can have a sleep that does not seem restful. In fact, this gets to the one sleep mystery I'd like to understand: why the amount of sleep at night or in a nap is often unrelated to the way one feels upon wakening. (The best practical [scientific?] advice I've received was to nap for less than one half-hour or for more than 1.5 hours. Randall does not discuss this.)

Chapter 1 includes a brief discussion of REM. Discovered in the 1950s, this stage of sleep features a brain as active as when awake-- and it's the time when most dreams occur. 

Chapter 2 includes a description of "second sleep" (33)-- a period of an hour or so in the middle of the night when people would commonly/naturally awaken and engage in activity. The key: second sleep occurs when we're deprived of nighttime light. Randall describes modern experiments where subjects would sleep without any light (34-35), with the same result. From there, he details the changes (and troubles) caused by the introduction of light (36ff). 

Chapter 4 is devoted to children-- from the observation that half of their sleep is REM (72) to the decision of parents to sleep with children or not (70) and the debate between Ferber's "cry it out" and Sears' "attachment" theories. Until the start of the 20th century, it was common for a young child to sleep in the same room as parents, but increased standards of living and some peer pressure led to a change in views (78). Randall describes literature on sleep patterns for children across countries (79-80) and finds differences without a distinction, except for the importance of maintaining a routine (82). (This is similar to the result that beds don't matter-- except for sticking to a routine [252-259].)

In Chapters 5 and 6, Randall focuses on what happens during dreams, ranging from the previously dominant theories of Freud to more modern interpretations pioneered by Calvin Hull-- where the brain is making an effort to process information. Randall provides some cool examples of "discoveries" during dreams: benzene's chemical structure, vitamin C, Coleridge's Kubla Khan, McCartney's Yesterday, and Meyer's Twilight books (111-112). I've had a few of these, but I've also had a handful where I was convinced I had found something that turned out to be nonsensical. Randall describes cool experiments where problem-solving ability was enhanced by sleep-- in between exposures to a puzzle, implying that the brain was working during the rest (116-117). 

Chapter 7 turns to efforts to regulate and postpone sleep-- from caffeine to speed (132-133). In subsequent chapters, Randall applies this to the world of war, work, sports, and teenagers. Randall notes that teen bodies move to a later time orientation, where staying up later and getting up later are more natural. He lays out amazing (difficult to believe) evidences about the benefits of cooperating with those rhythms in terms of school performance and even bullying (202-208).

In chapter 11, Randall reverses the question and brings the book full circle, by asking about efforts to embrace sleep. He notes the limited help provided by pills and the need to not to *try* to sleep-- and provides some helpful if obvious hints about light, routine, comfort, etc.


Sleep tight. It might help to curl up with Randall's book on sleep.

arrest rates by race for pot

From Andrew Wolfson in the C-J...

Some possible responses:
a.) Who cares? They're black.
b.) Who cares? I don't smoke weed.
c.) I think this is racist, but I imagine that govt (social, military, economic) policy will typically be neutral or sympathetic toward race.
d.) I think this is classist, but I imagine that govt (social, military, economic) policy will typically be neutral or sympathetic toward those with fewer resources.
e.) Trying to profile crime with limited resources, this is an unfortunate but inevitable result.
f.) One more ethical and practical reason why the War on Drugs is bad policy.
g.) Other (please explain)

I'll go with E and F. 

I'd guess there's quite a bit of A and B out there-- apathy. I'd guess there's quite a bit of C and D too-- somewhere between interesting and incoherent. 

Ideas for G?

Progressives and Scripture

Thinking through the usual "Progressive" (liberal?) emphasis on progress... 

In that worldview, those who wrote the Bible would have been rubes (relative to us), intellectually and morally. But if one is familiar with the intricacies of the Bible (granted, a rare thing, even among Christians), at least the former is untenable. 

Two seemingly famous examples: 

1.) From the Bible, we can't identify the first sin committed by Adam and Eve. The mental wrestling-- and the quality of the potential reflection and instruction-- resulting from this ambiguity is really cool. 

2.) Can you name the first sin committed by Noah after coming off the ark? (The common answer is something that a rube could imagine. I can't imagine a rube writing what turns out to be the correct answer.)

DC vimeo links

DC Training Day 1 Part 1:

DC Training Day 1 Part 1 from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

DC Training Day 1 Part 2:

DC Training Day 1 Part 2 from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

DC Training Day 2 Part 1:

DC Training Day 2 Part 1 from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

DC Training Day 2 Part 2:

DC Training Day 2 Part 2 from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

DC Training 301 | 400

DC Training Level 301 | 400 from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

DC Orientation

DC Orientation from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

DC Exploring

DC Exploring from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

DC Leading

DC Leading from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

DC Training

DC Training from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

a review of Clarence Thomas' auto-biography, My Grandfather's Son

Thomas auto-biography is a relatively easy read-- interesting, well-written, and not that long-- ranging from childhood through his Supreme Court nomination.

He opens by reflecting on the process of writing the book-- that it required "plowing up long-untilled parts of my past. It was a new experience and a strange one. I'd never been in the habit of looking back at the portion of my life that I'd already lived. Most of the time, I needed all my strength to deal with the life I was then living, with all of its uncertainties, doubts and fears." (p. ix) And then this summary: "It is the story of an ordinary man to whom extraordinary things happened." (ix) The purpose of the book: "to bear witness to what these people [particularly his grandfather] did for me...an accurate record of my own life as I remember it...I didn't want to leave the telling to those with careless hands or malicious hearts." (x)

He was raised initially by his mother in abject poverty (3-5), including no bathroom and no electricity except for a single light. After their house burned down, they moved into Savannah-- "from the comparative safety and cleanliness of rural poverty to the foulest kind of urban squalor" (6). At some point, his mother decided that it would be better for Clarence and his brother to be raised by her parents. 

On his father (p. 2): "For years my brother and I would ask ourselves how a man could show no interest in his own children. I still wonder." But then this summary statement about his grandfather as father (p. 28): "As I grew older...I came to appreciate what I had not understood as a child: I had been raised by the greatest man I have ever known." His grandfather was a hard man, but a good man. I really liked this nugget about him: "Daddy always seemed to be preparing for rainy days. Maybe that's why they never came." (25)

Thomas initially went into training to become a priest. But the church's failure to address race adequately-- and a desire to live life on his own terms-- led him away from the priesthood and even the church. He struggled with alcohol and divorced his first wife (his "biggest mistake"), before getting his life together and remarriage.
Not surprisingly, race plays a large part of his upbringing and in his intellectual influences. He mentions and quotes from To Kill a Mockingbird, Native Son and Invisible Man. In terms of economics, race, and social policy, he says that Thomas Sowell's Race and Economics was pivotal (105-106). He also points to Walter Williams' academic work (126-127) as a key influence.  

About the North and the South, Thomas says "It was in Boston, not Georgia, that a white man had called me nigger for the first time. I'd already found New England to be far less honest about race than the South, and I bristled at the self-righteous sanctimony with which so many of the northerners at Yale glibly discussed the South's racial problems. Now that their own problems were on display [with the riots in Boston over integrated public schools], I was unsympathetic." (78)
 
Thomas also depicts the tension in the African-American community over different shades of "blackness" (29-30; e.g., Thomas' nickname, growing up, was ABC-- "America's Blackest Child"), even in higher education (43a). Likewise, along with many others, he experienced ironic opposition to attending predominantly white schools (37, 54). Both of these are key themes in Spike Lee's provocative movie, School Daze.

Thomas repeatedly acknowledges-- and laments-- that he benefited from "Affirmative Action", at least in the short-term. "As much as it stung to be told that I'd done well in the seminary despite my race, it was far worse to fell that I was not at Yale because of it." (74-75, 231) After law school at Yale, he couldn't get a job despite his pedigree (86, 99). 

He experienced other downsides of Affirmative Action: Thomas Sowell describes the mismatches that occur because certain minorities are promoted to better schools; Shelby Steele writes about stereotyping (statistical discrimination)-- where people reasonably interpret you in light of the favors you might have received; Monsanto over-hired to fill quotas and then let workers languish (114); he was chosen as head of EEOC, in part, because he was black; but people assumed the worst about him because he had been appointed by Reagan (161).

Thomas drops a lot of names-- par for the course, I suppose, in a book like this. He appropriately trashes Carl Rowan (155); my encounters with him in DC were sad. (For those in Louisville, imagine a poor man's Betty Baye). In contrast, he praises Juan Williams throughout. They have had a long relationship and Williams provided a big defense of Thomas in the WaPo during his Supreme Court confirmation (274). Abner Mikva takes a beating-- first as a tool (206) and then as the source of a probable leak from the Court of Appeals (246-247). Howard Metzenbaum comes off like a jerk (221). Al Gore and Bob Packwood come off like hard-core politicians (222). Joe Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, is depicted as conniving and too-clever-by-half (235-236, 242). He has kind words for Vernon Jordan, despite their differences (227). And he absolutely glows when talking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg (205, 216-217). 

Of course, there's plenty on Anita Hill: how they were introduced (140); his initial impressions of her (140-141's detested Reagan; political animal; adequate work); her wanting to follow Thomas to EEOC (150); her ugly responses to not being chosen for a promotion (171-173); her continued communication with him after she left the EEOC (179); Thomas saying he had "penciled her in as a liberal whom I could call as a witness on my behalf" (230); her allegations during the confirmation (242-245); the leak of her confidential statement and the resulting brouhaha (249-253); and a brief overview of the holes in her assertions (256-257). His conclusion about this strange matter: "My guess was that a combination of ego, ambition, and immaturity had caused her to let herself to be drawn into the effort to destroy me..." (265)

Thomas alludes to politics a few times in ways I found interesting. We forget that judicial nominees were generally granted quite a bit of deference until the Democratic Senate went after Robert Bork in 1987. After that, the incentives changed toward choosing judges with less experience-- and more importantly, less of a judicial trail. David Souter was chosen before Thomas-- and was equally inexperienced-- setting what should have been an easier table for Thomas (207, 216). 

Pre-Thomas and pre-Reagan, the EEOC was in a dump (LOL!) and poorly-run (155). Toward the end of his time there, the WaPo praised his work there (191). As his last large project, he moved the EEOC to a much nicer building that was handicap-accessible (194-195). Interestingly, Thomas voluntarily put a disabled person on the building committee (195), not relying on a quota to reach that decision (my snarky comment, not his). 

Thomas noted, then, the need for a positive civil-rights agenda (178)-- something that the GOP continues to struggle with. The Democrats have a largely damaging positive agenda for African-Americans. The GOP lacks the political will, compassion, and/or policy creativity to put together a positive, constructive agenda.

He also has some great examples of rhetoric used against his work there (161): "When I reassigned staff to match workforce with workload, I was 'gutting' the agency; when I declined to pursue fruitless lawsuits, I was 'cutting back on enforcement'. What's more, these staffers had the ear of members of Congress who were too busy to do anything but take their false claims at face value."

Thomas naively entered politics, thinking that it was governed by benevolence: "I'd naively supposed that I was joining a community of people who had chosen to work in politics to do some good in our society." (162). After his time in Washington, especially after the confirmation, his Mom, a lifelong staunch Democrat said she would vote for a dog before a Democrat (240).


While we're at it: Here's a really nice piece on Clarence Thomas and his judicial work by Damon Root in Reason...

on the "coming out" of Jason Collins

Coverage of Jason Collins' historic announcement in the WaPo article by Dave Sheinin and Michael Lee  (h/t: C-J)...

I have not yet read the SI article-- and look forward to that-- but for now, a few thoughts on Mr. Collins (given what's portrayed in this article): 

-This moment was inevitable, but someone had to be first. Whatever this does for/to his conscience, his wallet, etc., my guess is that Collins has looked at "the market" of history and made a wise investment in his future and his (worldly) legacy.

-The SI article begins with: “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.” First words are important-- particularly in this sort of context. What's interesting about what Collins did and did not say?

1.) Especially in matters of race and sexual orientation, it's really interesting that the weight one attaches to various aspects of identity can vary so much. Part of this is personality and preferences. Part of it is ideology and worldview. Part of it is the cultural context in which one lives, especially for those in a minority where there is some social tension.
 

In our context, with two bi-racial boys, it's interesting to consider the extent to which we emphasize that they are boys-- and the extent to which they are bi-racial. Gender and race are part of our identity. But where do they rate in a Top Ten list, compared to other attributes-- religious belief, education, character traits, sexual orientation, etc.? When we were reading the literature on race and adoption, it was interesting to learn that race is #1 for some people (particularly for those who write books on the topic!); for others, it barely makes the Top Ten.

2.) Collins chooses to describe his identity in (only) five ways: age, occupation, size, race, and sexual orientation. I'm guessing that sexual orientation comes last for dramatic affect. But which of these five are most important to him? Why didn't he list others (e.g., gender-- which is actually key to this moment in history)? He chose aspects of his identity that he does and does not control. He did not choose any character traits (e.g., kind, aggressive, courageous). More broadly: When I describe myself, what does it say about me-- or how I sell or see myself-- that I say or leave out certain things? 

For the Christian, our (first) identity is in Christ. I Corinthians 6:9-11 is quite helpful here: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

-“I didn’t set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport,” Collins wrote. “But since I am, I’m happy to start the conversation. I wish I wasn’t the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, ‘I’m different.’ If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I’m raising my hand.” 

I believe him when he says it was not (initially) a goal. But to be clear, because no one had done this before, he *is* the kid in the classroom saying he's different. Nobody had-- and he feels compelled at this point-- and so here we are. He gets to be historic, but he can't claim that he's not being historic. 

DC Orientation from Heavenly Pictures on Vimeo.

Life of Pi

I really enjoyed this movie-- provocative, beautiful, well-crafted, well-acted (including the first film for the actor who played Pi). I didn't see it in 3-D, but I don't think that would add much. The first time, I saw it on the big screen; the second time, on TV. Nice both ways, but better on the big screen (not surprising). 

I also looked at some videos of Ang Lee (and here) and enjoyed his discussion of using 3-D for the first time and the humility he gained from working with water. In terms of the book's message/vision, he is a thoughtful agnostic-- and his questions and his searching are reflected in the film.

I have not yet read Yann Martel's book, but probably will, given how much I enjoyed the movie. 

If you haven't seen/read it yet (but plan to), then you won't want to read any further. Spoiler alert!

The key moment happens at the end as Pi relates "his story" to the Japanese insurance agents. He provides a synopsis of what the movie depicts. And the agents uncomfortably say that the story won't work for their purposes-- and at least imply that it's not believable. Pi asks if they want another story and they say yes. His second story is more concrete, using the characters of his first story as representatives/metaphors. Then the movie flashes back to the present and he asks his interviewer which story is better. The interviewer replies, "the first". Pi's response: "And so it goes with God."

The funny thing is that both stories are fantastic. The one is fantastic in a supernatural sense, assuming the presence of God. The other is fantastic in a natural sense, assuming no presence (or assuming away the presence) of God. But both are amazing and both require considerable faith. (Seeing it the second time, knowing what to expect and what to look for, I'd say the second/natural story becomes relatively more fantastic.)

And so, the key question for life and theology-- whether interpreting a particular event or looking at life as a whole: Does one believe the supernatural fantastic story-- or the natural fantastic story? Or does one imagine that the natural story is not all that fantastic?

All of this fits neatly in the "post-modern" context-- with its emphasis on narrative, story, subjectivity, humility about what we "know", etc. For moderns, this is rough business either way-- and they'll ignore it or push it away. Which story do you believe?

Allison on govt policy and the financial crisis

John Allison's book is a helpful look at the government policies that contributed to the housing bubble, the financial crisis, and the "Great Recession". As with the Great Depression, any blame ascribed to markets should be balanced (if not overwhelmed) by the clear damage done to the economy by a series of bad government policies. In this case, contra Ezra Klein, Allison places primary blame on govt policy that encouraged a bubble in residential real estate; mistakes by financial institutions; and lots of bailouts and crony capitalism. (On the latter, he targets AIG and Goldman-Sachs [p. 128-129].)

Allison doesn't discuss the Great Depression at any length. Back then, we had a massive import tax increase (Smoot-Hawley), four tax increases (including a new tax on labor to finance Social Security!), declining money supply (thanks Fed!), price and wage floors (including a new minimum wage, making workers less attractive to firms). The result: unemployment peaking at 25%; GDP shrinking by 1/4 in four years; 10 years of double-digit unemployment; and 19% unemployment in the 6th year of the so-called "New Deal". Very impressive work, gentlemen! It makes President Obama and the current Congress look like a bunch of geniuses.

Allison starts with the assertion that "financial services" is probably the most regulated industry in the world (5). I don't know how one would measure that, but the broader point clearly holds-- that it is a highly-regulated industry. As such, problems in the industry might be blamed in some part on markets, but government has to take (big) responsibility insofar as it exercises (tremendous) power.

Allison also notes that housing is more consumption than investment. Land is more of an investment, but a home will necessarily depreciate and requires maintenance costs. People have gone along with the investment rhetoric-- and the reality that buying is more of an investment than renting. Still, they are confused about the role of inflation in real gains; they see higher prices and imagine that the real value is increasing substantially. Ironically, Allison notes that the change in perspective-- stemming from the Crash-- has further undermined value in that market (73-74).

Mal-investment, as encouraged by the govt, is harmful to society and consumers. On the latter, savings is reduced and it encourages marginal people to move into something they can't afford. Ouch! As always, you gotta love those good intentions! That is enough, right?

Allison includes some delightful quotes on the FDIC from FDR-- that it would "place a premium on unsound banking" and "involve the govt in probable loss" (37). He said similarly negative things about the disincentives inherent in welfare policies, but his concerns did not carry the day in his decisions. The FDIC is designed to be revenue-neutral overall, but breaking that down: this means that the bad will be subsidized by the good. It also establishes an implicit cartel-- and creates a moral hazard problem for investors and banks. As a prominent example during the crisis, Allison critiques the bailout of Washington Mutual (75-76) in its payment of uninsured depositors in full. "Until the WaMu failure, the idea had been that uninsured depositors would impose discipline on a reckless bank...The FDIC had taken part of the money that should have been available to pay bondholders and given it to uninsured depositors...complete contradiction to past practice...no rule of law...forced the failure of Wachovia..." Allison also describes a private solution, along the lines of what we have in life insurance and in securities (48-49).

Allison is unimpressed with regulators: "in almost every case...govt regulators have been the last people to know...extraordinarily naive...lack of understanding of human nature and the power of incentives...[and] of the information available to [them]...dominated by lifetime bureaucrats [who] follow the rules and not rock the boat...very process-oriented...the best and brightest individuals tend to leave." (41, 46) For effective govt policy, one must have good info and good motives. Without both, you get a mess. Allison devotes all of chapter 14 to the failure of the SEC.
 
Allison pursues an aside on discrimination in lending (42-43): "leave themselves tremendous leeway to interpret their own regulations...extremely political...no objective rule of law..." He describes the usual, profit-mongering incentives for banks to loan green to good risks, whatever the color of the applicant. (Are they greedy or not? I get mixed up on this.) And he points to the poor/univariate empirical work that seemed to show discrimination, before citing the careful work that controls for more variables and causes the apparent discrimination to disappear. But after the focus on discrimination and the bureaucratic and legal heat (he shares BB&T's story on 44-45), risky lending to minorities increased-- good news for them short-term, but not for many of them in the long-term. Ahhh, but we had good intentions.

The carrot of general subsidies for risky lending and the stick of penalizing those who didn't seem to loan to enough minorities created unfortunate incentives and results: "encouraging people to buy homes that were too big, to speculate on housing based on govt incentives, or to buy houses that they could not afford..." There were other ethical problems too: subsidizing the wealthy; subsidizing a particular lifestyle choice (owning), supporting consumption over investment, and subsidizing residential real estate over other sorts of investment (54-55).

Allison argues that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (F&F) should not exist, let alone dominate the housing market. He notes the destruction of the S&L's industry through govt policy (96-97) and notes the emergence of F&F as dominant players in the wake of that disaster (97). Allison is particularly upset that F&F did not report their $2 trillion in subprime loans. They "funded a major percentage of the misinvestment...and provided materially misleading information that contributed to errors by other market participants." (61, 64-65). F&F, given the moral hazard of a guaranteed bailout engaged in risky loans, encouraging if not requiring the same from competitors: "a competitive race to the bottom" (100). 

One bit of institutional knowledge I learned: the bond-ratings agencies are a govt-sanctioned oligopoly-- explicitly for ERISA, but then implicitly through the federal imprimatur (81-82). They did a terrible job and there was no competition to correct this or hold them accountable-- an utter failure and fraud (82). Within the oligopoly, the incentives were twisted: agencies used to be paid by buyers, but then were paid by sellers-- a BIG difference! (83-84)

Allison also describes a lending practice I had not heard described: "pick-a-payment" (89-91)-- where buyers paid LESS than the interest payment. This works well if the value of the home increases enough-- as increasing home equity offsets the loss in equity from insufficient payments. What a joke!


He covers the myths surrounding the exaggerated role of derivatives (122-123). They were too small to be a major player. Some/many were used to reduce risk rather than engage in speculation. And they are zero-sum. Likewise, he demolishes the amazing myth about banking deregulation during the Bush Years in chapter 13. Instead, there were three major financial regulatory efforts: Privacy Act, Patriot Act, and Sarbanes-Oxley. See: Daniel Mitchell vs. Paul Krugman.

He has a good description of the pros and cons of "fair-value accounting" in chapter 11.Allison wrestles with the likelihood and type of market correction we would have had without so much intervention (ch. 15)-- especially TARP (ch. 16). And he closes with explicit policy RX's (chs. 17-20, 23); a discussion of the relevant, underlying philosophy (chs. 21-22) and ch. 24's call to principled action in all realms.

I don't know enough about the relevant industries and regulators to say whether Allison provides the definitive account. But it makes sense in light of economic incentives and it lines up with the usual problems one finds with government-- regulation, cronyism, good intentions, and so on.