I have my books very roughly organized, which may come as a surprise to some, given that I like to organize things to a near-OCD-level. Anyway, they’re grouped together by genre, and then I try to group within some sort of sub-genre if it’s doable.

For example, my largest group of books is economics-related. I have econ history stuff all together, public choice stuff all together, macro and monetary stuff is together, etc.

The next biggest collection is fiction. Most of my fiction books are either classics or fantasy/sci-fi.

Other large groupings include history, misc. social studies, religion, language (mostly Japanese, but also some Spanish and Latin), and math/science. Ashley also has a few shelves’ worth of fitness, nutrition, and recreation-related books.

To keep track of which books I want to read, and in which order, I just lean them up against my bookshelf. It’s pretty haphazard. But it’s easy to move books around if I want to switch the order, or put a new book in the queue if I so desire. Rather than list off the books, I figured I’d take a picture.

Feel free to leave your thoughts on any of the books in my queue, or tell me to add some other ones. Thanks!

Both brothers were complex — having both great and terrible qualities about them — but in completely cliche ways. The whole movie, with all its major and minor conflicts, was predictable from start to finish. The directing, screenplay, acting, were all well-done; and, even though I thought the use of Beethoven’s Ninth was cheesy, the score was stirring and expertly executed, which is what I think makes most people like/love the movie. The music pulled a Jedi mind trick on them and they fell for it.

On the one hand, I’m shocked this movie is in the IMDB Top 250. On the other hand, I’m not.

Overall, my feelings are “meh.”

The fact is that Japanese, especially for those of us who have learned to read it after childhood, never loses its exotic appeal; each page turned reveals to the eye a new spectacle of outlandish squiggles that momentarily takes the breath away. There is a thrill in realizing that you can process this stuff with your very own brain. I have long been convinced that, as we speak — but especially as we read this foreign tongue — just beneath the threshold of consciousness, a voice continually shouts, “Look, Mom, I’m reading Japanese!”

That’s from Making Sense of Japanese by Jay Rubin. If you’re trying to learn Japanese, it’s a great book. Even after having lived there for about two years, it still taught me quite a few new things about the language. The way the book is written, too, makes it very enjoyable to read.

p.s. I’ve been working on my kanji study for about a month now. I’m able to read around 500-600, and I can write about half that many. Someone please call me an おつかれさま.

He predicted that our foreign policy would eventually result in negative blowback; however, he predicted it would come primarily from East Asian countries. In some ways, it has (via “economic blowback”), but the form of blowback which stands out the most to most Americans has come from Islamic extremists.

I want to share one paragraph from the book that seemed, to me, fairly accurate:

“Blowback” is shorthand for saying that a nation reaps what it sows, even if it does not fully know or understand what it has sown. Given its wealth and power, the United States will be a prime recipient in the foreseeable future of all of the more expectable forms of blowback, particularly terrorist attacks against Americans in and out of the armed forces anywhere on earth, including within the United States. But it is blowback in its larger aspect — the tangible costs of empire — that truly threatens it. Empires are costly operations, and they become more costly by the year. The hollowing out of American industry, for instance, is a form of blowback — an unintended negative consequence of American policy — even though it is seldom recognized as such. The growth of militarism in a once democratic society is another example of blowback. Empire is the problem. Even thou the United States has a strong sense of invulnerability and substantial military and economic tools to make such a feeling credible, the fact of its imperial pretensions means that a crisis is inevitable. More imperialist projects simply generate more blowback. If we do not begin to solve problems in more prudent and modest ways, blowback will only become more intense.

I think every American should read this book. Even with its faults (it has some), it is full of wisdom and warning.

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good “subject”. Terrible “times”. It’s about 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right. 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 9%…

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed.  You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: But … they are out of work!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work, can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To who?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work…Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%.  You don’t want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they’re two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Later, he explains further,

[The individual] generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it… By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

Smith is really circling around the creation of wealth here. The intent and purpose of the butcher, brewer, or baker, is to increase their own personal wealth. But by the very nature of what trade accomplishes, wealth is created for the person purchasing from the butcher, brewer, or baker.

The invisible hand isn’t a metaphor for the rich exploiting the poor or some other such nonsense, as people mistakenly make it out to be, but a metaphor for the way people pursue their own personal wealth, and through the beauty of trade, end up making others wealthy as well.

Stop thinking about how awesome this game could be. Just imagine it’s a new M. Night Shyamalan movie. Sure Sixth Sense was amazing and Unbreakable had it’s moments, but this right here is the sequel to The Village … or The Happening … or Signs … or any of the movies besides the two I first mentioned. So just like, lower those expectations, but still definitely buy the game please, and everything will be just fine. K?

Comparing Diablo III not just to a crappy Shyamalan movie, but to the sequel of one of those movies? Yikes. And it seems like a bad way to say things even if he was joking. [source]

But here’s the problem with that. That rich person already gave us something — they made us wealthier by providing a great product or service. Millions of people have been made wealthier by using Amazon. Millions have been made wealthier by using Apple and Microsoft and Google and Facebook products. Millions have been made wealthier by shopping at Walmart. The list goes on and on.

In the end, if you added up all the wealth that’s been created on the consumer side of the equation by companies who have multimillionaire or multibillionaire CEOs, you’d probably find that “wealth inequality” is a total misnomer. These individuals society so readily vilifies have not only made themselves incredibly wealthy, but they’ve made us wealthy as well.