Rocky (a.k.a. Van) goes to Russia

Remember Rocky 4? Rocky goes to Russia, beats the Russian behemoth at his own game, and rather than smugly gloating he turns it into a passionate speech about how as the fight progressed he and the crowd realized how similar Americans and Russians actually are. The scene where the Russian premier stands up and applauds (then followed by his aides) was a poignant illustration of the slowly thawing relations between our two great nations.

Did you know this actually happened in real life once? It just wasn't the way you think. When I was young I had a great Russian piano teacher for many years, who always used the example of Van Cliburn to motivate me. "You can't just be a little better" he would say, "the reason Van Cliburn, an American could go to the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war and still win was because he was so much better there was no question!"

Van Cliburn died yesterday (2-27-13) at the age of 78. I actually saw him at one of his last public performance when I was a child. I was lucky enough to see him on the first stop of the tour, as he cancelled the rest! Through my teacher, Dimitri, and that one concert he has for ever been a poignant influence in my life. How could one man, single handedly (figuratively of course!) endear himself to Russians and Americans alike, while for the first time showing that American musicians could compete against the best in the world?

The impact of Mr. Cliburn’s victory was enhanced by a series of vivid articles written for The New York Times by Max Frankel, then a foreign correspondent based in Moscow and later an executive editor of the paper. The reports of Mr. Cliburn’s progress — prevailing during the early rounds, making it to the finals and becoming the darling of the Russian people, who embraced him in the streets and flooded him with fan mail and flowers — created intense anticipation as he entered the finals.

He was a sensation! The boxing ring was a little different. Other than perhaps a judge ignoring something not allowed, the International Tchaikovsky competition could very obviously be influenced, and even controlled by the Party in a way we only see on a large scale in China these days. In fact his performance was so amazing, then premier Nikita Khruschev in fact gave the judges the nod to his victory! Van Cliburn, or course was completely oblivious:

“Oh, I never thought about all that,” Mr. Cliburn recalled in 2008 during an interview with The Times. “I was just so involved with the sweet and friendly people who were so passionate about music.” The Russians, he added, “reminded me of Texans.”

Really? Think of Rocky when the crowd in Russia started chanting:

On the night of the final round, when Mr. Cliburn performed the Tchaikovsky First Concerto, a solo work by Dmitry Kabalevsky (written as a test piece for the competition) and the Rachmaninoff Third Concerto, the audience broke into chants of “First prize! First prize!” Emil Gilels, one of the judges, went backstage to embrace him.

The jury agreed with the public, and Moscow celebrated. At a Kremlin reception, Mr. Cliburn was bearhugged by Khrushchev. “Why are you so tall?” Khrushchev asked. “Because I am from Texas,” Mr. Cliburn answered.

Much like the made up Rocky in a short while Van Cliburn endeared himself to the Russian public in a way that was unimaginable. Unlike Rocky however, that moment was his coming out to America as well:

When Mr. Cliburn returned to New York he received a ticker-tape parade in Lower Manhattan, the first musician to be so honored, cheered by 100,000 people lining Broadway. In a ceremony at City Hall, Mayor Robert F. Wagner proclaimed that “with his two hands, Van Cliburn struck a chord which has resounded around the world, raising our prestige with artists and music lovers everywhere.”

A worldwide rockstar 2 years before The Beatles started their run on the world! The rest of his life seemed downhill from there. When he returned he recorded his performance from Moscow, and it sold over a million copies in the fist year. He quickly started pulling in massive rates for performances, but it was not long to be. His forays into other works were mostly not well received. Most people just wanted to hear the Tchaikovsky and the Rachmaninov 3. He of course became fabulously wealthy, but became increasingly erratic, and left the stage for years at a time.

In any case I will not dwell on his later life. I saw him perform the Tchaikovsky and was forever changed.   I spent my last two years of Piano back when I lived in Austin working on the Tchaikovsky - 1, and my preferred Rachmaninov - 2 because of his impact. Two days ago a legend, and American hero who indirectly played a big part in my life passed away. Rest in Peace Van Cliburn. I want to thank Dimitri Kirichenko in San Diego, and Julia Krueger in Austin Texas for the amazing impact they also had on my life. I am also grateful beyond belief for the love and passion for music I derived from all those years on the Piano, and Clarinet.

New York Times article with lots of good info which I have excerpted a few times above: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/arts/music/van-cliburn-pianist-dies-at-78.html

Van Cliburn plays the Tchaikovsky 1st Piano Concerto. It's opening is the most grandiose and powerful around in my opinion. AMAZING close ups of his hands. Note about 5:30 in. Those are octaves in both hands! There's a similar section about 8 minutes in. By do I remember toiling over those sections. If you click through to the second half of the first movement there is an amazing virtuoso finish as well. The third movement also has an amazing finish, and I LOVE the way he looks at the conductor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M7M4UoqBpA&list=PL4C3471E0755BFCF2&index=1

Van Cliburn plays the Rachmaninov 2nd Piano Concerto. This one has a powerful opening, but rather than being grandiose, it's power is in passion. I absolutely LOVE this piece. It does get rather grandiose when those big Rachmaninov chords come in on occasion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds9CrdY3R2M

My 3rd favorite Piano Concerto, Grieg's first, performed by Evgeny Kissin. Not related to Van Cliburn in any way. Just a side note.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO-H37t1fQQ

Time management, quality -vs- quantity, and diminishing returns

Growing up I have watched many people ruin their lives with a lack of balance. Those who have known me long enough have known I was TERRIBLE at balance, and have worked terribly hard to get to where I am today. Both of my parents, upon immigrating from Hungary (where I don't think they take it easy easy as Western Europe) in my opinion were seduced by the American dream, just like most of the parents of children from my era. I watched them ruin their lives, health, and spirits by not balancing work and all the other things that life involves.

With this background and perhaps the advice of a few key friends, bosses, and mentors I learned well to balance my life (or focus on balance as a key element), but it was hard. For me it took an odyssey into triathlon, where balance between going hard and easy is a key element of a successful plan, and a long term burnout in a job where I was literally doing 5 peoples jobs! What was profound when I first came to this realization was that it decreased my ability to be highly available and observant. I wrote about this in an article called Carpe Diem, where I observed that because I was burned out and uninterested, I was only mediocre in situations where the game really was on the line (think a last minute bug or redesign needed to fix a major problem); I also saw that in addition to always being tired, and snippy with my co-workers and friends, I never had time to "stop and smell the roses" which is where a LOT of creative and problem solving influence really comes from.

Unfortunately we learn from many sources over the years a fact that is well espoused in this Inc article entitled: "Why working more than 40 hours a week is useless." I interpret this as constantly working more than 40 hours on the same thing. I believe you can have other "big rocks" (read major passions and devotions as the well known time management analogy goes) in your jar, but you can't have too many, and you certainly can't fill your jar with gravel, sand, and water (busy work, email/SMS, and the WEB/Social Media) first. If you ignore your health, nutrition, exercise, sleep, and personal life you'll just end up with one under maintained big rock, and a bunch of crap:

Research by the Business Roundtable in the 1980s found that you could get short-term gains by going to 60- or 70-hour weeks very briefly — for example, pushing extra hard for a few weeks to meet a critical production deadline," she wrote. But Robinson stressed that "increasing a team’s hours in the office by 50 percent (from 40 to 60 hours) does not result in 50 percent more output...In fact, the numbers may typically be something closer to 25-30 percent more work in 50 percent more time."

But the unfortunate temptation is to be sucked in by focusing on quantity over quality when we think of things in a superficial form:

there's actually a pretty strong correlation between how busy we are and how important we feel. "We live in a competitive society, and so by lamenting our overwork and sleep deprivation — even if that requires workweek inflation and claiming our worst nights are typical — we show that we are dedicated to our jobs and our families,"

But we know these things. Yet people and management have both seemed to ignore these facts in America like crazy.  I have been quite successful in the right situations, but I need help. I have an unfortunate propensity to be able to go hard for a much longer time then most people, but I'm simply able to push past exhausted mediocrity to sickness, and a host of other interpersonal issues that can be hard to notice for me because I am so bland. This brings down my employers, myself, and my inner circle. I have been a great performer, for extended periods of time, in the context of my "big rock" when I'm able to incorporate the following:
1) work HARD for more like 6 hours a day (3-4 chunks with at least a little break, and often a workout thrown in the middle).
2) I have and am able to use vacation, and
3) I have a boss who watches me and occasionally helps me refuse tasks or take a break.

I also need to have the bandwidth to also have my "Smell the roses" moments so I can get creative, and ingenuous inspirations which often come at random times, and often from random people.  That said it's still not a popular thing to talk about. As I have moved up the ladder, and especially work with many time zones I have accepted that I am inevitably forced to become a bit more available, especially at random times. My response to this is to resolve conflicts with life more often by not forcing all my errands and appointments to take over my lunch, evenings, and weekends. I feel like there's a fair balance between taking some incursion by work into my personal life, and responding by allowing myself things like haircuts, doctors appointments, and such to occasionally have me step away from work for a while. I also feel like 2 and preferably 3 weekends a month MUST be disconnected. This is JUST medium term maintenance though... You still need vacations.

I recently raid an article entitled "Cheryl Sandberg leaves work at 5:30. Why can't you?" And then follows with:

Facebook's COO comes out as a proud believer in leaving the office on time, and creating balance in your life.

I also wrote an article about exercise called "Exercise and the Body Mind Connection" which called out articles citing MASSIVE improvements in health AND intellectual performance. So just adding the balance of some cardio a few times a week can make you miss less days sick, focus and think better,  AND give you (admittedly subjective) feeling of improvement in BOTH your professional and personal lives! Which leads to another more recently published McKinsey articles titled: "A personal approach to organizational time management," and another article called "An organizational approach to time management."

These articles reveal how both organizations from CEO down need to focus on time management institutionally, as well as individuals themselves:

Imagine its impact on senior executives. The scope, complexity, and ambiguity of senior leaders’ roles not only create near-infinite permutations of priorities but also make it more difficult to get real-time performance or productivity feedback. Is it any wonder that only 52 percent of 1,500 executives McKinsey surveyed said that the way they spent their time largely matched their organizations’ strategic priorities? (For more on this research, see “Making time management the organization’s priority.”)

So it's already hard for an individual on their own. If a CEO is not able to instill this in themselves AND their employees, they and their employees will suffer:

Our research and experience suggest that leaders who are serious about addressing this challenge must stop thinking about time management as primarily an individual problem and start addressing it institutionally. Time management isn’t just a personal-productivity issue over which companies have no control; it has increasingly become an organizational issue whose root causes are deeply embedded in corporate structures and cultures.

 Luckily they also say that....

Fortunately, this also means that the problem can be tackled systematically. Senior teams can create time budgets and formal processes for allocating their time. Leaders can pay more attention to time when they address organizational-design matters such as spans of control, roles, and decision rights. Companies can ensure that individual leaders have the tools and incentives to manage their time effectively. And they can provide institutional support, including best-in-class administrative assistance—a frequent casualty of recent cost-cutting efforts.

There's a lot more amazing content in those articles with real suggestions on how to improve the problem. They are a great read.  It's taboo in America, but a lot of smart people are seeing the european view of quality over quantity, and diminishing returns. A literally great analogy is Soccer -vs- American Football. The NFL is literally the most stunning representation of American mentality that I mention in an earlier article I mentioned: "Bigger, Better, Faster, More." Alas that is just naive. At times like these I have to fall back to music, which is my first love. We all want to be in the hall of fame. We may have 300 pound lineman who can tackle you and run a 40yd that you can't believe, but life ain't a track meet, it's a marathon. Or maybe even an ironman these days :)

Attitudes toward Money, Wealth Inequality, and what it means.

I've written before on the Gini Coefficient. It it is a measure of the Lorenz Curve relation of wealth distribution. It is commonly used to measure income inequality. I recently saw an economist chart called Attitudes toward being rich...

So I immediately thought, hmmmm, what's the relationship to Gini coefficient here? I assume that people  are fairly perceptive, and know their relative wealth. A poor person is by definition someone without too much money, that has a lot to worry about other than being rich and having expensive things. Yet oddly, by my perception, it's these really poor people who are often willing to work harder, and are more successful, and frugal. 

My quick check showed 42 for Russia, and 25 for Sweden. I know of the top of my head that Mexico, and Russia have a large number of Billionaires with a lot of really poor people so I'm thinking people focusing on wealth inherently results in a less equal distribution of wealth. I grabbed some numbers from Wikipedia, so it's spread across a few years, but let's assume fairly accurate: 

Slovenia appears to have something going on because it's WAY out of the way on my assumption, but in general the numbers seem to show a clear correlation. We must always be wary of assuming that correlation equals causality, for it is not always so. But I wonder. Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, and Finland, "Nordic" countries by my reckoning seem to be more wealthy then most, and have a high GDP Per head. These four countries are all in the top 13 when it comes to nominal GDP per capita,  and the top 21 when adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity, or cost of goods.

So I augmented my chart to add in Nominal GDP per capita, and took out two huge outliers (Bulgaria and Ukraine) for the sake of the chart.

These numbers are not normalized, so it doesn't say that GDP/head is MORE correlated. To me it's just very clear that attitudes on money, wealth inequality, and wealth of a nation are all related. But what's the cause and effect? Can it be legislated away, or is it a fundamental issue of perception, and society? Or even just a function of the Bell Curve? It's clear to me the logic of a more equal and successful society being related. But what's the cause and what's the effect?

There's a lot of talk in politics in the US these days about taxing rich, and taxing poor. Will it make the rich run away, or actually help everyone? I do believe that financial chicanery has rigged the system toward big banks, and that's why a lot of people are mad. The bankers are not giving more value then they were 10, 20, 50, and a hundred years ago, and their piece of the pie (profits/valuation relative to S&P total) has grown dramatically. I can't cite this directly but I saw a fairly authoritative chart on CNBC recently.

Looking forward to comments on the Business/Finance front, as well as Socio-Political aspects...

Compendium December 2011

So I have been writing for a while now. Early on my writing was a public log of my journey into triathlon. I have been thinking about writing again about my recent revival and injury, but mostly stopped that after a while. The Top few, and a couple that bridge boundaries are repeated so people who only are interested in certain topics can still read them.

My top few:
1) Corporate Venture Capital (2011) - Listed this first out of order. I WANT the right people to read this and consider it!
2) China's Command Economy, Resource Efficiency, and the worlds Geopolitical Future (2009)
3) The Art of Triathlon (2009)
4) Market Based Health Care (2009)
5) Aerobic Training Theory, History, and Methodologies. My take... (2010)
6) The Compton Cookout, and Isadore Hall III: McCarthy's New Age Revival (2010)
7) Climate Prediction Accuracy (2010)
8) Exercise and The Brain. The Body-Mind Connection! (2010)
9) Denialism and FUD (2010)
10) Future Tech: Quantum Redux (2010)
11) Carpe Diem (2010)
12 DNA Replication in silico (2011)
13) Greentech and Alternative Energy (2011)
14) Could we need a revolution any worse? (2011)

Philosophy:
My Departure from Luxtera - Cool note I wrote when I left/got fired a job and how excited  I was.
Wealth Inequality (2008) - Musings from 2008 on Wealth inequality and how USA is actually pretty bad. Seems Media and Public is finally coming around to this.
Denialism and FUD - Thoughts on how we are often bombarded with illogical fallacies disguised as arguments.

Politics:
Signing Statements - One of my criticisms of the Obama administration, along with continued gross abuse of warrantless search and surveillance.
Market Based Health Care - My early musings on how we should implement healthcare reform. I still mostly agree.
Corporate Venture Capital - My thoughts on how we could use the current cash pile to grow our economy's infrastructure and make money!
Being Environmentally Friendly does NOT cost money - Self Explanatory
The Compton Cookout, and Isadore Hall III: McCarthy's New Age Revival - Writings in response to a racist incident at UCSD and a politicians response.
Could we need a revolution any worse? - Comments on my disgust regarding government waste, inefficiency and graft.

Sports/Training (these articles often also involve a good amount of philosophy):
The Art of Triathlon - One of my favorite pieces. Musings on triathlon right as I started Ironman Peak and Taper before IM Cozumel in 2009.
Aerobic Training Theory and History - Good compendium for those looking to maximize training results.
Exercise and The Brain. The Body-Mind Connection! - My views on how activities affect our mind, body, and soul.

Socio-Political Stuff:
China, Resources, and the World in 2009 - China and my view of the world in 2009.
Being Environmentally Friendly does NOT cost money - Self Explanatory
Corporate Venture Capital - My thoughts on how we could use the current cash pile to grow our economy's infrastructure and make money!

Tech:
Weaknesses in modern Data Mining - How not thinking "4th dimensionally" as I like to say affects the way we search data.

Science (often get's philosophical as well):
Lack of Genetic Diversity in key crops - The risks we are inducing by reducing our key feedstocks to a VERY small number of species. Also how natural systems could be more effective than pesticides etc,
The evolution of the online ecosystem - cool musings on the internet
Whole Genome Transcription Paper - Paper I wrote software for and collaborated on.
Climate Prediction Accuracy - My call for predictive accuracy to determine our belief.
Roundup Resistant weeds ATTACK! - More comments on how our attempts to subvert nature are hapless, and a call to return to more natural methods.
Future Tech: Quantum Redux  - Cool things coming out of quantum mechanics science
Future Tech II: Supersolids, Meta Materials, Varying Fine Structure Constant, and Maxwell's Demon! -
Come more cool things coming out of crazy futuristic science
DNA Replication in silico - Cool accidental genetic inheritance in gene chips.
Greentech and Alternative Energy - Defining the concepts.

A couple of instructive postings (read if you wanna learn):
The Vestibular System - Random cool physiology thing
Error Analysis - Basics
Memristors - New basic electronic component, that can sorta behave like a NEURON in silico!
Infrared -vs- Thermal Junction Temperature Sensing Part 1
Infrared -vs- Thermal Junction Temperature Sensing Part 2


And some random Musings.

I left out the stuff that was a bout news events. Hope you enjoy and give feedback on the page as well as the articles!

Green tech and ALTERNATIVE energy

I've actually been saying this for a while. We have NO long term studies showing Solar, Wind, or anything is in any way more sustainable, or sustainable at all. It's JUST another source that could allow us diversified and safer energy supplies, possibly at lower long term cost. It's really just business guys, and it's not more proper in any way. I read this article that got me thinking today about the "myth of renewable energy." Of course no matter how close we get I don't think the wildest machinations contemplated in something like The Singularity is Near will result in endless energy, though we may make it so trivial it's of no consequence.

I think it's important that people differentiate between alternative energy, and green technology, as I believe there is no way of creating energy that will not have good and bad side effects. I've personally always wondered what effects large numbers of wind turbines for example would do to wind patterns, and could they have effects like El Nino or something else? That being said what we CAN do is persevere through constant innovation to reduce our NEEDS of energy, land, and natural resources through innovative technology. THAT is what green tech is!

If you haven't read Natural Capitalism it's available free online ( I LOVE Somebody who believes in something so much they give away content for free! ) at natcap.org. Reading this book really changed my life. Green Tech = Tech for reducing our foot print like smart meters, more efficient energy production of any type (more efficient solar cells, less wasteful coal plants etc.), motion sensor lights, or even compact fluorescent bulbs.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY is just another way of generating energy. Geothermal (cool for places like nordic region, who I'm guessing are also not ripe for solar), Dams (do affect ecosystems, maybe reducing floods for people but destroying ecosystems based on their sediment, as well as disrupting breeding), Solar, Wind etc. It's VERY likely that in the long term some of these things will be more sustainable, and cheaper than others. It's also the case that some places don't have oil, or natural gas, or have used most or all of it up. For the US for example reducing oil needs would reduce money that mostly goes to significantly more corrupt (Knowing that our politics is just LESS corrupt) regimes which are often politically opposed to us on global policy.

That makes me wonder the impact we'll see from the revolutions in the middle east on the impetus for alternative energy. I always say that it's silly for any entity to not be self serving for some degree, so I don't think democracy will change their policies on oil (like China recently putting a crimp on exports of rare earth metals), though perhaps joining the WTO would make them have to leave OPEC (can anyone comment on that?). But these musings I'll save for another time.

Could we need a revolution any worse?

So not to long ago I saw an article about a drug that for the cost of $93,000 would extend the life of patients with terminal prostate cancer and average of 4 months. This just disgusted me and was a HUGE symptom of our disgustingly bloated government beauracracy.

This morning I read in the weekend Wall Street Journal that the FDA has pulled Avastin from the market for the treatment of Breast Cancer. Of course we all know the conundrum of prescribing off label, but another reference article also quotes and notes:

“Medicare will continue to cover Avastin,’’ said Brian Cook, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The agency “will monitor the issue and evaluate coverage options as a result of action by the FDA but has no immediate plans to change coverage policies.’’ Including infusion fees, a year’s treatment with Avastin can reach $100,000.

The middle east is not the only place where it's time for an uprising that has been long coming. The government of the United States of America is so corrupt and convoluted it is time for a change. The occupy movement probably has it right. When payoffs and lobbying result in a medicare system with problems like those mentioned above even as we are teetering on the brink of insolvency the government is NOT WORKING!

Having recently read The Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell and reading about the Broken Windows Theory I believe this is translating into our monetary and philosophical ethos in the United States. We are BROKE And are spending BILLIONS we don't have on WAR, unaffordable drugs and treatments, and lining our legislators pockets.

Why should anyone pay their mortgage? Why should anyone work and be a productive part of society? Why should anyone live within their means and try to get along with people who disagree with them? Despot's in the middle east, along with our politicians do NONE OF THESE THINGS! I'm starting to feel the occupy movement represents the people saying "We can clearly see everything is broken!"

It's time for a flat tax. No loopholes, and no budget for an IRS we don't need! No more insider trading on the part of our congress men and women. No more entitlements. Everyone get's the same medical care INCLUDING our government representatives. Sorry but the retirement age has to rise! Sorry medicine is NOT free and we can't give everything to everyone!

 Where do we start? How do we start? The time is clearly now!

Corporate Venture Capital

Right now we are sitting on PILES of $$ at big US multinational firms. I've been hearing commentary for example Berkshire Hathaway authorizing share repurchase at Buffett's discretion. I found a quick article indicating there's almost 1 trillion of CASH on corporate balance sheets. Most of this money is probably paying VERY low yields and doing NOTHING for their core business or the USA.

Then I read this article on a mountain with literally tonnes of rare earth metals inside, and very little is being done to get at these minerals while China has a monopoly and is constraining exports. Why are these guys going to the government? Many of our biggest and most successful companies depend on things like rare earth metals, infrastructure like transportation, and other things that our government seems unable to break out of gridlock and do much about.

How about a STRATEGIC fund pooled among our top 500 companies. Proportional voting based on contributions. A sort of endowment for US industry. Perhaps it could even be run as a charity. What is important is that this fund looks at things that will make the US succeed in the long term. If public school education stinks, make private schools. If the government isn't handing out enough money for mining, fund it. Need some pipelines and roads. Government is broke, but BUSINESS has money, so we'll fund it.

What would the results be? Certainly all this construction and investment will fuel jobs, and production. Not only will our biggest companies be getting the things they need, but their customer base (the US population) will be growing it's earnings and spending power. Obviously this ecosystem will also facilitate the success of small businesses which are the bread and butter of the United States, not to mention a big customer for those top 500 companies as well.

What could we do with $200 billion to $300 billion dollars INVESTED into our national economy? Nevermind that the big companies funding all of this will make $$ of their investments as well as their core business. Which corporate titans are willing to make this happen? I don't think it will take many to get the ball rolling. Let's not wait for our government. We have a LOT of really smart capable people at the top of corporate America. Let's get it done!