blueollie

Hiding Facts in Books…

This was one of the funniest things I’ve read in a while:

But mark my words: in 1-2 decades time, we will have academic deans saying this.

Think about it: twitter. Facebook. Youtube. Sometimes, magazine articles or newspaper articles are considered “long reads”. Oh boy…what happens when we have to grasp some nuanced concept that requires quite a bit of background to be understood?

Advertisements

August 4, 2018 Posted by | books, education, social/political | Leave a comment

Slow Mother’s Day walk

10.6 course (no goose loop), 15:20 pace…all ok with me (2:42).

Along the way, I saw a charming goose family and did NOT get dive bombed by red wing black birds.

Goose family along the Illinois River

A post shared by Ollie Nanyes (@ollienanyes) on

Yes, it is Mother’s Day.

She spoke Spanish fluently (it was her first language) and helped the Clinton Campaign out in 2008. 2016 would have been heart breaking for her.

She started me on math; she always told me that EVERYTHING involved mathematics and that if I learned it, I could do anything. I remember her cutting up paper to teach me how to add fractions (common denominator) well before I got to first grade.

She was also a realist; when she saw a class graduation photo, she felt a twinge of anguish for some of the pain the young people were going to face.

And there is a sort of long winded story I want to tell.

Way back in 1974, I started for the Yokota High football team as a sophomore ..the only one to start (and only 1 of 2 on the team). We dominated league play and finished undefeated; we shut out our final 4 opponents and had only one game closer than 20 points. So we filled up the “post season all conference team” with “first team” and “honorable mention”. Exactly ONE starter on our team did NOT get post season honors. Guess who?

Frankly, I was hurt and bitter at the time; I saw those I whipped on the field getting those honors. Now there was a good reason; they wanted to spread them some and I was only a sophomore. But I was an immature 15 year old.

Now we were all given a nice black and white team photo..which I neglected to pick up. The coach seemed surprised that I was indifferent to it. My mom told me to pick it up and take care of it…”there will come a time when you’ll look back and think “wasn’t I in good shape…then?” ”

It turns out that she was right..at least in principle. I didn’t hit my physical peak until I was in my early to mid 20’s (in terms of lifting and running” and mid to late 40’s in terms of extreme endurance sports (5K swim, 100 mile walk). But yes, I DO look back on my life and think…”dang, was that really me?”

One other mom story I was a pretty self righteous little shit (ok, one that weighed 200-220 lbs) and my mom caught me saying derogatory things about prostitutes. She tried to explain that I really wasn’t fit to make such harsh judgments..and she knew how to talk to me. She assigned me to read The World of Suzie Wong by Richard Mason..to give me some insight into a type of life that I never knew firsthand. It helped.

And so, I will continue to miss my mom’s company, our long talks and her wisdom about the ups and downs of life.

May 13, 2018 Posted by | books, family, walking | | Leave a comment

Shattered: a view of the failed 2016 Clinton campaign

I just finished reading the book Shattered by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.

Like many, I thought that Hillary Clinton would win but was aware that she was not in as strong of a position as Obama was in during the 2012 campaign.

Still, I thought that the “worst case” was 272-266 Clinton

And I misread the coalition that Trump brought aboard in key states.

So, what went wrong? Oh I know what went wrong with the models that overstated Clinton’s probability of winning; it was the statistical idea of independence and the width of the confidence intervals.

But what about with the election and campaign itself? The book Shattered examines that question. Yes, the book makes it clear that the Comey letter, Russian meddling and other forces played a factor; for example, in some key areas of key states, she did just as well as Obama did with the female vote but did much worse with the male vote. This book does NOT discount these factors.

But it does talk about how dysfunctional the campaign was (the goal was often to maintain access to HRC rather than to get her elected…loyalty was rewarded, sometimes at the expense of competence..and there was too much focus on analytics and “getting one’s people to the polls as opposed to trying to win at least a few votes over”.

Yes, I know; many times there are people that you are wasting your time with. But there is value in persuasion; sometimes losing red counties 65-35 instead of 75-25 can help you carry the state.

And, they painted a portrait of a candidate who, while knowing every white paper on the issues, just could not connect with voters outside of a narrow circle. And it wasn’t as if HRC was good with public introspection; she appeared to place little blame on herself, at least at that time. She does some of this in her own book, which came out later.

I found that the book was a good complement to Clinton’s own book What Happened.

Oh yes, if you Loooooove Hillary you’ll think that this book is a “hit job”. This book will be dismissed by Clinton cultists. If you hate her, you’ll find a lot you like in the book, though the book DOES admit that other factors played a big role; any one of these could have tipped the scales in such a close election.

But, realistically, I think that the book shows that attempted to run a 2012 style campaign against a very unconventional opponent with the country being in an unconventional mood.

And yes, while Obama was a ground breaking candidate, he was also a “purple unicorn” with extreme intelligence, charisma and political skill. Clinton had only the ‘intelligence” part; being a woman didn’t seem to help her a higher percentage of the female vote and she was hurt with the male vote. Though one might exclaim “sexism”, and I have no doubt that it was a factor, I wonder if there was a difference: Obama got to where he was under his own steam. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton got to where she was because of Bill; had she never married him, she might have well been some successful lawyer, professor or policy expert.

And while her being saddled to Bill got her into the arena, it may well have harmed her during this particular election itself.

Now of course, every campaign makes mistakes and has some dysfunction; after all, Trump did horribly during the debates and had all sorts of gaffes and missteps ..many which might have sunk him in a different election. But he had enough showmanship (“political campaign skill”) to overcome those missteps….at least during THIS election.

Other reviews: here, here and here.

April 14, 2018 Posted by | 2016, books, politics, politics/social | Leave a comment

Spring Semester 2018: about to start and…

Ok, some academic stuff is on my mind…not all of it serious.

I just finished the book The Teacher Wars by Dana Goldstein (New York Times book review is here). It talks about the issues involving K-12 teaching from the founding of the country up until the later years of the Obama administration, and ends with an epilogue which has some interesting suggestions.

What I was struck by is how many of the current issues we are having really have been around for a long time. Controversies: how educated should the teachers be? (and yes, often, they were not and still are not “the brightest”) How well paid should they be? (missionaries or well paid professionals?) How should teachers be evaluated?(whims of the administrators, local school boards/parents, “value added test them to death?, “peer review”?) How should teachers be obtained and trained (converts? straight from teacher education programs?) What should be emphasized? (academic stuff, or “being a good citizen”) When it comes to who is best for a certain group of students: teachers who know how to control a class room but have poor mastery of the academic material?

Obviously, a thorough study would have to be volumes of very big books, and this is just one 280 page one, but IMHO, well worth reading. Bottom line: it was not necessarily “better back then”, at least not in every aspect.

The tough social issues (racism, sexism, the feminization of the teaching profession) are not dodged.

Current academia
Yes, there has been quite a bit of “mission creep” in academia. The number of administrators have gone up over the years I’ve been teaching at the college level, and so has the number of “very important issues” that the “professors have to be educated on”. And there are have been trends such as “assessment”, and yes, these new duties (piled on top of the old ones) really do not add a thing to student learning. And there is the old “do more with less” mentality which tends to spread us a bit thin.

Here is a small thing: I teach mathematics and yes, that means I don’t have to grade a ton of essays. That means that adding a couple of extra students to my section doesn’t increase my work load that much. But you can increase the class size to the extent that one never gets to know any of them and leads to a more “assembly line” type of class, at least for the larger sections.

And what makes it very though is a wide variation between the student abilities in a given class: a 2 standard deviation in the math ACT of a given section can make it difficult to keep the better students interested while not blowing away the lower end of the class. (and yes, the ACT is reasonably predictive).

Math related humor

I chuckled when I saw this posted in a science group:

Now I can say that even the most dedicated, hetero male mathematicians love women but yes, mathematicians tend to see mathematical patterns in many (all?) places.

Riddle me this: Many years ago, I met a girl in high school that I was sweet on; this was in one of those 1 week summer camps. Once she wore tight pants and showed panty lines that looked a bit like …well…this.

(this isn’t her; this photo was taken from cheekygenie)

And..of course I liked them…but I also thought of a mathematical graph: of a branch of the secant function!

Of course, a parabola is really a better fit.

Workout notes: this one didn’t go well…I was thinking about running 10K but..on the track..I resorted to 2 miles of “jog a lap, walk a lap” then “jog 2 laps, walk a lap” and that workout took..28 minutes! The second mile, though it included more jogging, was the same time as the first. Then I walked 2 more miles in 27:36 (yes, my “all walking” pace was faster than my “walk/jog” warm up) then 2.2 more miles on the treadmill (every 2 minutes: .5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, then .5 miles at 6, .6 at 5 (to 2.1) then .1 at 0.5; total time was just under 32 minutes for 2.21 miles of hill walking)

So, bad day, but still 10K. The body is sputtering a bit; the old “cold as hell outside but I gave blood” bit. It is almost as if I have a mild cold, sans the cough, runny nose, blah, blah.

January 17, 2018 Posted by | books, education, mathematics, running, spandex, walking | , , | Leave a comment

SJWs and Alt-right: two sides of the same ignorant coin?

Like many, I’ve been wondering “how did Trump ever get elected” and I’ve considered the factor that “maybe Trump was a pushback against political correctness” conjecture.

And I asked myself “what role might I have played in this”?

Now don’t get me wrong: there are a lot of people who would have supported Trump “no matter what” and it is difficult, if not impossible, to convert a conservative into a liberal. Genes are in play here.

But..does it appear that liberals, in an attempt to be “fair” to minority groups with less power, refuse to acknowledge tough truths? I had very similar questions along those lines 35-40 years ago! (yes, I can recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond)

But yes, I’ve seen justice minded liberals deny facts that they don’t like. Here is an excellent example of that (denying crime statistics)

Don’t like a statistic: say it is false and call it XXX-ist!

Another example: take the issue of race and IQ.
Fact: in the US, different racial groups score differently (e. g., Mexicans score lower than non-hispanic whites)
Fact: IQ IS relevant (albeit imperfect) in terms of measuring intelligence (yes, I know; it is a 1 dimensional measure of a complicated thing, but it is meaningful; e. g. someone with an IQ of 95 won’t be an engineer or lawyer (statistically))
Fact: intelligence, or the potential for intelligence, is heritable.

So what happens: the alt-right people improperly combine these facts to argue that, say, in a meritocracy, you’d expect Mexicans to do worse than whites (as a group). You see: as a group, Mexicans just aren’t smart enough to compete and only affirmative action, which gives unfair advantages, can make things look a bit more level.

The SJW liberals don’t like the conclusion that Mexicans are inferior so they deny one or more of the above facts! Reason: they believe that if the above facts are true (and they are), the conclusion that Mexicans are inferior would be correct!

That is, the SJWs and the alt-right agree on the logic; they don’t accept the same facts.

(disclaimer: I am Mexican and, no I don’t feel that we are inferior in any way)

The problem is not with the “facts” but on how you use the facts. To see what is going on, see this article in, of all places, The American Conservative.

TL;DR argument: the potential for intelligence is determined by genes. This is individual. Example: there is nothing anyone could have done to make me as smart as Steven Hawking. But outside forces effect gene expression (say: fetal alcohol syndrome). So if a group of people lives in worse circumstances (say, inferior nutrition, prenatal care, early childhood education), that could well show up in the group IQ measurements and that can change with time (as it did with the East German/West German example).

So, the “group mean IQ being low means that group is inferior” is not a valid conclusion.

But the denying of facts never helps.

We are seeing something like that going on with the reaction to a Steven Pinker video.

The 8 minute video is worth watching: (I got this from Jerry Coyne’s website)

I can see the the effect on bright students. They go through their educations and are either never told relevant facts, or told that these facts are wrong and believing those facts is xxx-ist. They then find out that those facts are, well, facts…and the student feels betrayed and lied to (and rightfully so).

Rule of thumb: do not rule out a hypothesis because it “fees bad”.

And by the way: the above is what I mean about “political correctness”. Political correctness is not “basic politeness”, as some claim.

By the way, read Pinker’s book Blank Slate.

January 14, 2018 Posted by | books, politics/social, social/political | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump, sleaze and a changing presidency?

I am having a belly laugh over the popularity of the Michael Wolff book Fire and Fury. No, I don’t see the book as especially credible (the author doesn’t have a reputation of accuracy and the content appears to be mostly gossip) and it is my guess that the author wrote it for the money (and it is working, though Wikileaks has published the pdf of the book online).

But:

1. Trump has not reacted well to the book and is drawing well deserved ridicule for his reactions.

2. Trump has achieved much of his political success by doing exactly what the book is doing to him! Isn’t that ironic?

What can I say…maybe that is the way the game is played these days? Figure out who your opponents are and then try to slime them with any sleaze you can make up?

There is a long term downside though. I remember when Blagojevich ran for reelection as Illinois governor. I am embarrassed to say that I voted for him. Oh, I heard the criticisms but I dismissed them as partisan sleaze …and I had no idea these criticisms, this time, were the truth! So, I’ll do my part and try to keep my criticisms principled (and yes, temperament and deportment are qualifications for the office, IMHO).

And has Trump really changed the nature of the presidency? Yes, I like thoughtful presidents (Obama, Clinton, the first Bush) but Trump appears to be a lazy figurehead who runs his mouth but runs little else.
Now some liberals are touting …Oprah??? OMFG. Yes, she certainly won’t be any worse than the conman we have in office right now..and she is rich, popular and knows the “show-biz” game inside and out.

But at this rate, we’ll find our office of the Presidency reduced to something symbolic…and this makes Congress more important than ever.

January 8, 2018 Posted by | books, politics/social, social/political | | Leave a comment

White Rage by Carol Anderson

I bought this book on a whim (while browsing through a book store). And while I think that this review is a fair one (the author is more of an advocate than scholar in the book, and a couple of conclusions are speculative, at best), I am glad that I read it.

First for the claims: I was skeptical about the claim that the “absent black fathers” was “debunked”. However, the book contains many resources and I can say that such a “bumper sticker claim” about black fathers is way too simplistic; the actual situation is far more complicated. I highly recommend surfing to this well researched, very even handed Daily Kos article referenced by the text.

And while it is undeniably true that the Contras in Nicaragua were financed, in part, by drug money from the United States and that our government was well aware of this, claiming that the crack epidemic was deliberately created by our government (to provide a funding source for the Contras) strains credibility.

However there is much in the book that is all too credible and informative. The stories about what happened to black families that attempted to move into white neighborhoods in northern states was disgusting and heart breaking.

The author takes our society to task for huge educational gaps that are in place, largely due to underfunding mostly black school districts (not only in the south) and our federal government’s indifference to it, even while extra emphasis was placed on education for everyone else during the “Sputnik scare” era.

Some of this, I knew. But what I found out is that my civil rights history education is inadequate; I basically leaned this stuff at a high school/college freshman level and no further.
Here is one example: I knew about the marches, boycotts, sit ins and some of the famous court cases. What I didn’t know was the very well thought out strategy that the NAACP used with regards to education: they said “ok, you say separate but equal”, ok, we will go along. Now you have to prove “equal”” and of course, it was NOT equal…not even close. And the NAACP could prove it in court..and it was economically impossible to set up two equal systems of education. That put the segregationists in a bind; some took extreme steps of shutting down their public education system completely. But overall, the NAACP prevailed.

So, this book was part of a much needed “education refresher” for me.

One other note: the book embarrassed me a bit. My feeling is that, well, anti-black prejudice is due to perceived black underachievement (that is, poor blacks are hated because they are poor). It turns out, well, a lot of people really do not like black people, period..no matter how how successful.

January 4, 2018 Posted by | books, politics, politics/social, racism, social/political | Leave a comment

What Happened by Hillary Clinton: my take

The tl;dr take:

1. This won’t change your mind about Hillary Clinton. If you despised her before, you’ll feel the same way after the book. If you loved her before, you’ll still love her. If you thought “ok, decent policy wonk but not really charismatic”, well, you’ll leave this book with the same opinion.

2. I was disappointed: I expected it to be more of “I should have opened X field offices in Pennsylvania and spent Y in ads in Wisconsin” and perhaps a bit more introspection. There was some introspection, but it was scattered throughout. On the other hand, I did learn that what sort of breakfast egg dishes she likes, that she likes an occasional hamburger, that she likes kids, that Justice Ginsberg does planks twice a week and yes, that she (Hillary Clinton) wears yoga pants. Seriously (page 19 for the yoga pants mention)

3. I’d say that about 2/3 of the book is worth reading. The best section is the one called Frustration, which features the 5 chapters Country Roads, Those Damn Emails, “Trolls, Bots, Fake News and Real Russians”, Election Night, Why. I was expecting most of the book to be like this section. It did give a nice summary of the issues of e-mails, Russian meddling, how the press handled things and some of the prevailing headwinds. The chapter “Sweating the Details” in the section “Sisterhood” is good too. And she flat out admitted that much of the country simply does not like her.

4. I’d say that she is finished running for elective office; she really did burn some bridges and say a few things sans a politician’s filter. Here is a beauty: (page 276; she is describing people in Appalachia)

But anger and resentment do run deep. As Appalachian natives such as author J. D. Vance have pointed out, a culture of grievance, victimhood, and scapegoating has taken root as traditional values of self-reliance and hard work have withered. There’s a tendency toward seeing every problem as someone else’s fault, whether it’s Obama, liberal elites in the big cities,
undocumented immigrants taking jobs, minorities soaking up government assistance–or me.

5. And yes, about the “basket of deplorables” remark: she admits that it was a political mistake to make that statement, but she stands by the actual logic of the statement (about half of the Trump supporters fall into that category). Actually, I do too, but it is an interesting statement to make..at least from a politician not named “Trump”.

6. Oh yes, she really doesn’t like Trump. She does take shots at Sanders, Comey, the press, etc. But she really doesn’t like Trump.

7. Above all, this book is, without apology, aimed mostly at women; I’d say at educated, upper middle class women.

More detail: the book is not a linear time progression. It starts out describing the inauguration and her decision to attend (later to go home and put on a fleece top and yoga pants). Chronologically, it skips around quite a bit.

Much of the early part of the book is a bit like NBC’s Olympic coverage: human interest stuff (what she eats, when she wakes up, day to day stuff…kids, grand kids, relations between her staff, etc.).

She does get onto issues, including Black Lives Matter, Mothers of the Movement (black victims of gun violence), Police (yes, she talks about the massacre of police officers), climate change, and the lead in the Flint water supply (and wonders if advocating for poor blacks in Flint cost her votes in Michigan). She also talks about NATO and some of the complexities of foreign policy.

She does have some beefs though:

1. Press coverage. They seemed to be fixated on her e-mail problems (way overblown) and that ate up much of her press coverage; it hurt her ability to talk about issues. It also blotted out coverage about other things, such as he bus tour. She also pointed out that Trump appeared to send the press a “new rabbit to chase” almost daily; that appeared to keep the press from drilling down on his honest to goodness issues.

2. Russian interference: she goes into this in detail; the main issue is not only did they hack into the DNC and into her Podesta’s e-mails, but they also strategically planted fake news and gamed the social media and search engine algorithms so that these stories appeared on the feeds of likely undecided voters living in battleground states.

3. Bernie Sanders: she took shots at his unrealistic “we could have this or that” claims and ridiculed the idea that if we could somehow just get the PACs out of business, his proposals would be popular NATIONWIDE; he seemed to disregard regional differences in attitudes. She resented the implication that she was somehow crooked.

4. She flat out admit that the history of “Clinton scandals” (mostly untrue) dogged her and made people ready to believe new “non-scandals” about her. And on page 399

Moreover I have come to terms with the fact that a lot of people–millions and millions of people, decided they just didn’t like me.

.

5. Introspection: she said that she should have not used the line “we are going to put a lot of coal miners out of work” even though it was quoted out of context.

Here are her full remarks, with the most relevant parts in bold:

Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right. Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let’s reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.

So for example, I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

So whether it’s coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America. We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the ’90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope.

So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.

She did discuss her “basket of deplorables” remark on page 413 and noted that she wasn’t talking about all Trump supporters but “about half of them”. She then goes on to provide data (from polls) regarding the attitudes of Trump supporters to back up her claim of accuracy!

She does not pull punches about those who overlooked some of Trump’s ugly statements either.

Getting back to introspection: she acknowledges that perhaps, when listening to angry voters, she jumped straight to proposed solutions instead of listening to the venting to assure the voter that she “got” and “felt” the depth of their anger and pain …first.

6. Resentments: I’ve discussed her stated, well resentments about some of Trump’s supporters. She also took shots at “my way or the highway” activists, shots at those who attempted to “disrupt” her rallies (she made a point to put the word in italics (page 203). About the woman’s marches: she approved of them but wondered where that passion was during the election itself and why some did not vote. She resented Sander’s bumper sticker depth of policy, the press, the timing of the Comey letter (which probably DID cost her the election), the Electoral College and…

7. Being a woman: I’d say that the underlying thread of her book is about being a female and the disadvantages that brings from sexism (e. g. her being a female is one reason to be against her), misogyny (on page 114-115 she explains the difference between the two). She complains about the extra time a woman (in the public eye) has to spend on make up. And yes, she acknowledges that she lost the white women’s vote and especially the non-college educated white woman’s vote.

8. Yes, she discusses race and thinks that she did suffer some backlash from those who resented having a black president for 8 years.

9. She did discuss campaign strategy just a bit and pushed back on the narrative that she didn’t campaign enough in the former “blue wall” rust belt states.

Clearly, there is much more in the book than what I said, but hopefully, you’ll get a sense of whether you want to read it or not.

Update: here is a fact check of her book (it comes out pretty well) She also mentions a Facebook meme that I not only saw but passed around (Bernie and the pony) and a Facebook group that I belonged to (Pantsuit Nation).

December 24, 2017 Posted by | 2016, books, hillary clinton, politics, politics/social, social/political | | 1 Comment

Longish run/walk and Bishop Spong…

riverplexnorthmore15.25

I started this run/walk 45 minutes later than planned because I had to scramble to find my winter stuff. It was 27 F a the start! It then warmed into the mid to upper 30’s and there wasn’t much wind. So the day it self was sunny and pleasant.

The workout went fine, though I was disappointed in my return leg: 1:31 out, 1:33 back; both times via Tower Park and the Goose loop. The way back is downhill and I like to do that faster than the way out. Not today; I got very sore and heavy legged. I did run sort of hard on Thursday though.

There were other runners out; one lady told me that she knocked off 18 miles; I also saw Mat.

I finished with a slowish 3 mile cool down walk; that felt a lot like what one feels during an ultra walk.

Later: Barbara took me to Indian buffet and then to the UU Church to hear a lecture by Bishop Spong. He was an entertaining enough speaker and he gave some Bible basics. Most of what he talked about can be found in Rogerson’s book in greater detail. I can recommend the lecture part; he IS worth seeing.

The “questions” session was ..well, what one would expect: a forum for the lonely to have a captive audience. 🙂 Here Bishop Spong got a bit out of his element; there is far more to Trump than “white male anger” (try: economics). In fact, I’d defy someone to name a constituency that is NOT angry. Everyone is angry and only OUR anger is justified. 🙂

He also talked about his “word salad” deity concept; that was rather hollow and unconvincing. Interestingly enough, Spong emphasized the Jewishness of the Gospels and mentioned that the idea of God was that “there is neither Jew nor Greek…” Interestingly, I think that Jews are as exclusive as anyone else; the Jewish Bible is full of stories of Jews killing others for worshiping other deities.

April 9, 2016 Posted by | books, religion, social/political, walking | | Leave a comment

Welcome to 2016!

Workout notes: 8.3 course in 1:31:10 (about 1:30 slower than last week; but it was 24 F (12 F colder) and I ran a reasonably tough 8 two days ago). I was 43:49 at Heading, 1:22, 46:06 for the last 4+ (10:00 from the Park exit to home).

There were some trees down: a big one that I ran under and a smaller one I ran around (on the way up from the bridges to Cornstalk) and one I stepped over on the way down from Cornstalk to the lower park entrance.

wpeoriabradpark83

I didn’t feel that good until mile 3 or so.

Then we got take out from Jerusalem restaurant and Tracy came over to watch Notre Dame vs. Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl.

tracyandme

Though ND moved it well, at times, they were outclassed 44-28. Ohio State had it all: running, short passing, deep threat. But ND didn’t embarrass themselves the way that Iowa is doing in the Rose Bowl (down 35-0 to Stanford at the half).

My goal for 2016: aside from my usual “one marathon or longer” goal, I’ll need to get to work on professional stuff. I don’t want to stagnate. I’ve got 3 ideas to work on, and I need to do it next week. One idea will just result in a dumb blog post that might help with calculus teaching; one will be an exploration of a “long shot” idea and the third is the mostly likely to pay off as a research paper.

Also, I want to read more books; I have one that I want to finish and I need to read some more substantial stuff. My brain is getting lazy.

January 1, 2016 Posted by | books, Friends, mathematics, running | Leave a comment