A Few Thoughts

On Gambling:
I disagree with Paul's theory that gambling is wrong because it doesn't 'create something', or at least I think it's incomplete. The idea that you don't have to work, that you can get 'something for nothing', is a damaging philosophy, both religiously and for society as a whole. However, you can imagine scenarios in which gambling creates something. For example, the World Series of Poker (WSOP) is televised nationally, so this event 'creates' entertainment. Are the players at the table that different than athletes or actors?

I think poker:UNO::alchohol:caffeine. The church prohibits poker and alcohol because they are addictive, and the church is adamently against anything that limits our ability to choose. (Plus, they are associated with venues, etc. the church doesn't want to be associated with.) UNO for push-ups is based on the same principles as poker. It's a game of chance where knowing certain probabilities may give you better odds, and it doesn't create much more than entertainment. UNO is similar to caffeine in that too much of it really isn't good for you, but playing UNO and drinking caffeine don't have quite the same consequences and tendencies to overconsumption as playing poker and drinking alcohol.

Personally, I believe if we (as humans) could moderate our consumption of alcohol, then there would be no rules against alcohol and we all would have had wine at our weddings (and on Sundays?). As we can't, the church/the prophet/God has suggested we just avoid alchohol (and poker) altogether. Alcohol and poker aren't evil, but our tendency to overconsume and lose control are. And without moderation, we violate the larger principles of taking care of our bodies and work/creation.

Thus, 'gambling' on the stock market is good in moderation, but don't overinvest yourself in the stockmarket's future.

On Alice:
Peter went through a lot of work to upload the audiobook for me, and I downloaded it on my computer and listened to a few tracks shortly before my computer crashed. I wasn't that impressed with the opening and Paul's review didn't make me want to read/listen to any more. However, after all of Peter's work I want to be convinced that it's worth it to listen to the book. Anyone?

On Paul's other books:
I had already put three audiobooks on hold before Paul made his final choice. The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives was a fantastic book. As a statistician, I am a bit biased, and there were some examples in the book that are a bit overdone in statistical circles (i.e. The Monte Hall problem). Still, even statisticians overestimate our ability to control random events, and we attribute great characteristics to the person who does the equivalent of winning a coin toss and pronounce the coin toss loser a complete failure.

The Nine put Tammy to sleep after less than one CD, and I made it two-thirds of the way through Homo Politicus before becoming nauseated by the constant stream of outdated political gossip effectively designed to cause one to lose all faith in elected officials.

But thanks, Paul. It's worth 'reading' parts of a couple sloggers to 'read' one good book.