Every Food is Healthy

Finals week eve has been quite busy for me do to one single paper that required me to read a book. It was the worst experience of my college career but I'm actually done and can finally post a theorem that has been weighing on my mind for almost a week now.

Theorem 7: Every Food is Healthy

I was recently told by a second person that I consider to be healthy and knowledgeable on food in general that the doughnuts I was eating were unhealthy; that there was no healthy benefits to eating doughnuts. It troubles me very much to know that people can know so much about food but could believe such ridiculousness.

First of all I would like to say that if food weren't healthy, by definition it would not be food. It would be a drug. And I don't think the DH deals drugs to us.

Beyond that, doughnuts have carbohydrates and calories, which are both crucial to our existence. They have plenty of fat and oils and stuff, which are also important. This capstone of the food pyramid is often neglected and as far as I am concerned, it is the most important food group (since it is on top). There is sodium and protein in doughnuts and newsflash: you need these to survive.

As Bobby very brilliantly point out, if you were in the desert with only a doughnut to eat, it would be in your best interest to your health to eat the doughnut, therefore it is healthy.

But this does not prove my theorem, it just shows that doughnuts are, in fact, healthy. But if you take any food you can find something healthy in it. Candy: sugar, a basic polysaccharide needed for survival. Fried food: Fat, calories,...calories from fat, which leads to a large amount of energy to get you through your day. Ice Cream: milk product I believe, which makes it satisfy your 4-5 servings of dairy per day. Basically if it has calories it is a food and is therefore healthy.

Furthermore, most foods probably have a bunch of small vitamins, so if you eat enough of any food, you will get as many vitamins as any other food. And if not, you can always take a daily multivitamin.

I will conclude with my most the most frustrating claim of all that I hear: "Chipotle burritos are unhealthy becuase they have 2000 calories per burrito." Calories are a measure of energy, so that just makes them that much more healthy.

Sticks in five minutes.

Disappointment

I write today to express my complete disappointment that we lost one of the best videos ever filmed yesterday. I was planning on posting this video as a follow up to Geisman and Semantics so that the world can witness Joey and Geisman debate who gets screwed on spawns while watching a replay of a previous game of Halo. However, Joey (and Geisman) did not want this video leaked to the public.

I guarantee in five years he (Joey) will wish this video were on YouTube making him famous. Charlie is one of the most famous kids on the Web, but I'm sure at the time he was a little embarrassed that people would find out about his cannibalism. Biting fingers is not the most attractive habit, but Charlie was able to see the big picture and look what it did for him. And seven-year-old Latarian Milton probably didn't want his delinquency publicized to the nation's police force, but the kid has so much street cred now and I guarantee he will be big pimpin' by the time he hits age 10. And the way I see it, this is essentially a highlight reel for Latarian's driving, so as soon as he learns what "thing" he was yankin', he will probably be offered employment by some bus driving or taxi cab company. The same could have been said for Joey with this video, especially since I've been an unemployed Halo coach for almost a year now. But that opportunity is lost and I see Joey's Major Leaugue Gaming career going no where. Back to the drawing board with medical school.

So in the absence of a productive post, I will introduce an important Corollary to the P-T Ratio Theorem:

Corollary 1: Studying too much is just as bad as not studying enough

One of the most frustrating things for me is when I over-study for a test. Many people respond to this frustration by saying, "That's better than not studying enough." False. The extra time spent studying that didn't gain you any extra points on the test could and should have been used to study for some other subject, gaining points in that class. Therefore, by studying too much, you are studying too little for some other test, losing points in that class.

You may respond that you can study too much for one test and just the right amount for the other test (that I was claiming you were studying too little for), but this does not contradict my Corollary for two reasons. First, you could then claim you should have spent that extra time taking a nap, which would make you more rested and think better when test time comes. Or you could spend the time doing something completely unrelated to academics such as taking surveys for money, donating plasma, or calling your mom. In all cases, you are spending your time and gaining "points," whether that be money or brownie points. Therefore, your point-to-time ratio is guaranteed to be better than the point-to-time ratio of the time spent over-studying (where your points are 0 and your time is greater than 0). Secondly, if you claim you are studying enough for every class, then you are essentially claiming your grades are all As in which case you need to apply the P-T Theorem in reverse. You are spending too much time on your academics, and you need to find areas to slack off. There is always something else you can get ahead in such as what I mentioned earlier as well as your physical fitness, your personal blog, or, of course, your sniping skill (go find someone in the dorm and play one-on-one snipers only).

This concept is something that is hard to understand for many people. However, if the P-T Theorem is applied in full, this Corollary follows directly and you will realize that studying too muc is, in fact, truly a bad thing.

Point to Time Ratio Theorem

The time has finally come to unveil my cornerstone theory, the theorem that will eventually make me (and Tara when she writes the book) famous. This is the most serious theorem I have proposed thus far, but I plan to follow this up with the funniest video you will ever see of Joey and Geisman arguing...as soon as I get permission to release it (which I will).


Theorem 6: The Point-to-Time Ratio Theorem (PT Theorem) Introduction

The basis of this theorem, as is with any good theorem, is very simple. However, the PT Theorem has multiple important applications and can be used by everyone, no matter your race, income, or sexual orientation.

The theorem states that every decision should be made only after considering the point-to-time ratio of that action. That is, how many points will you "earn" vs. how long it will take you to earn those points. It is extremely intuitive yet it is amazing how many people fail to use it effectively. It is essentially a principle of efficiency, and most people do it without thinking, especially at Notre Dame, so I will try to point out the less obvious ways in which the PT theorem can be used. Later on when I get bored, I will add corollaries and lemmas to this theorem.

The easiest application is with school. Every time you complete an assignment, you should work only as hard and you should spend only as much time as the number of points possible requires. Completion assignments should only barely be complete, and you can test the grader by not quite completing it if you think the grader is lazy (which they usually are). Tests, on the other hand, obviously, require huge amounts of time and effort, since they are worth so many points. Still, however, if you think you can achieve an A with only a little amount of studying, there is no reason to spend extra time to get a higher A (even if you have the time). Play Halo instead.

There are a million variations of this application, but that would get boring. I will now explain three very important prerequisites to this theorem:
1) High expectations. If you don't have high expectations and only want to get Cs or just pass, you need not worry about the PT Theorem. You just simply stop trying, or have other people do your work for you. It works for the football team, it should work for you. If you have low expectations, the PT Theorem is a slippery slope and you will probably just become a pile. Laziness is in no way associated with this theorem.
2) A sole emphasis on grades. There is no doubt there is something more in life than getting good grades, but all I'm concerned with here is the grade. You can still have pride in your work, but it is not really considered in this theorem.
3) Refusal to cheat. Obviously cheating is the best application of the PT Theorem, but there is no honor in cheating. Don't ever do it...


Without further ado, I will now turn my attention to those people that I think need the PT Theorem the most. Disclaimer: every one of these people are talented in things that I cannot in any way do; therefore, I have great respect for them.

1) English Majors. In particular, when they are writing papers. The grades on papers are arbitrary and there is no reason to believe that spending more time on a paper will get you a better grade. As long as you take care of the requirements of the paper and make sure there are no grammar mistakes (this is key), your grade will be right around where it would be if you spend a ton of time on it. Furthermore, even if you do believe you can spend more time on a paper to get a really good grade, the small increase in grade is not worth the extra amount of time and effort it requires. On a similar note, there is NO reason why you should "edit" your paper. This is extra time that may even make your grade worse, you really never know. There is no reason to believe it will drastically increase your grade, and it's a pain to do. Write it, grammar-check it, turn it in, and hope really hard that it is a good grade. That's more effective than trying. Oh, and use sparknotes. Same information, less time, not cheating.
2) Art Majors. The way I understand this group of people is that there is often a huge amount of pride in their work. This makes sense since they are creating a physical object that has value in itself outside of school. However, in a practical sense, the time spent on such a project is unbelieveable. My proposal: Have pride in something other than how the project looks. Have pride in being able to say "yeah, that took me a third the time it took you" or "yeah, I did that entire painting with only two colors of paint and one paintbrush, only cost me 10 bucks" or "yeah, that smudge in the corner was from my forehead when I fell asleep on my painting but I claimed it was intentional and the teacher thought it was brilliant" or "yeah, that's not even paint, I used Crayola Crayons from the child center I volunteer at" or "yeah I didn't have a canvas so I painted this on the back of the Observer" etc.
Clearly I do not know what I'm talking about here, but you get the picture...
3) My dad. It's so frustrating when he tells me I have to rake up EVERY leaf in the yard. I can rake up the vast majority of the leaves in like 15 minutes, but to get every leaf I would have to be out there for more than an hour. This is total nonsense, and not at all worth it, but he claims that I should have pride in my work. Wouldn't it be better if I spent that extra time raking up other peoples' yards almost-to-completition as volunteer work? Or do some other chore? The answer is yes.

On the other hand, I would like to commend a group of people who I feel are the best at utilizing the PT Theorem: Business majors. Remarkably, these people as a group are extremely skilled at doing a small amount of work and getting the grade. They cram for tests and put all their time into the tests, yet they often skip class and disregard minor tasks that are not worth much. It is annoying to non-business majors that they seem to never have work, but really they should be congratulated and used as a model of academic efficiency.

I am now bored with this topic, but I have a lot more to say on this theorem, just not now.

Weirdness Theorem

Due to my incredibly busy schedule and the nightly Halo that should start any minute now, I will have a guest appearance to TOL (Theorems of Life): Abadith.  The following theorem was invented, proven, and implemented by Abadith, a friend and dedicated follower of TOL.

Theorem 5: The Key to Life is to find a person with your same weirdness

According to Abadith, this is the only way to truly be happy in life.  I am not entirely certain on the specifics of this theorem, but it seems quite simple.  Simple but effective I'm sure.

Let's take an example: Abadith herself. Both Meredith and Abaigh are weird, and are weird in the same amount.  They are completely different people with different personalities and carry no common genes (i.e. different Momma).  However, it is their weirdness that brings them together.  To my knowledge, they are not lovers, yet they complete each other.   They bring happiness and joy to each other every day when they wake up and look into each other's eyes before they head off to class to draw pictures or write weird symbols.  And this is all because they are equally weird.

The way I understand this is that it is not necessary to have the same type of weirdness, only the amount of weirdness.  There are four main types of weirdness: Creepy, goofy, nerdy, and regular.  These weirdness types constitute the +x axis, -x axis, +y axis, and -y axis, respectively. Everyone's weirdness can be plotted somewhere on this xy-plane, and the magnitude of weirdness is obviously determined by Pythagorus (i.e. the square root of x^2 + y^2).  The Key to Life is to find someone else, anyone else, with that same amount of weirdness.

It is very simple, but there is no more important theorem than the Key of Life Theorem, so take this seriously.  Abadith found her weirdness match and they will live happily ever together.  They cherish each other's company and they fulfill each other's greatest desires. The end.

Geisman and Semantics

Why Geisman's Arguments are Completely Useless and Annoying: an Intense Analysis of his Self-Proclaimed Expertise with Semantics

For anyone who has witnessed a single game of Halo in 322 in which Geisman was participating (or even spectating for that matter), you have witnessed his incessant trash-talking (i.e. "you're bad."). His voice, especially the high-pitched squeal that constitutes the highest reaches of the human auditory range and is used in 75% of his trash-talking, penetrates the walls of Duncan like BronBron through the NBA's defense, so if you have stepped foot on the third floor you probably know what I am talking about.

Remarkably, however, there is something more annoying to listen to: Geisman trying to argue/debate anything. Worst case scenario: Geisman arguing about trash-talking in Halo, which I was lucky enough to listen to for over an hour yesterday.

It starts out with a very simple topic of debate. It can be as simple as whether a player is good or bad, or whether a bill is justified or not (two random examples, I don't know). It is really anything where Geisman disagrees. After a few good points have been made, the voices begin to raise and the hand-waving begins. The ecstasy of debate sparks a chemical reaction in Geisman's body and the wrists become abnormally supple. They flop all over the place and the moment you see ridiculous yo-yo throwing motion of the hand where the palm faces straight forward yet the fingers point straight down, you know he has already mentally turned to semantics to save himself.

He will infuriate you with his refusal to actually debate the issue at hand, instead attempting to debate the meaning of words. Oftentimes this transitions into the debate between what is fact and what is opinion, where he will claim that fact is determined by concensus of opinion. This will seamlessly flow into an epistomoligical argument, one that will not be concluded in our lifetimes.

This is a crucial point in the "argument." Geisman, in a matter of about a minute and a half, has converted an argument about health care into a debate over existence while you are left debating with yourself whether or not you should sock him in the face and get it over with. In this way, and this way only, Geisman can claim victory. However, this is his only strategy and a little self-restraint can expose his ridiculousness.

So, as I usually do, I will propose the solution, or at least my solution to this problem of letting Geisman manipulate a civilized conversation into a room of hour-long yelling:

Step 1: Play the game. There is no honor in giving up or giving in to his annoying tactics. He wants to argue, and you must argue. Just do it better.

Step 2: Call him out when he transition to semantics. Keep an eye on the wrists, they talk. Counter the suppleness of the wrists with a taut, strong point of the finger or even a clenced fist in his direction. It will get him on edge and you now have the advantage.

Step 3: Let him know you can play the semantics game, too. It's really easy, it's just no one wants to do it because it gets no where. Watch your words but don't get hung up on them. You have to play the game a little, but make sure you stay on topic.

Step 4: Strength in numbers. Everyone within 100 feet of Geisman (whether the doors are closed or not, as I said previously, physical barriers do not contain Geisman's voice) is listening, you know that, so call them over! Bombard him with arguments from everyone.

Step 5: Say something ridiculous (but not too ridiculous). This is crucial: After you have a lot of people in the room arguing against him, you will have a bunch of small, often useless arguments. That is when you have to really raise your voice, box people out, and say your thing. Make it heart-felt and use a lot of big words. Make it sound like it's supposed to make sense, but it really does not have to. I do this all the time. If you make it long enough and if you make it sound like you've thought about it before, your argument will freeze up Geisman's brain for at least five seconds as he tries to comprehend your nonsense. Then, just as he is about to prepare his follow-up question or response, bombard him again! The rest of your teammates must step up and just start arguing really loudly. By this point he is done. Wait for someone to actually make a really good argument, emphasize it, then quickly transition to Step 6.

Step 6: Laugh at him. Make him feel like he has no idea what he is talking about and a good laugh is like a good end to a joke. The punchline has already been made and to start up the debate again, he would (to continue the analogy) have to start up a new joke. Obviously, don't allow this. Instead go to the DH and eat dinner and reminisce on the hour that was (although hopefully if you followed these steps it will be much much less).

Every Class is Curved

As a transition into the academic world in preparation of the P-T Theorem, I will propose one of my most obvious theorems.

Theorem 4: Every Class is Curved

As far as I'm concerned, every class is curved in one way or another, but not by the true meaning of a curve. A curve is anything that alters the grades of a test, and no teacher can reasonably create a class grade without a curve. There is no reasonable way to claim that a person knows 93% of the material, and therefore should get an A.

A curve can come in almost infinite number of forms. The most obvious form is an official "7 point curve" on a test for everyone, but there are other ways. Simply making a test harder or easier is a curve. Simply making a test shorter or longer, thereby forcing a student to work faster or slower, is a way of creating a curve. A teacher can put a million questions on a test, curving the test to about a .01%, then call that an A (or a C-). There is no way to avoid a curve.

Possibly the most curved grades of all are the ones not related to a "test." Every paper is curved to a certain average grade or standard. Furthermore, every curve is different for every person in the class due to the incredible arbitrariness of paper-grading.

Art projects are the most obviously curved grades, for by saying you got an B+, you are not saying that over 87% of the molecules of paint are in the correct location, but rather that you have a certain relation to the other projects in the class. This curve is also arbitrary.

So no matter how hard the test is, always be thankful of the curve. Because without the curve, your grade could literally be anything.

Stay Tuned: Next Post will be "Why Geisman's arguments are completely useless and annoying: an intense analysis of his self-proclaimed expertise with semantics"

Liesl Von Trapp

After watching Sound of Music and being enthralled by their catchy beats (especially Edelweiss, Do-Re-Me, and My Favorite Things), I noticed a few key features of a classic film. Most notably, how hott Liesl Von Trapp really is (See Photo).

Also, she's only sixteen going on seventeen! Remarkable. Personally I think she can do better than the mailboy, and if she's into older guys, I'd like to state that I am now 19.5 going on 20.

I've always had an affinity to unique, foreign names and the name Liesl is about as good as they get. She is an independent, musically talented young woman who "doesn't need a governess." What more is there to want? I wonder if she's single...

Unfortunately, I might have missed my chance because apparently she is 65 going on 66... Bummer.

Go Butler

Butler in the National Championship Game!

In honor of Butler's Final Four win over Michigan State, continuing their amazing run in the 2010 NCAA tournament, I will post a sports-related theorem.

Theorem 3: In any game, there is always a correct team to root for. This team can be determined through logic.

I recently was informed that there were people actually rooting for Michigan State in their game against Butler. This was absolutely shocking to me because there is no conceivable way for a rational being to root against Butler.

According to ESPN.com, 99.99% of people had Kansas winning the national championship, so you can't claim you are rooting for Michigan State because of a pool. Also, Michigan State is a public school, thereby making them suck in comparison to Butler. Butler has never been in this position in a tournament, whereas Michigan State has reached the Final Four in 6 of the last 12 years.

Butler is 1/10th the size of Michigan State and every one of Butler's players would be acceptable for your daughter to date. Ronald Nored is the sophomore class president, Jukes has traveled to Africa for community service or something sweet like that. Butler has engineers on the team, and everyone will graduate in four years. Hayward looks like the guy from Luck of the Irish and Coach Brad Stevens is possibly the nicest guy in the world.

Clearly, there is no conceivable way for one to root for Michigan State over Butler. But is this the case for every game? Can a team always be preferred over the other? Obviously.

If a school denies you admission, they have officially screwed you over and you must not root for that team in any sport. If a sibling or parent has or currently does attend a school, you must root for that school. If a team's main player has bad morals, you must not root for that team. These basic rules are well-known and will dictate which team is the correct team to root for.

There is nothing more frustrating than watching a person who unknowingly is rooting for the wrong team. For the sake of sports, you must let them know they are rooting for the wrong team and tell them the reasons why they should root for the other. For example, Tom was rooting for Michigan State but he clearly didn't think through things before deciding his allegiances. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to tell him why he was wrong, but I think now he knows.

Few logic rules are universal, as oftentimes logic works against other logic. However, certain things are universal. That is, if you live in the U.S. of A., you root for any team with U.S. of A. on their jerseys. Otherwise, you are not an American and honestly should not be treated with the same amount of respect. Rooting against your country is unconstitutional.

Go Bulldogs.

Coaches are Overrated

I have played a sports for most of my time on this Earth and therefore had quite a few coaches through the years. As I reflect on things, I have come to a very important conclusion:

Coaches are Overrated (and in some cases unnecessary) (Theorem 2):
I will start with what coaches are absolutely necessary for, and explain why I think non-coaches can do what they do. Coaches are necessary for organizing a team and being a leader. Every player has their own agenda and it is important for the team aspect to get everyone on the same page. There has to be one person that makes final decisions with regards to subbing and strategy. These decision are best made by a coaching staff, as one person's perception of what is going on is often flawed. However, in theory, a good player-leader can take on this role. If a player can assess personal flaws as well as the flaws of other players, that player can make all the decisions for the team. Granted, that player must be a baller as well as a strong leader, but it is theoretically possible. Case in point: BronBron.

Furthermore, a person need not know anything about the sport to make these decisions. My proposal: replace a head coach with a successful business manager and keep the assistant coaches as advice-givers. This would be similar to the president with his cabinet members. The hierarchy works like a charm.

Some would claim coaches teach valuable skills to the players, thereby bettering their performance in competition. This is usually not the case. In my experience, you gain skills by practice and only by practice. You can show an 8-year-old how to throw a baseball, but they are getting better not because you are "teaching" them, but because they are actually throwing the ball and practicing. Chances are the 8-year-old isn't even listening. The 8-year-old will discover on his own what works and what doesn't.

You might say that you have to teach the 8-year-old basic footwork and such to make him throw "right." False. All the 8-year-old has to do is watch T.V. and mim(m)ick that motion. Besides, there are so many different throwing motions in the MLB, and all are successful in some way or another. Every kid will find out what works for him and will do that. Furthermore, most coaches, especially at the youth level, go to coaches clinics to learn how to teach the kids the skills. I say cut out the middle man and have the kids go to the coaches clinics. That way they learn the skills and how to teach them. Everyone always says you learn the best when you try to teach it to someone else, so why not try that with sports!

You also might say, "well some kids learn so much faster than others... because of the coach!" True, but not because of the coach. Inherent athletic ability and coordination is the reason for that. Some kids have better motor skills that others. It's called genetics, and practicing your motor skills (See A Birth in Four Cultures by Jordan or Small, I don't remember. Ask McKenna).

So here's my strategy:
Step 1: Breed well. An athletic woman goes a long way, and good genes will give me a huge head start on developing a star athlete. Heather Mitts? It's a possibility...
Step 2: Start early. My son/daughter (well, son) will have a ball in his hands straight out of the womb. He will be juggling by his first birthday and able to throw a curveball by his second (it's amazing how poor the young'uns are at hitting breaking balls, so that's key). I will not place major benchmarks that are sport-specific, but rather give him any opportunity possible to improve hand-eye coordination, which is essential in any sport.
Step 3: Pick the right neighborhood. I will need a number of slightly older boys who enjoy sports as well living in the neighborhood. They will play only the fun games including but not limited to: Home Run Derby, The Hitting Game (I may explain this invention in a later post), Kickball.
Step 4: Forego the hiring of a coach. Instead, I will illegally pirate instructional DVDs (further saving money) which my son will watch and take notes. This will eliminate the middle man.
Step 5: Watch a lot of T.V. We will watch every Cleveland Indians baseball game or at least have the T.V. on. During basketball season, we will watch Butler, and at all times we will watch any European soccer team.
Step 6: Encourage pick-up games to be played. Pick-up games are a great way to practice skills and learn to play with other random people.
Step 7: Play Halo. Halo is the number one way to get the competitive juices flowing and build up aggression. Physical violence is a key in sports and should not be disregarded.
Step 8: Play multiple sports. Athletic diversity is essential and skills from one sport can definitely be used in others.


After these steps I will reassess my son's abilities and either enter him into a draft, or enroll him in high school.

Stupid Questions

I decided to hold off on presenting my cornerstone Point-to-Time Ratio Theorem to build suspense. Instead, I will debunk a myth that is dear to my heart. The myth: there are no such thing as stupid questions. The truth:

Many questions are, in fact, very stupid (Theorem 1)
In discussing this fact, I am mostly referring to questions asked in a classroom setting.
Stupid questions include but are not limited to:

1) Questions asked simply to show off your intelligence. These are usually asked by the same person and it is incredibly easy to spot this person (there's always at least one). No one listens to the answers to these questions becuase no one cares. Not even the person who asks the question cares. Nevertheless, they ask these questions and annoy us all.If you want to show off your intelligence to a professor, which you very well might, you should ask these "questions" at office hours. Waste the professor's time not students that actually want to learn.
2) Questions asked for the sake of asking a question. These questions are usually a result of "participation points" where students are required or encouraged to ask the class questions. By their very nature, these questions are stupid. The asker again does not care about the answer and no one wants to answer them. Interestingly enough, however, if a teacher were to ask these questions to the class, they would not necessarily be stupid. This is because they would be asked to encourage thinking, which is entirely different purpose than for the simple sake of asking a question.

Some of the best questions are actually the ones asked when the asker already knows the answer. Good questions are the ones that help others as well as yourself. If you know the answer to a question but you know others are confused, a great question-asker would ask that question. Also, if you know the answer to a question is especially important, a good question-asker would ask or even re-ask that question to make sure the information is re-iterated.

There is nothing more annoying than a stupid question being asked, but on the other hand, there's nothing I appreciate more than a well-thoughtout, purposeful question.