So, Slate has a story right now on the Phoebe Prince bullying death. It's interesting, but could use some editing. Especially when you start to realize that the DA in the case appears to have a history of using the court for... bullying.

But what stood out for me is the I feel like we've lost track of what bullying is. Reading over the accounts it doesn't sound like bullying at all.

My definition of bullying is negative attention that occurs for little or no reason. I had a lot of negative interactions with other kids in school, but I would define being bullied as having two common components.

• The negative attention occurs due to things the child has little or no control over - height, weight, parental income.
• The negative attention occurs no matter how nice the target is to the bully.

A lot of the stories I read about seem to be cases where a kid does something really mean, and then has to deal with the fallout. Other kids being mean because you did something mean to them is not bullying. It's actually the reason why I want to send my kids to public school. That's what socialization is. You're learning how people react when you do things like say something incredibly hateful or racist or sleep with their boyfriend. Before that means you loosing your job.

Which is not to say that dealing with the fallout of socialization can't be devastating and lead to things like suicide. Just that I'm not sure it's bullying.

What do you think?

We have a myth in America that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become rich, powerful, and successful. Lance Armstrong supposedly embodied that. He was just that talented. Just that dedicated. To a level no one had been before.

Then he had this season, and it brings to mind the fact that even though Armstrong is extremely athletic, the thing he has been even more is super-humanly lucky. And perhaps many of the people at the top aren't there because of skill, but because of luck. It's not something people like to hear. But it does explain all the equally (or more) competent people at the bottom.

One thing that's not being talked a lot about is the fact that the BP oil spill proves once again that Libertarianism is not a workable policy.
The classic idea in Libertarianism is that we don't need government regulation because there is sufficient economic incentive for companies to regulate themselves. There is no need to regulate the oil companies because they realize that if there is a spill in the gulf they might not be allowed to drill there ever again.
So we're following the classic Libertarian model here. Industry realizes public relations nightmare. Industry will toughen their self-regulation in response. But where does this leave the public? How in the Libertarian model do you get the public back on board? Do they just believe that if an industry destroys themselves through "the Jungle"-style lack of regulation that the industry is gone for good?
This is one of the places that industry regulation is great for business. There will undoubtedly be some new regulations put in place after this, and drilling will more than likely resume in the gulf in a few years. Because ultimately we do trust that the government can do a pretty good job of regulating the oil industry. But how would that trust ever be regained in a Libertarian model?
Libertarians always say that consumers should ultimately make the decisions. But what if consumers actually did and half of Houston's economy disappeared overnight?

So I was somewhat shocked the other day when I saw that Dell still employs around 10k people in Austin, but only around 70k people worldwide. Which is crazy when you realize they're number 34 in the fortune 500. FoxConn out of China who manufacturers a lot of the products for Dell, Apple, etc. has 800,000 employees. Over ten times as many employees as Dell. I just wonder about this. If you can do only the most profitable work with a small number of employees, what's your long term business plan? What's to keep FoxConn who can actually make things cheaply and easily from getting into the managing people who make things market?

Just wanted to quickly mention that we went to East Side King this past weekend. It's kind of weird. You have to go to the Liberty bar to go to the restaurant.

So we went in and bought some drinks. First off we were shocked by their bartender. He was really nice and conversational. It's a bit sad that seems shocking, but it was. They only have something like 5 taps, but their boring beers are Stella Artois and Negro Modello. And their bottled beer selection looks amazing. We got some Left Hand Wheat Beer and headed outside. It's not a particularly hipster bar despite being in the hipster part of town. Most of the people looked like tech workers coming out for a beer after work.

East Side King is a trailer that they open up gates to. Basically it's like an outside bar for the place. Except it serves food instead of beer. And the food...

Julie had "Thai Chicken Karaage" and I had "Poor Qui’s Buns" and "Fried Brussels Sprout Salad". Holy smokes it was good. Mine was this fantastic thai salad that was spicy and fresh and then had these awesome fried bits of brussel sprout on top. The buns were just pork belly, a little something like hoisin sauce, and a standard bun. But the way that pork was cooked! Holy cow. Crispy and light the whole way through. I enjoyed it so much I ordered their tongue bun that was on special. Somehow they made cooked tongue so it was light and crispy. I don't have a clue how they did it, but it was fantastic. The stand is run by a bunch of the cooks from Uchi, and you can tell from their techniques.

Definitely going to have to go back to the Liberty for their beer and food.