Watching 2011 tsunami videos on YouTube pretty quickly shatters your cliched vision of a giant wave breaking down on the beach and crushing everything in its path. The truth is less dramatic and, sadly, a good deal more destructive. The New Yorker this week writes on how the Pacific Northwest is long-overdue for an earthquake and tsunami even larger than the 2011 Japan disaster. Even worse, preparedness is virtually non-existent compared to Japan:
The really big one is coming to the Northwest
According to a pretty incredible Reddit and some other articles I've seen, this piece is on the whole, stunningly accurate. The only thing people seem to be quibbling with is whether "nothing left" means truly nothing left, or just absolutely and utterly destroyed by the tsunami. That strikes me as splitting hairs. What a horrifying prospect.
Passengers watched July 4 slaying on Metro car
Somehow I completely missed this news until there was a commentary on Slate earlier this week. I've spent much of the week considering this event - the idea of 12 people watching someone be stabbed to death without intervening is horrible. It's wholly inappropriate for me or others to criticize their inaction, as it's impossible to say how I'd react in the same situation. I would like to believe that they could have saved the victim's life, though, and as we say in Masonry, they should have gone to his aid were there a better chance of saving his life than losing their won.
Why only Obama could have got the Iran nuclear deal
The deal with Iran appears, at first blush, to actually be pretty good. I've yet to digest all the details, and I'm naturally skeptical because it has Obama's fingerprints all over it. Ironically, Vox suggests that the awful foreign policy track record that engenders my skepticism is exactly why Obama is the only person who could make this deal happen. His preference not to implement a sweeping strategic vision is disastrous to most of the Middle East, but was an asset in this negotiation.
Entrepreneurs come from family money
What a crock. This piece from QZ asserts that entrepreneurship is a game for those who come from family money, not tolerance for risk. The author believes that it's a good safety net which enables creativity and the beginning of a firm, not a tolerance for risk. My sense is the author has never started a business. There's a huge difference between filing for an LLC, working on an idea, or taking meetings while saying you're an entrepreneur. Those are, in fact, games for the rich. And not entrepreneurship. The people I know who have truly started and built successful businesses on their own have no background that ties them together, only a single-minded drive to grow their business and see it be successful.