Q: Editor - I see from your social media feed that you're pretty upset about the two Supreme Court rulings this week. Would you care to expand your incoherent tweeting into some equally incoherent writing?
A: One benefit of the fact that I'm my own editor is that I can ask myself leading questions. Yes, this is cheating and no, I don't care.
First let's talk about King vs. Burwell. After a day of time to reflect about this ruling I've got a few thoughts:
1. Chief Justice John Roberts believes that the Legislative Branch should fix Legislative Branch problems. This is why the fact that the ACA had some language in it that basically said, "only state exchanges are eligible for tax credits" doesn't matter. If the court had said, "you're right, only state exchanges can give tax credits" then peoples' health care expenditures would have increased overnight. The court didn't want to be responsible for that, so they ruled that the federal exchange should be able to be substituted for state exchanges. I take that as a message from Chief Justice Roberts to the Congress that if they want this fixed, they need to fix it.
2. Obamacare is now a major chain around Hillary Clinton. Every failure, every rate increase, every premium hike, everyone who loses their doctor, they now have an enemy to point towards.
3. I hope that the 2016 election will start a national conversation about entitlements and the entitlement society, and this ruling makes that conversation more likely. Unfortunately, health insurance now equals health care in most peoples' minds so replacing the ACA with something else is going to be a tough fight.
Now, for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. What I'm coming to grips with is that this objective truth is now an opinion. "Believe" is the operative word. The cultural majority now "believes" that marriage is one man and one man, one woman and one woman and one man and one woman. Does that change what marriage is? No. What has changed is the fact that the word "marriage" has no meaning. It's whatever the will of the cultural majority says that it is. Are we as a society OK with that?
I've been married for just under two years and my wife and I recently had our first child. I've already seen how we both bring different things to our daughter's world but with this ruling I have been told that my wife and I bring exactly the same things to our child. That if you replaced me with a woman or my wife with a man, our daughter would turn out the same. I disagree. Men and women are different and bring different things to parenting. But now that belief is, like the definition of marriage, just a belief that is now overtaken by the culture. Are we as a society OK with that too?
So where do we go from here? This ruling means that all 50 states must conduct marriages between any combination of two consenting adults. What will that mean? My predictions for the next few years in no particular order:
- There will be a lawsuit filed this summer against either a church as an institution or a priest as a person for not performing a same-sex wedding. The outcome of that lawsuit will be to force the church to perform same-sex wedding. I cannot predict where that will lead.
- Same-sex marriage advocates will target the wedding service industry, specifically businesses owned by people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Any business that does not service same-sex weddings will be driven out of business, either by lawsuit or public shaming. It will make headlines but ultimately be met with a shrug from the media and popular culture.
- Adoption agencies will no longer be allowed to prefer opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples. This will cause agencies run by religious institutions to shut down.
- The first divorce proceeding involving a same-sex couple's fight over custody over their children is going to be fascinating reading.
- The first polygamy case will be filed before the 2016 election. The Supreme Court, using the same logic, will grant the right for marriage to be expanded to more than two people. After all, it's about love, right?
In short, I'm pretty worked up today, but the positive impact is that I'm stepping into the game much more than I ever have. I'm inspired and I'm motivated. More on this to come.
Showing posts with label personal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personal. Show all posts
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Saturday, June 27, 2015
A Personal Note About Moving On
On Friday I made a series of tweets and retweets on the official Twitter account of the Answer Boss regarding the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. I received a response tweet from a friend saying that one post was in poor taste, and afterwards that friend went to the online community where this feature was born and commented on it there. Below are those posts.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:26 am
tim boss on twitter (tweeted an article saying this is a "dark week")
Zane
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:49 am
link plz.
democko
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:51 pm
sorry my quote should say "these are dark days"
he retweeted this one:
https://twitter.com/jhinderaker/status/ ... 6623517696
and he has been tweeting up a storm. i called him on it.
Sarah
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:13 pm
You did :-)
Zane
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:45 pm
i don't understand what is so divisive about coming out publicly and saying "i am a bigot who hates gay people" or "i am really stupid, and don't care to learn about any of the issues i parrot about on social media." then you can more easily join into hate groups and be shunned by actual people, employers, and society at large (although this might lead to a SCOTUS case regarding the rights of the criminally stupid...)
this shit is just straight baffling. it's a failure in democratic process because the Supreme Court upheld a right which is supported by 63% of Americans? lol nope. we don't even have a direct democracy (American History: F-) and if we did, your opinion would have lost out to the actual majority.
you aren't a "true American patriot" for standing up to the Liberal democrat moslem scum who passed this law in the face of overwhelming opposition. you're a backwards fuckwit who doesn't understand the law, doesn't understand government, and hasn't bothered to read the court's opinion on this matter (which has nothing to do with any of these bullshit conservative talking points).
i wish the worst on people like him for hiding their heads in the sand (err, Twitter) so they can circlejerk about being bigots, and be butthurt that other people now have the same rights as them (which is in fact, a thing literally written into the Bill of Rights).
I will not comment on the content of the above other than to say that the opinion above (opposition to same-sex marriage is bigotry) is that of most members of the community. What caught my attention was that I was personally being called a bigot. That affected me a lot more than I expected it to. I was furious as I read the words, and my anger did not subside. After that post a few more were made, and what I found interesting and disheartening was that there was no commentary on the charge of bigotry. Just a casual acceptance. And that was what told me that it was time to walk away and not look back.
tim boss on twitter (tweeted an article saying this is a "dark week")
Zane
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:49 am
link plz.
democko
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:51 pm
sorry my quote should say "these are dark days"
he retweeted this one:
https://twitter.com/jhinderaker/status/ ... 6623517696
and he has been tweeting up a storm. i called him on it.
Sarah
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:13 pm
You did :-)
Zane
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:45 pm
i don't understand what is so divisive about coming out publicly and saying "i am a bigot who hates gay people" or "i am really stupid, and don't care to learn about any of the issues i parrot about on social media." then you can more easily join into hate groups and be shunned by actual people, employers, and society at large (although this might lead to a SCOTUS case regarding the rights of the criminally stupid...)
this shit is just straight baffling. it's a failure in democratic process because the Supreme Court upheld a right which is supported by 63% of Americans? lol nope. we don't even have a direct democracy (American History: F-) and if we did, your opinion would have lost out to the actual majority.
you aren't a "true American patriot" for standing up to the Liberal democrat moslem scum who passed this law in the face of overwhelming opposition. you're a backwards fuckwit who doesn't understand the law, doesn't understand government, and hasn't bothered to read the court's opinion on this matter (which has nothing to do with any of these bullshit conservative talking points).
i wish the worst on people like him for hiding their heads in the sand (err, Twitter) so they can circlejerk about being bigots, and be butthurt that other people now have the same rights as them (which is in fact, a thing literally written into the Bill of Rights).
I will not comment on the content of the above other than to say that the opinion above (opposition to same-sex marriage is bigotry) is that of most members of the community. What caught my attention was that I was personally being called a bigot. That affected me a lot more than I expected it to. I was furious as I read the words, and my anger did not subside. After that post a few more were made, and what I found interesting and disheartening was that there was no commentary on the charge of bigotry. Just a casual acceptance. And that was what told me that it was time to walk away and not look back.
I'm a little sad since that community is where I started and developed the question-and-answer column that now lives here. But if I am not welcome in a community then I am not welcome, and it is time for me to leave it. I write about it here only to remind myself of why I am leaving and to document it for posterity.
Below is my final contribution to the site.
mitssob
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:25 am
Thank you for your post. You have made it clear that I am not welcome on this site and so my time here has come to an end.
Being called a bigot is something that I will not tolerate. You do not know me, have never (that I can remember) met me, yet you presume to know what is in my heart and in my head. You don't, but if that is your opinion of me, and if that opinion is shared by the members of this community, then it is time for me to spend my time somewhere else.
I will not be back to read any responses to this post. I will not be back at all. I wish you all the best with the rest of your time on this site. Goodbye.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
53 - Answers
Q: Bill - What's new in roofing technology? Can you fill me in on some greener alternatives?
A: There is a company out of Santa Ana, CA called ArmorLite that has developed a new lightweight roofing material. A press release outlining their new technology can be found here. Their big claim to fame appears to be a drastic weight reduction. Their material weighs 70 pounds per 100 sq ft, whereas normal material weighs 600 pounds per 100 sq ft.
For "greener alternatives" I have two suggestions. First up is an organic roof, described in detail at GreenRoofs. As near as I can tell this involves planting grass, shrubs and other organic matter on your roof. With a sloped roof I'm not sure how this works, but the people on the site are pretty dedicated so maybe they've got ideas for you. Second would be to place solar panels over your existing roof. Yes, I know this isn't exactly new roofing technology, since I don't think that you can buy a roof that is made exclusively of solar panels. But someday that might be possible so you might as well get ahead of the curve.
Q: Jeff - Will this winter be a bitch?
A: Longtime "Ask Mitssob" devotees know that my history of prognostication is poor at best. But I'll take a crack at this one. If this summer has been any indication of temperatures then I think that this winter will feature some bone-chilling cold. I think that we will break record cold temperatures across much of the country, especially in the northern plains and midwestern states. As far as storms and chaos and such I'm not as certain. But cold? Definitely. Does that make it a "bitch"? That depends on your definition of "bitch". Personally I like the cold, so the prospect of a colder-than-average winter doesn't strike me as that unpleasant.
Q: Rob - if you were to buy a bus what kind of a bus would you get
A: I think I would buy one of those buses that hotels use as shuttles to and from airports. I know that's more of a "van" than a "bus", but I stand by my answer. I know that I would be uncomfortable driving a big bus, either a school bus or a large passenger bus. The shuttle bus is typically built on a commercial van's powertrain, and thus I think I'd be better driving it.
I'm not exactly sure WHY I would get a bus. I've had a romantic notion of buying a conversion van for many years. Maybe an old shuttle-bus would be a good platform to use for me to build my own. I'll have to think about that.
Q: Bill - Sticking with the green theme...so we have a ton of waste paper here at work. Instead of throwing it out, I am hording it to try to find something more creative than recycling to do with it. Ideas?
A: Partly this is going to depend on the quantity of paper, what kind of paper it is, etc. I'll assume that you're talking about normal white paper with a mix of black-and-white and color printing on it. Below are my quick, off-the-cuff ideas for your dilemma.
- One word: fire. In fact, I'm a little surprised that you even had to ask me about this given your status as an out-of-the-closet pyromaniac. The problem with burning this much paper comes down to efficiency. It's hard to take a stack of paper and just burn it. There are two solutions to this problem. First, you could crumple the pages up. That's very time consuming and not very much fun. Second, you could use a newspaper log roller to create more dense "logs" of paper that would burn hotter and be more suitable for a fireplace.
- Cheap insulation: This would be VERY cheap insulation. Plus, as with the bonfire idea, you'd have to crumple up the paper first, and that's definitely not worth the effort.
- Recycle it yourself: This article from eHow outlines how to create pulp from used paper and create your own new fresh paper. Another article from Bright Hub can be found here. This idea might appeal to Lisa given her calligraphy business. She could create her own custom paper for her clients. Just a thought.
Q: Matt - Charcoal or propane? I already know where I stand on this.
A: I prefer propane. I know that charcoal gives you more of an authentic grill taste and smell, but I personally prefer the convenience of propane. It lights instantly, you have a greater degree of control of the cooking surface, and it turns off just as easily as it lights. I recently purchased my first propane grill and have been very satisfied with it so far.
So where do you stand on this question? I'd be interested to hear responses from the "Ask Mitssob" community at large. I know it can be a heated (HA) topic of discussion, so have at it!
Q: vanessa - What will be the biggest story of the summer of 2009?
A: Let me start by sharing something with those of you new to "Ask Mitssob": I will occasionally answer questions according to the wording of the question rather than its intended meaning. I do this deliberately, both to try and promote clarity in the world at large and also to tick off the people who ask me questions. I thought about doing this for your question but instead I'll provide answers based on my two readings of the question. I'm not exactly sure which you meant, so I'll cover both angles. You're welcome.
Interpretation 1: "Looking back, what will have been the biggest story of the summer of 2009?"
Answer 1: The death of Michael Jackson. It's been the subject of so much discussion (Is he really dead? What did his doctor know and when did he know it?), so much media time (hundreds and hundreds of hours by Larry King and Geraldo Rivera alone), and so much random speculation (Will he emerge from his coffin during the funeral and re-enact Thriller?) that I think it's the clear winner.
The only thing that comes close in my opinion is the ongoing national debate about health care/insurance reform. President Obama had an original deadline of the first week of August for Congress to pass a health care/insurance reform bill. That deadline has come and gone, and Congress has gone home on recess to the spectacle of townhall meetings with hundreds of their constituents. It's a big national story, and one that will continue into the fall. Is it bigger than Michael Jackson's death? I don't think so, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Question 2: "Looking forward, what will be the biggest story of the summer of 2009 that hasn't happened yet?"
Answer 2: Unfortunately the only thing that could top the Michael Jackson fiasco would involve death and destruction on some significant scale. We've already had the deaths of Michael Jackson, Farah Fawcitt, and Walter "Uncle Walt" Cronkite. In my opinion there really isn't another public figure death that could top those unless a major current political figure kicks the bucket (and for the record I am NOT endorsing, condoning, or hoping for that to happen).
I think the only thing that could possibly happen to be a bigger story than the aforementioned Jackson Death Saga would be a natural disaster in or a terrorist attack on the continental United States. Again, I am not wishing or hoping for this to happen. I'm just saying that those would have to potential to dethrone the King of Pop's death for top story of the summer of 2009.
Q: Brett - Are people asking questions because they want hard hitting answers, or because they feel bad for you?
A: I am under no illusions here: people feel bad for me. And they really shouldn't. I'm doing just fine, thanks.
Oh, and the only way you're going to get "hard hitting answers" is if I come over to your house and answer your question in person and then punch you. [Ed - And even then it won't be hard hitting. I hang my head in shame at your insult.]
Q: Jesse - are puppies immune to bullets?
A: Immune to bullets? If by "immune" you mean that they won't die if they ingest a bullet then maybe. I've never known a puppy to eat a bullet and so I don't know what would happy if it did. It would probably just pass it as though it were any other lump of metal. Getting to the probable meaning of your question, I'm reasonably sure that puppies encased in kevlar are impervious to gunfire. Unfortunately a naked puppy is no more immune to bullets than you or I are. Sorry.
Oh, by the way, I know I shouldn't even have to say this, but for the love of God, do NOT try and test this out IN ANY WAY! It will not go well for you. You've been warned.
Q: Jarsh - Will you tell us the next time you go see Mrs. Skanotto?
A: Sure thing. In fact I'll do it right now. The next appearance by mrs. skannotto will be at the Montage Live Music Hall on September 11. This will be Gordo's last performance behind the microphone, so come on out and give him a great last show!
Q: Karyn Graves - How much does a Cake Boss cake cost?
A: The Cake Boss is actually a man named Buddy Valastro. He is the master baker at Carlo's City Hall Bake Shop in Hoboken, NJ. Carlos Bakery itself provides the answer here. Basically the cost is between $8 and $18 per person depending on the complexity of the cake. Sadly they do not ship their cakes, which means that if you want one you're going to have to go to New Jersey to collect it. And who would want to go there?
A: There is a company out of Santa Ana, CA called ArmorLite that has developed a new lightweight roofing material. A press release outlining their new technology can be found here. Their big claim to fame appears to be a drastic weight reduction. Their material weighs 70 pounds per 100 sq ft, whereas normal material weighs 600 pounds per 100 sq ft.
For "greener alternatives" I have two suggestions. First up is an organic roof, described in detail at GreenRoofs. As near as I can tell this involves planting grass, shrubs and other organic matter on your roof. With a sloped roof I'm not sure how this works, but the people on the site are pretty dedicated so maybe they've got ideas for you. Second would be to place solar panels over your existing roof. Yes, I know this isn't exactly new roofing technology, since I don't think that you can buy a roof that is made exclusively of solar panels. But someday that might be possible so you might as well get ahead of the curve.
Q: Jeff - Will this winter be a bitch?
A: Longtime "Ask Mitssob" devotees know that my history of prognostication is poor at best. But I'll take a crack at this one. If this summer has been any indication of temperatures then I think that this winter will feature some bone-chilling cold. I think that we will break record cold temperatures across much of the country, especially in the northern plains and midwestern states. As far as storms and chaos and such I'm not as certain. But cold? Definitely. Does that make it a "bitch"? That depends on your definition of "bitch". Personally I like the cold, so the prospect of a colder-than-average winter doesn't strike me as that unpleasant.
Q: Rob - if you were to buy a bus what kind of a bus would you get
A: I think I would buy one of those buses that hotels use as shuttles to and from airports. I know that's more of a "van" than a "bus", but I stand by my answer. I know that I would be uncomfortable driving a big bus, either a school bus or a large passenger bus. The shuttle bus is typically built on a commercial van's powertrain, and thus I think I'd be better driving it.
I'm not exactly sure WHY I would get a bus. I've had a romantic notion of buying a conversion van for many years. Maybe an old shuttle-bus would be a good platform to use for me to build my own. I'll have to think about that.
Q: Bill - Sticking with the green theme...so we have a ton of waste paper here at work. Instead of throwing it out, I am hording it to try to find something more creative than recycling to do with it. Ideas?
A: Partly this is going to depend on the quantity of paper, what kind of paper it is, etc. I'll assume that you're talking about normal white paper with a mix of black-and-white and color printing on it. Below are my quick, off-the-cuff ideas for your dilemma.
- One word: fire. In fact, I'm a little surprised that you even had to ask me about this given your status as an out-of-the-closet pyromaniac. The problem with burning this much paper comes down to efficiency. It's hard to take a stack of paper and just burn it. There are two solutions to this problem. First, you could crumple the pages up. That's very time consuming and not very much fun. Second, you could use a newspaper log roller to create more dense "logs" of paper that would burn hotter and be more suitable for a fireplace.
- Cheap insulation: This would be VERY cheap insulation. Plus, as with the bonfire idea, you'd have to crumple up the paper first, and that's definitely not worth the effort.
- Recycle it yourself: This article from eHow outlines how to create pulp from used paper and create your own new fresh paper. Another article from Bright Hub can be found here. This idea might appeal to Lisa given her calligraphy business. She could create her own custom paper for her clients. Just a thought.
Q: Matt - Charcoal or propane? I already know where I stand on this.
A: I prefer propane. I know that charcoal gives you more of an authentic grill taste and smell, but I personally prefer the convenience of propane. It lights instantly, you have a greater degree of control of the cooking surface, and it turns off just as easily as it lights. I recently purchased my first propane grill and have been very satisfied with it so far.
So where do you stand on this question? I'd be interested to hear responses from the "Ask Mitssob" community at large. I know it can be a heated (HA) topic of discussion, so have at it!
Q: vanessa - What will be the biggest story of the summer of 2009?
A: Let me start by sharing something with those of you new to "Ask Mitssob": I will occasionally answer questions according to the wording of the question rather than its intended meaning. I do this deliberately, both to try and promote clarity in the world at large and also to tick off the people who ask me questions. I thought about doing this for your question but instead I'll provide answers based on my two readings of the question. I'm not exactly sure which you meant, so I'll cover both angles. You're welcome.
Interpretation 1: "Looking back, what will have been the biggest story of the summer of 2009?"
Answer 1: The death of Michael Jackson. It's been the subject of so much discussion (Is he really dead? What did his doctor know and when did he know it?), so much media time (hundreds and hundreds of hours by Larry King and Geraldo Rivera alone), and so much random speculation (Will he emerge from his coffin during the funeral and re-enact Thriller?) that I think it's the clear winner.
The only thing that comes close in my opinion is the ongoing national debate about health care/insurance reform. President Obama had an original deadline of the first week of August for Congress to pass a health care/insurance reform bill. That deadline has come and gone, and Congress has gone home on recess to the spectacle of townhall meetings with hundreds of their constituents. It's a big national story, and one that will continue into the fall. Is it bigger than Michael Jackson's death? I don't think so, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Question 2: "Looking forward, what will be the biggest story of the summer of 2009 that hasn't happened yet?"
Answer 2: Unfortunately the only thing that could top the Michael Jackson fiasco would involve death and destruction on some significant scale. We've already had the deaths of Michael Jackson, Farah Fawcitt, and Walter "Uncle Walt" Cronkite. In my opinion there really isn't another public figure death that could top those unless a major current political figure kicks the bucket (and for the record I am NOT endorsing, condoning, or hoping for that to happen).
I think the only thing that could possibly happen to be a bigger story than the aforementioned Jackson Death Saga would be a natural disaster in or a terrorist attack on the continental United States. Again, I am not wishing or hoping for this to happen. I'm just saying that those would have to potential to dethrone the King of Pop's death for top story of the summer of 2009.
Q: Brett - Are people asking questions because they want hard hitting answers, or because they feel bad for you?
A: I am under no illusions here: people feel bad for me. And they really shouldn't. I'm doing just fine, thanks.
Oh, and the only way you're going to get "hard hitting answers" is if I come over to your house and answer your question in person and then punch you. [Ed - And even then it won't be hard hitting. I hang my head in shame at your insult.]
Q: Jesse - are puppies immune to bullets?
A: Immune to bullets? If by "immune" you mean that they won't die if they ingest a bullet then maybe. I've never known a puppy to eat a bullet and so I don't know what would happy if it did. It would probably just pass it as though it were any other lump of metal. Getting to the probable meaning of your question, I'm reasonably sure that puppies encased in kevlar are impervious to gunfire. Unfortunately a naked puppy is no more immune to bullets than you or I are. Sorry.
Oh, by the way, I know I shouldn't even have to say this, but for the love of God, do NOT try and test this out IN ANY WAY! It will not go well for you. You've been warned.
Q: Jarsh - Will you tell us the next time you go see Mrs. Skanotto?
A: Sure thing. In fact I'll do it right now. The next appearance by mrs. skannotto will be at the Montage Live Music Hall on September 11. This will be Gordo's last performance behind the microphone, so come on out and give him a great last show!
Q: Karyn Graves - How much does a Cake Boss cake cost?
A: The Cake Boss is actually a man named Buddy Valastro. He is the master baker at Carlo's City Hall Bake Shop in Hoboken, NJ. Carlos Bakery itself provides the answer here. Basically the cost is between $8 and $18 per person depending on the complexity of the cake. Sadly they do not ship their cakes, which means that if you want one you're going to have to go to New Jersey to collect it. And who would want to go there?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
46 - Answers
Q: Bill Jeffers - Where do babies come from? OK but seriously folks...what makes diapers so absorbent? How can my Oops I Crapped My Pants hold that much?
A: Well when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...wait, what? Seriously? You just had your first kid. You know more about this than I do. And by the way, congratulations to you and Lisa on the arrival of Evelyn Shannon Jeffers. I hope she grows up to look like her mother. I mean, nothing personal here, but Lisa's a lot more attractive than you are. I'm just saying.
As to your real question, diapers are absorbent because of the materials that are used. I found a very good article on the subject at Answers.com, which can be read here. Normally I don't like to plug the competition but in this case their knowledge far outweighs mine. I recommend the whole article to anyone who's even remotely curious about the subject, but the relevant portion of their article follows:
The single most important property of a diaper, cloth or disposable, is its ability to absorb and retain moisture. Cotton material used in cloth diapers is reasonably absorbent, but synthetic polymers far exceed the capacity of natural fibers. Today's state-of-the-art disposable diaper will absorb 15 times its weight in water. This phenomenal absorption capacity is due to the absorbent pad found in the core of the diaper. This pad is composed of two essential elements, a hydrophilic, or water-loving, polymer and a fibrous material such as wood pulp. The polymer is made of fine particles of an acrylic acid derivative, such as sodium acrylate, potassium acrylate, or an alkyl acrylate. These polymeric particles act as tiny sponges that retain many times their weight in water. Microscopically these polymer molecules resemble long chains or ropes. Portions of these chemical "ropes" are designed to interact with water molecules. Other parts of the polymer have the ability to chemically link with different polymer molecules in a process known as cross linking. When a large number of these polymeric chains are cross linked, they form a gel network that is not water soluble but that can absorb vast amounts of water. Polymers with this ability are referred to as hydrogels, superabsorbents, or hydrocolloids. Depending on the degree of cross linking, the strength of the gel network can be varied. This is an important property because gel strength is related to the tendency of the polymer to deform or flow under stress. If the strength is too high the polymer will not retain enough water. If it too low the polymer will deform too easily, and the outermost particles in the pad will absorb water too quickly, forming a gel that blocks water from reaching the inner pad particles. This problem, known as gel blocking, can be overcome by dispersing wood pulp fibers throughout the polymer matrix. These wood fibers act as thousands of tiny straws which suck up water faster and disperse it through the matrix more efficiently to avoid gel blocking. Manufacturers have optimized the combinations of polymer and fibrous material to yield the most efficient absorbency possible.
In addition to information about why diapers are absorbent I also found several sites dedicated to comparing absorbency of diapers. My personal favorite is this study done by a young woman named Vanessa W. back in the year 2000. It's not the most up-to-date study, but I was amused by the vintage Internet website layout. You can also try this site done by the folks at DiaperWare.
Since I don't know how what material "Oops I Crapped My Pants" is made of I can't say how they can hold that much. But thanks for giving me an excuse to link to a YouTube of this fabulous commercial.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - How do YOU feel about GM?
A: General Motors is a car company. I don't know if I have any "feelings" about it. At least not the same way I have feelings about, say my friends and family. Or the Boston Red Sox. But I do have some admittedly uninformed opinions about how they run their business, and also some ideas about how they could recover and return to profitability.
One problem I see for GM is their reliance on Unionized labor. As I understand it the United Auto Workers (UAW) have an agreement with GM that covers medical costs for all retired GM employees, as well as generous pensions for those same employees. The way I look at it no company can possibly succeed when it pays for people who no longer work for them. Yes, many companies offer pensions and health benefits to their retirees. But employees are retiring earlier and living longer than the people who set up those systems ever planned. The bottom line is that GM is having to pay a substantial percentage of money per car manufactured just to support workers who no longer work for the company. Now, I hold GM responsible for this problem in the same way that I hold other corporations responsible for the way they overcompensate their managers and CEOs.
A second problem for GM is the fact that they are still structured as though they are the biggest fish in the pond of automobile manufacturers. Their business model is built on the assumption that they will have and maintain a certain percentage of the automobile market. What they must do is adapt to the fact that that percentage is now much smaller than it used to be. There's no reason that GM can't be profitable with a smaller piece of the pie, but they first must recognize and accept the fact that their piece is smaller. That means fewer divisions and fewer models, and a focus on profitable cars. It also means that they should be spending more on research and development of new technologies, something I know that you're involved in, Jarsh. Personally I'd like to see them focusing more on better batteries, and the new Chevy Volt is going to help direct their attention in that direction. And that's a very good thing for them.
In the end I guess the main feeling I have for GM is sympathy. They made a deal with the devil, as it were, by taking loans from the government in order to avoid bankruptcy. Now they're living with the consequences of that deal. Their CEO has been forced out, and they're soon going to face pressure from the government to do things that will not help their return to profitability. I wish them luck, I really do. It would be a shame if Ford were the only US car company left standing after the dust settles.
Q: Brad Pettengill - Out of the 4 games at the ECAC championship, which one was the best?
A: Of the four games I think that the Friday night game between Cornell and Princeton was the best. A full recap of the game can be found here and the boxscore is here. The main reason for this choice is the crowd rather than the hockey. The tickets I had for the game placed my friends and me in the right-hand section of the Cornell fans.
Before I go on let me just say for the record that Cornell fans are among the least original, most rude, and least subtle fans in the ECAC. Every single one of their chants either involved the word "sucks" or some variation of that theme, and were often incoherent. It was a joke when I was in the Clarkson Pep Band that all of Cornell's cheers were basically "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!" I always thought that it was just because we were across the arena from their fan section when we visited Lynah. Having just spent eight periods of hockey in the middle of their fan section I can report that even close up it's still just "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!"
One more thing: My biggest regret of the tournament is that neglected to wear my "Clarkson is Gorges" tee shirt that my sister had printed for me on my birthday a few years ago while she was attending Ithaca College. For those not in on the joke, there is a popular saying in Ithaca that "Ithaca is Gorges", playing on the fact that there are some nice gorges and waterfalls in the area. It's a dumb saying, but one that you can find on shirts, coffee mugs, and bumperstickers.
Anyway, even though the Cornell fans are obnoxious pricks they were numerous and enthusiastic, which made the atmosphere of the game better. They cheered loudly during the pre-game ceremonies, right down to the usual amplification of the word "Red" during the national anthem. Then the game started and Princeton scored almost right away, taking much of the wind out of the Cornell fan's sails. That wind was restored once Cornell finally scored, but then Princeton tacked on one more at the end of the first period and the wind died. The wind died even more at the start of the second period when Princeton scored again. Seeing the pain in the eyes of the Cornell fans was enjoyable.
Cornell decided to start playing during the second half of the third period. Actually it was one player named Evan Barlow who decided to start playing. He took the puck from coast-to-coast during a four on four and scored one of the prettiest goals I've seen in a long time. It was enough to wake the Cornell fans from their slumber. Then Cornell pulled their goalie with a minute left in the game and rather than give up an empty-net goal was actually able to score on Princeton. This happened twice in the tournament, which is remarkable since this move usually backfires in the ECAC (and all throughout hockey, now that I think about it).
When overtime began, even as one who really hates Cornell, I found myself getting swept up into the excitement of overtime hockey. It was hard not to. The Cornell fans were on edge and it was infectious. As overtime progressed I decided that I wanted Cornell to win if for no other reason than the fact that the championship game would be much better with that many Cornell fans there. Princeton/Yale would have been just depressing. Especially with the two sub-par bands that the teams brought with them.
When Cornell finally scored the winning goal in the second overtime the place erupted into a sea of joyous red cheering fans. And I felt happy for them, even as I wished for their utter and complete downfall in the championship game. Which came true, so everyone won, in a strange way.
Q: Todd Nielson - So who do you like in the Frozen Four?
A: I am not going to pretend to know much about the four teams playing, which are Boston University, Vermont, Bemidji State and Miami of Ohio. I don't follow college hockey closely enough to render an informed opinion on the subject. But you asked me who I like, not who I think will win, so I'll give that question some treatment.
Vermont: I can't possibly root for Vermont, both because of the 2001 ECAC playoff debacle and because, well, they're Vermont. [Ed: I thought you liked and admired hippies. You are sadly misinformed.]
Boston University: Boston University has been a rival of the University of Maine for many years, and since the University of Maine is the reason I exist in the first place (it's where my parents met) I can't root for them.
Miami of Ohio: There is only one true Miami. It is the land of Dave Barry, Miami Vice, and the Miami Sound Machine. And hockey is not a part of that true Miami.
Bemidji State: Since they're the smallest, least-likely school to win this tournament, and since everyone loves the underdog, I guess I'll jump on the long-shot bandwagon and support Bemidji State, if only to keep my spelling skills strong.
Q: Adam Barnello - Address my comment from the last Mitssob, please?
A: Sure thing. I've printed your comments below, and I'll intersperse my responses and further thoughts between paragraphs.
"Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends."
What wonderful prose this is! So deep! So meaningful! Well done, Barn! Oh, wait, I wrote that. Sorry.
By the same argument with which you justify your position for maintaining marijuana as illegal, you could easily rationalize the return of prohibition. Or the criminalization of tobacco. Both of these are, in a realistic view, as bad or worse than marijuana in terms of health effects as well as deaths associated with their use, and yet no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night. If we're being honest with ourselves here, one is really no different than the other, except the prohibition on alcohol was repealed.
On your first point I will respond with two of my favorite words: "So what?" What is the problem with the return of prohibition? Or banning tobacco? Yes, it clashes violently with my libertarian side, which is even now shouting, "Tim, how dare you suggest such a thing!" while shaking its fist indignantly. But ultimately we live in a society where the people get to decide these things. If society decides that it once again wants to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol then I'm not going to stand in the way. There is a vocal portion of American society that rails against the evils of tobacco. If they had their way all tobacco would be banned. Should that be allowed? Personally I don't think so, but again, if society decides it then I'm not going to get in the way.
Random detour: Personally I think that a lot of the anger at tobacco companies is misdirected. I believe that, all things considered, alcohol is actually much worse than tobacco. Tobacco harms one person but doesn't change their behavior. Alcohol is a behavior-modifier, and that can be much worse. I've never heard a story of a person who smokes a cigarette and then goes and beats their spouse or child. But I'm sure we've all heard of or experienced first-hand the violence that alcohol causes when abused.
This concludes our random detour. Back to your regularly schedule answer.
Second, I have a problem with the tone of the second part of your comment, specifically the, "no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night." Really? You can speak for everyone who thinks marijuana should be illegal? Accusing ones ideological opponents of hypocrisy and/or inconsistency allows you to dismiss them without engaging their arguments, but it doesn't make your own arguments any better or worse. I can turn right around and say that people who think cigarettes should be illegal have no problem toking up every once in a while. Is it true? I'm sure that there are some people who fall into that category, albeit probably a minority. But putting that statement forward allows me to dismiss arguments against smoking without having to think. And that's not healthy for a debate.
On top of that I don't see the connection. Some people who think marijuana should be illegal drink alcohol. So? It's a non-sequitor. One is legal, the other is not. Yes, yes, I know that the argument is that marijuana is as harmless as alcohol. That doesn't change the fact that one is illegal and one isn't. That's the difference.
It bothers me that you've fallen back onto the party line of "Marijuana is a drug. Drugs are bad." Even as someone who has never used it, and has no interest in doing so, I'd hope you could differentiate between the myths and the truths about it.
I have "fallen back onto the party line" because it is a belief that I hold. Are all drugs bad? To me that's similar to asking if guns are bad. Drugs are drugs. One can cure disease, the other can get you high. I believe that the use of drugs to get a high is something that should not be encouraged by society. Period. Doesn't matter whether it's pot or alcohol or crystal meth. Are there degrees of "badness" to illegal drugs? Of course. And the laws reflect that. If we want that changed, then we need to change the laws, and by extension change society's point of view on these drugs. That's the right way to handle the situation.
Finally, as I said in my original answer, I'm not entirely rational on this subject. I'm allowing emotion to control me more than usual lately. It's something I'm aware of, and am trying to manage. This is because I see my beliefs on a wide range of issues being scorned and tossed aside by a vocal and increasingly powerful minority of society. And that bothers me much more than I let on since I know that nearly all of my friends and loved ones belong to that minority. It's wildly frustrating in a way that's going to continue causing me pain until I figure out what to do about it. And given my emotionally fragile state that's difficult to do.
A: Well when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...wait, what? Seriously? You just had your first kid. You know more about this than I do. And by the way, congratulations to you and Lisa on the arrival of Evelyn Shannon Jeffers. I hope she grows up to look like her mother. I mean, nothing personal here, but Lisa's a lot more attractive than you are. I'm just saying.
As to your real question, diapers are absorbent because of the materials that are used. I found a very good article on the subject at Answers.com, which can be read here. Normally I don't like to plug the competition but in this case their knowledge far outweighs mine. I recommend the whole article to anyone who's even remotely curious about the subject, but the relevant portion of their article follows:
The single most important property of a diaper, cloth or disposable, is its ability to absorb and retain moisture. Cotton material used in cloth diapers is reasonably absorbent, but synthetic polymers far exceed the capacity of natural fibers. Today's state-of-the-art disposable diaper will absorb 15 times its weight in water. This phenomenal absorption capacity is due to the absorbent pad found in the core of the diaper. This pad is composed of two essential elements, a hydrophilic, or water-loving, polymer and a fibrous material such as wood pulp. The polymer is made of fine particles of an acrylic acid derivative, such as sodium acrylate, potassium acrylate, or an alkyl acrylate. These polymeric particles act as tiny sponges that retain many times their weight in water. Microscopically these polymer molecules resemble long chains or ropes. Portions of these chemical "ropes" are designed to interact with water molecules. Other parts of the polymer have the ability to chemically link with different polymer molecules in a process known as cross linking. When a large number of these polymeric chains are cross linked, they form a gel network that is not water soluble but that can absorb vast amounts of water. Polymers with this ability are referred to as hydrogels, superabsorbents, or hydrocolloids. Depending on the degree of cross linking, the strength of the gel network can be varied. This is an important property because gel strength is related to the tendency of the polymer to deform or flow under stress. If the strength is too high the polymer will not retain enough water. If it too low the polymer will deform too easily, and the outermost particles in the pad will absorb water too quickly, forming a gel that blocks water from reaching the inner pad particles. This problem, known as gel blocking, can be overcome by dispersing wood pulp fibers throughout the polymer matrix. These wood fibers act as thousands of tiny straws which suck up water faster and disperse it through the matrix more efficiently to avoid gel blocking. Manufacturers have optimized the combinations of polymer and fibrous material to yield the most efficient absorbency possible.
In addition to information about why diapers are absorbent I also found several sites dedicated to comparing absorbency of diapers. My personal favorite is this study done by a young woman named Vanessa W. back in the year 2000. It's not the most up-to-date study, but I was amused by the vintage Internet website layout. You can also try this site done by the folks at DiaperWare.
Since I don't know how what material "Oops I Crapped My Pants" is made of I can't say how they can hold that much. But thanks for giving me an excuse to link to a YouTube of this fabulous commercial.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - How do YOU feel about GM?
A: General Motors is a car company. I don't know if I have any "feelings" about it. At least not the same way I have feelings about, say my friends and family. Or the Boston Red Sox. But I do have some admittedly uninformed opinions about how they run their business, and also some ideas about how they could recover and return to profitability.
One problem I see for GM is their reliance on Unionized labor. As I understand it the United Auto Workers (UAW) have an agreement with GM that covers medical costs for all retired GM employees, as well as generous pensions for those same employees. The way I look at it no company can possibly succeed when it pays for people who no longer work for them. Yes, many companies offer pensions and health benefits to their retirees. But employees are retiring earlier and living longer than the people who set up those systems ever planned. The bottom line is that GM is having to pay a substantial percentage of money per car manufactured just to support workers who no longer work for the company. Now, I hold GM responsible for this problem in the same way that I hold other corporations responsible for the way they overcompensate their managers and CEOs.
A second problem for GM is the fact that they are still structured as though they are the biggest fish in the pond of automobile manufacturers. Their business model is built on the assumption that they will have and maintain a certain percentage of the automobile market. What they must do is adapt to the fact that that percentage is now much smaller than it used to be. There's no reason that GM can't be profitable with a smaller piece of the pie, but they first must recognize and accept the fact that their piece is smaller. That means fewer divisions and fewer models, and a focus on profitable cars. It also means that they should be spending more on research and development of new technologies, something I know that you're involved in, Jarsh. Personally I'd like to see them focusing more on better batteries, and the new Chevy Volt is going to help direct their attention in that direction. And that's a very good thing for them.
In the end I guess the main feeling I have for GM is sympathy. They made a deal with the devil, as it were, by taking loans from the government in order to avoid bankruptcy. Now they're living with the consequences of that deal. Their CEO has been forced out, and they're soon going to face pressure from the government to do things that will not help their return to profitability. I wish them luck, I really do. It would be a shame if Ford were the only US car company left standing after the dust settles.
Q: Brad Pettengill - Out of the 4 games at the ECAC championship, which one was the best?
A: Of the four games I think that the Friday night game between Cornell and Princeton was the best. A full recap of the game can be found here and the boxscore is here. The main reason for this choice is the crowd rather than the hockey. The tickets I had for the game placed my friends and me in the right-hand section of the Cornell fans.
Before I go on let me just say for the record that Cornell fans are among the least original, most rude, and least subtle fans in the ECAC. Every single one of their chants either involved the word "sucks" or some variation of that theme, and were often incoherent. It was a joke when I was in the Clarkson Pep Band that all of Cornell's cheers were basically "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!" I always thought that it was just because we were across the arena from their fan section when we visited Lynah. Having just spent eight periods of hockey in the middle of their fan section I can report that even close up it's still just "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!"
One more thing: My biggest regret of the tournament is that neglected to wear my "Clarkson is Gorges" tee shirt that my sister had printed for me on my birthday a few years ago while she was attending Ithaca College. For those not in on the joke, there is a popular saying in Ithaca that "Ithaca is Gorges", playing on the fact that there are some nice gorges and waterfalls in the area. It's a dumb saying, but one that you can find on shirts, coffee mugs, and bumperstickers.
Anyway, even though the Cornell fans are obnoxious pricks they were numerous and enthusiastic, which made the atmosphere of the game better. They cheered loudly during the pre-game ceremonies, right down to the usual amplification of the word "Red" during the national anthem. Then the game started and Princeton scored almost right away, taking much of the wind out of the Cornell fan's sails. That wind was restored once Cornell finally scored, but then Princeton tacked on one more at the end of the first period and the wind died. The wind died even more at the start of the second period when Princeton scored again. Seeing the pain in the eyes of the Cornell fans was enjoyable.
Cornell decided to start playing during the second half of the third period. Actually it was one player named Evan Barlow who decided to start playing. He took the puck from coast-to-coast during a four on four and scored one of the prettiest goals I've seen in a long time. It was enough to wake the Cornell fans from their slumber. Then Cornell pulled their goalie with a minute left in the game and rather than give up an empty-net goal was actually able to score on Princeton. This happened twice in the tournament, which is remarkable since this move usually backfires in the ECAC (and all throughout hockey, now that I think about it).
When overtime began, even as one who really hates Cornell, I found myself getting swept up into the excitement of overtime hockey. It was hard not to. The Cornell fans were on edge and it was infectious. As overtime progressed I decided that I wanted Cornell to win if for no other reason than the fact that the championship game would be much better with that many Cornell fans there. Princeton/Yale would have been just depressing. Especially with the two sub-par bands that the teams brought with them.
When Cornell finally scored the winning goal in the second overtime the place erupted into a sea of joyous red cheering fans. And I felt happy for them, even as I wished for their utter and complete downfall in the championship game. Which came true, so everyone won, in a strange way.
Q: Todd Nielson - So who do you like in the Frozen Four?
A: I am not going to pretend to know much about the four teams playing, which are Boston University, Vermont, Bemidji State and Miami of Ohio. I don't follow college hockey closely enough to render an informed opinion on the subject. But you asked me who I like, not who I think will win, so I'll give that question some treatment.
Vermont: I can't possibly root for Vermont, both because of the 2001 ECAC playoff debacle and because, well, they're Vermont. [Ed: I thought you liked and admired hippies. You are sadly misinformed.]
Boston University: Boston University has been a rival of the University of Maine for many years, and since the University of Maine is the reason I exist in the first place (it's where my parents met) I can't root for them.
Miami of Ohio: There is only one true Miami. It is the land of Dave Barry, Miami Vice, and the Miami Sound Machine. And hockey is not a part of that true Miami.
Bemidji State: Since they're the smallest, least-likely school to win this tournament, and since everyone loves the underdog, I guess I'll jump on the long-shot bandwagon and support Bemidji State, if only to keep my spelling skills strong.
Q: Adam Barnello - Address my comment from the last Mitssob, please?
A: Sure thing. I've printed your comments below, and I'll intersperse my responses and further thoughts between paragraphs.
"Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends."
What wonderful prose this is! So deep! So meaningful! Well done, Barn! Oh, wait, I wrote that. Sorry.
By the same argument with which you justify your position for maintaining marijuana as illegal, you could easily rationalize the return of prohibition. Or the criminalization of tobacco. Both of these are, in a realistic view, as bad or worse than marijuana in terms of health effects as well as deaths associated with their use, and yet no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night. If we're being honest with ourselves here, one is really no different than the other, except the prohibition on alcohol was repealed.
On your first point I will respond with two of my favorite words: "So what?" What is the problem with the return of prohibition? Or banning tobacco? Yes, it clashes violently with my libertarian side, which is even now shouting, "Tim, how dare you suggest such a thing!" while shaking its fist indignantly. But ultimately we live in a society where the people get to decide these things. If society decides that it once again wants to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol then I'm not going to stand in the way. There is a vocal portion of American society that rails against the evils of tobacco. If they had their way all tobacco would be banned. Should that be allowed? Personally I don't think so, but again, if society decides it then I'm not going to get in the way.
Random detour: Personally I think that a lot of the anger at tobacco companies is misdirected. I believe that, all things considered, alcohol is actually much worse than tobacco. Tobacco harms one person but doesn't change their behavior. Alcohol is a behavior-modifier, and that can be much worse. I've never heard a story of a person who smokes a cigarette and then goes and beats their spouse or child. But I'm sure we've all heard of or experienced first-hand the violence that alcohol causes when abused.
This concludes our random detour. Back to your regularly schedule answer.
Second, I have a problem with the tone of the second part of your comment, specifically the, "no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night." Really? You can speak for everyone who thinks marijuana should be illegal? Accusing ones ideological opponents of hypocrisy and/or inconsistency allows you to dismiss them without engaging their arguments, but it doesn't make your own arguments any better or worse. I can turn right around and say that people who think cigarettes should be illegal have no problem toking up every once in a while. Is it true? I'm sure that there are some people who fall into that category, albeit probably a minority. But putting that statement forward allows me to dismiss arguments against smoking without having to think. And that's not healthy for a debate.
On top of that I don't see the connection. Some people who think marijuana should be illegal drink alcohol. So? It's a non-sequitor. One is legal, the other is not. Yes, yes, I know that the argument is that marijuana is as harmless as alcohol. That doesn't change the fact that one is illegal and one isn't. That's the difference.
It bothers me that you've fallen back onto the party line of "Marijuana is a drug. Drugs are bad." Even as someone who has never used it, and has no interest in doing so, I'd hope you could differentiate between the myths and the truths about it.
I have "fallen back onto the party line" because it is a belief that I hold. Are all drugs bad? To me that's similar to asking if guns are bad. Drugs are drugs. One can cure disease, the other can get you high. I believe that the use of drugs to get a high is something that should not be encouraged by society. Period. Doesn't matter whether it's pot or alcohol or crystal meth. Are there degrees of "badness" to illegal drugs? Of course. And the laws reflect that. If we want that changed, then we need to change the laws, and by extension change society's point of view on these drugs. That's the right way to handle the situation.
Finally, as I said in my original answer, I'm not entirely rational on this subject. I'm allowing emotion to control me more than usual lately. It's something I'm aware of, and am trying to manage. This is because I see my beliefs on a wide range of issues being scorned and tossed aside by a vocal and increasingly powerful minority of society. And that bothers me much more than I let on since I know that nearly all of my friends and loved ones belong to that minority. It's wildly frustrating in a way that's going to continue causing me pain until I figure out what to do about it. And given my emotionally fragile state that's difficult to do.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
45 - Answers
Q: Lisa Jeffers - Can I go on disability until this baby decides to come out?
A: I believe that if you have a medical need you can go on disability prior to giving birth to your daughter. What exactly "medical need" means is unclear to me, though. If your doctor said that you needed full bed rest then I'm sure that qualifies. General discomfort? That's probably pushing it a bit. I've never been pregnant so I can't speak to how much discomfort it causes, and thus what the line between normal discomfort and disability-level discomfort isn't something I can speak to. I suppose that if you said that you were having trouble doing your job then you could probably go on disability until your daughter is born.
Another answer to the problem is to negotiate with your employer for more time for maternity leave. You could negotiate it such that you get, for example, two weeks prior to your due date plus the time after the birth, which according to Parents.com is 12 weeks in the state of New York. As an unmarried childless male I admit that this isn't something I think about. I know that my employer has a policy about parental leave but I have no idea what it is. I could learn with a simple phone call to HR, and that's something I'll do in time.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Do you know any doctors who will sign off on me going on disbility forever? I think I want to start milking the system like half the rest of the country.
A: Other than Dr. Nick, no, I don't.
Further, I don't believe that "half the rest of the country" is "milking the system". It does seem that way from the amount of noise we hear from the media about bailouts and foreclosures and the rest of it. But I think that most of the country is playing by the rules and doing the right things. The question is should they? I don't have a good answer right now. If only someone would ask me...
Q: Lisa Jeffers - Only half of the country, Bill?
Okay a real question: Why do we (as in the middle class) continue to respect a financial system that obviously favors the people that make morally and financially stupid choices? Am I naive/uninformed, or does it make more sense right now to buy a house that is way out of your price range, don't make payments on it, and get bailed out?
A: Well look at that, someone asked! Thanks, Lisa!
The cynical answer is that yes, you should absolutely just take advantage of the system. When you and Bill were house shopping you should have gone for something that was at least twice as expensive as you could afford. Then when you started to fall behind on your payments you should have just stopped paying. After all, it's your right to have a house, right? (Notice that I said "have", not "own".) And by a strange coincidence, your decision to stop paying your mortgage would have coincided with the government's decision to bail out people exactly like you. So you would have successfully milked the system. Congratulations.
But I don't want to be cynical. I want to try and handle this rationally. So let me tackle your question a piece at a time.
First, the term "middle class" is one that is thrown around a lot, and since I'm a big believer that language needs to be clarified I want to talk about it for a minute. I would guess that the vast majority of American citizens believe themselves to be in the middle class, regardless of how much money they make. I believe that this is because they want to be part of the majority of the country. If you're "middle class" then you're just a normal, hard-working American. You're not one of those evil rich people (who probably screwed you to get rich), but you're also not poor. It's a psychological need, and there's really nothing wrong with it. But it can lead to some interesting class warfare discourse.
Since that's not the point of your question, though, I won't go into further discussion here. The point to keep in mind is that "middle class" means different things in different parts of the country due to the differences in cost of living. A couple living in New York City may make $300,000/year and be middle class, while another couple living in Kansas City, Kansas may make $80,000/year and also be middle class. The thing to remember is that those people in Kansas probably see $300,000/year as being rich.
I realize that all of this may be obvious and that it might sound like I'm talking down to you. I don't mean to. I just wanted to say it anyway to keep it fresh in your minds.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that we have "a financial system that obviously favors the people that make morally and financially stupid choices." Your sentiment is correct but I think that your anger is a little misdirected. Left alone I believe that the financial system would have performed just fine and that the "crisis" that we find ourselves in would have been avoided completely. How can I say that? As I see it the problem is not the financial system. It's the political system. And I say that in a non-partisan way as you'll see in the argument that follows.
Politicians during the 1990s and 2000s felt that the dream of owning a home (the so-called American Dream) was out of reach to too many people in the country. If more people owned homes as a result of the actions of politicians, then those people would vote for the politicians. Cynical? Yes. Accurate? Also yes. These politicians decided to put pressure on banks and lending institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (which are both government entities) to loosen lending practices.
The result?
1. More and more people began to buy homes, which caused a rise in home values thanks to the age-old economic law of supply and demand.
2. That rise in home values led to even more buyers entering the market. People were told that their home would increase in value, and thus that they should buy more house than they thought they could afford. The rise in value would make up the difference, and you could just turn around and sell the house for a big profit.
3. That led to people "flipping" houses, and to speculators risking big to buy houses on the theory that the values would just keep going up and up.
But what goes up must ultimately come down. People gradually stopped buying houses which caused home values to start to drop. The homeowners who had bought more than they could afford suddenly found themselves "under water", meaning that they had a mortgage that was more than the value of their home. They then began to stop paying, which caused banks to start to fail. Credit supplies dried up, which caused more problems and have led us to where we are today.
Now for our first moral issue: is the blame for the housing boom and bust on the buyer or on the seller? Is it with the person who bought more house than they could afford or with the lender who lent them the money? Remember, the lenders were being told to offer more people the chance at the American Dream. So did they do immoral things to meet that demand? Absolutely, and some blame lies with them. But in my opinion the majority of the blame lies with the people who signed mortgages for more than they could afford. Personal responsibility trumps all as I see it.
Having caused the problem in the first place politicians now see it as their duty to fix the problem. Which is very nice of them. But the reasons for fixing the problem are as cynical as what caused the problem int he first place. Bailing out people who made poor decisions is a sure way to keep them voting for you. "It's not your fault," they say, "it's those predatory lenders. They fooled you, tricked you!" Which is what people want to hear, after all. No one wants to be told that they screwed up. They just want their money back.
So after all that rambling, what's my answer? The way I look at it if you get bailed out by the government then the government in essence owns you. That which the government can give, the government can take away. It may seem like you should just start cheating and let the government bail you out. But if you do that then you're a slave to that same government. In addition there are still rules in place regarding lending. Those people who bought too much house and tried to live beyond their means will have difficulty getting loans in the future. Additionally there is growing public anger about this issue, and politicians respond to anger. Maybe they'll even get things right this time.
Finally, you're not "naive/uninformed". Quite the contrary. Your question is a good one. It shows that you've been paying attention and that you're angry at what you see as injustice. And no, I don't mean to patronize you by saying this. I'm happy that people are paying attention. It makes for good questions for me to answer.
Q: Eric Democko - Continuing with the beer and porn theme, should the government (federal or state) legalize marijuana?
A: You've hit on one of the issues where my libertarianism meets my social conservatism. These are the issues that I find I have the most trouble resolving, so thanks for the opportunity to think and muse about it.
First, let's get the disclaimer out of the way: I have not ever used marijuana. [Ed: You mean you didn't inhale? No, I mean I've never inhaled, exhaled, toked up, or anything else.] I have been around people under the influence and have observed its impact. I also know the stereotypes and cultural significance of the drug. But a user I am not, so my ramblings on the subject are going to be a little uninformed from that point of view.
The libertarian in me says, "Sure, legalize pot. What do I care what people do to themselves?" If someone wants to smoke themselves into oblivion it doesn't directly affect my life, and thus I don't really care. There may be indirect costs in the same way there are indirect costs for smokers and drinkers, but if I take a hands-off standpoint on those, then why not pot too?
A second argument in favor of legalizing marijuana is that it would free up law enforcement resources and the legal system. This is a compelling argument. Federal, state, and local governments spend millions (if not billions) of dollars every year prosecuting users of marijuana. If we just legalized pot then those dollars would be spent elsewhere. I would add that some of those dollars would be spent dealing with abuse of marijuana similar to the abuse of alcohol we have today, but the point is a valid one.
My socially conservative side asks, "What about the social ills caused by drug use?" It's a cliched argument, but not one that's invalid. Marijuana is a mind-altering substance. Prolonged use can have life-altering results. Do we want our society to condone the use of this substance? I won't go so far as to say that pot is a gateway drug that leads inexorably to harder drugs like cocaine, but by being permissive of one drug, why not others? A slippery-slope argument fits in this case. The day after pot is legalized there will be a movement to legalize all drugs. And that's something that is bad for society.
In my mind marijuana combines the worst aspects of smoking and alcohol use. You get the health impacts of smoke, plus the mind-altering impact of alcohol, all in one little joint. Yes, I know the impacts are different. And an argument can be made that if alcohol is legal, why not marijuana? It's not something I have a good answer for. In the end this is one of those issues where I let feelings rather than logic take over. I don't think that marijuana should be made legal, but I don't have strong rational reasons. I just feel it. Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends.
Below are a couple of websites on both sides of the issue:
Legalize: http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/, http://norml.org/
Keep Illegal: http://www.naturalism.org/marijuan1.htm
Q: Eric Democko - i just used the search feature on the blog- love it! thanks for putting everything up there. great resource
A: You're quite welcome. I'm slowly spreading my wings with this site. I've started posting on Facebook when I put up my answers in the hopes of generating more questions. Hopefully that forces me to answer questions faster and more concisely. [Ed: And better? What about better? That too.] I'm going back through all my answers and putting labels in for the various topics I've touched on. This is both for the reader and for my own bookkeeping. As I stated when I started this project I intend to write a book on questions, and some of the ones you've submitted will undoubtedly wind up getting some treatment.
Q: Tara - Question: Which is the better beer - Sam Adams White Ale or Harpoon 100 Barrel Series Maple Wheat?
A: I dislike wheat beers in general. I've had Sam Adams White Ale before, but not the Harpoon variety. I would guess that I would dislike them both equally, but since I'm biased towards Sam Adams in general I'll say that Sam Adams White Ale is better.
Q: Todd Nielson - Total newbie to Linux, particularly to Ubuntu (which you very kindly recommended). I downloaded the latest copy of Open Office, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to install it. What do I gotta do?
A: Open Office should have come with the install of Ubuntu that you did. If you click "Applications -> Office" there should be "Document", "Spreadsheet", etc. If you did not install Open Office then the easiest way to do it is to go to "Applications -> Add/Remove". That takes you to the Ubuntu software management tool, which will get you access to all sorts of neat applications. Search for "Open Office" and you should find it right away. Good luck!
Q: Todd Nielson - What is Norwegian Wood? And, if not self-explanatory, how do you know if it is good or not?
A: As far as I can tell Norwegian Wood can be one of many things:
- A book by Haruki Murakami (found here)
- A song by the Beatles (information here
- A low-quality wood used to make cheap furniture.
- A euphemism for a variety of sexual acts including masturbation and lesbianism.
Without knowing which one you meant it's hard for me to answer the second part of your question. If you mean the book or song, I've never read the book or heard the song, so good is in the eye of the beholder on those. If you mean the wood that comes from trees, by definition it's not very good so I'd say if you can't break a piece of it over your knee then you're in good shape. If you mean the wood that comes from, um, well, other activities, then that's a little too subjective for me to answer.
A: I believe that if you have a medical need you can go on disability prior to giving birth to your daughter. What exactly "medical need" means is unclear to me, though. If your doctor said that you needed full bed rest then I'm sure that qualifies. General discomfort? That's probably pushing it a bit. I've never been pregnant so I can't speak to how much discomfort it causes, and thus what the line between normal discomfort and disability-level discomfort isn't something I can speak to. I suppose that if you said that you were having trouble doing your job then you could probably go on disability until your daughter is born.
Another answer to the problem is to negotiate with your employer for more time for maternity leave. You could negotiate it such that you get, for example, two weeks prior to your due date plus the time after the birth, which according to Parents.com is 12 weeks in the state of New York. As an unmarried childless male I admit that this isn't something I think about. I know that my employer has a policy about parental leave but I have no idea what it is. I could learn with a simple phone call to HR, and that's something I'll do in time.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Do you know any doctors who will sign off on me going on disbility forever? I think I want to start milking the system like half the rest of the country.
A: Other than Dr. Nick, no, I don't.
Further, I don't believe that "half the rest of the country" is "milking the system". It does seem that way from the amount of noise we hear from the media about bailouts and foreclosures and the rest of it. But I think that most of the country is playing by the rules and doing the right things. The question is should they? I don't have a good answer right now. If only someone would ask me...
Q: Lisa Jeffers - Only half of the country, Bill?
Okay a real question: Why do we (as in the middle class) continue to respect a financial system that obviously favors the people that make morally and financially stupid choices? Am I naive/uninformed, or does it make more sense right now to buy a house that is way out of your price range, don't make payments on it, and get bailed out?
A: Well look at that, someone asked! Thanks, Lisa!
The cynical answer is that yes, you should absolutely just take advantage of the system. When you and Bill were house shopping you should have gone for something that was at least twice as expensive as you could afford. Then when you started to fall behind on your payments you should have just stopped paying. After all, it's your right to have a house, right? (Notice that I said "have", not "own".) And by a strange coincidence, your decision to stop paying your mortgage would have coincided with the government's decision to bail out people exactly like you. So you would have successfully milked the system. Congratulations.
But I don't want to be cynical. I want to try and handle this rationally. So let me tackle your question a piece at a time.
First, the term "middle class" is one that is thrown around a lot, and since I'm a big believer that language needs to be clarified I want to talk about it for a minute. I would guess that the vast majority of American citizens believe themselves to be in the middle class, regardless of how much money they make. I believe that this is because they want to be part of the majority of the country. If you're "middle class" then you're just a normal, hard-working American. You're not one of those evil rich people (who probably screwed you to get rich), but you're also not poor. It's a psychological need, and there's really nothing wrong with it. But it can lead to some interesting class warfare discourse.
Since that's not the point of your question, though, I won't go into further discussion here. The point to keep in mind is that "middle class" means different things in different parts of the country due to the differences in cost of living. A couple living in New York City may make $300,000/year and be middle class, while another couple living in Kansas City, Kansas may make $80,000/year and also be middle class. The thing to remember is that those people in Kansas probably see $300,000/year as being rich.
I realize that all of this may be obvious and that it might sound like I'm talking down to you. I don't mean to. I just wanted to say it anyway to keep it fresh in your minds.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that we have "a financial system that obviously favors the people that make morally and financially stupid choices." Your sentiment is correct but I think that your anger is a little misdirected. Left alone I believe that the financial system would have performed just fine and that the "crisis" that we find ourselves in would have been avoided completely. How can I say that? As I see it the problem is not the financial system. It's the political system. And I say that in a non-partisan way as you'll see in the argument that follows.
Politicians during the 1990s and 2000s felt that the dream of owning a home (the so-called American Dream) was out of reach to too many people in the country. If more people owned homes as a result of the actions of politicians, then those people would vote for the politicians. Cynical? Yes. Accurate? Also yes. These politicians decided to put pressure on banks and lending institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (which are both government entities) to loosen lending practices.
The result?
1. More and more people began to buy homes, which caused a rise in home values thanks to the age-old economic law of supply and demand.
2. That rise in home values led to even more buyers entering the market. People were told that their home would increase in value, and thus that they should buy more house than they thought they could afford. The rise in value would make up the difference, and you could just turn around and sell the house for a big profit.
3. That led to people "flipping" houses, and to speculators risking big to buy houses on the theory that the values would just keep going up and up.
But what goes up must ultimately come down. People gradually stopped buying houses which caused home values to start to drop. The homeowners who had bought more than they could afford suddenly found themselves "under water", meaning that they had a mortgage that was more than the value of their home. They then began to stop paying, which caused banks to start to fail. Credit supplies dried up, which caused more problems and have led us to where we are today.
Now for our first moral issue: is the blame for the housing boom and bust on the buyer or on the seller? Is it with the person who bought more house than they could afford or with the lender who lent them the money? Remember, the lenders were being told to offer more people the chance at the American Dream. So did they do immoral things to meet that demand? Absolutely, and some blame lies with them. But in my opinion the majority of the blame lies with the people who signed mortgages for more than they could afford. Personal responsibility trumps all as I see it.
Having caused the problem in the first place politicians now see it as their duty to fix the problem. Which is very nice of them. But the reasons for fixing the problem are as cynical as what caused the problem int he first place. Bailing out people who made poor decisions is a sure way to keep them voting for you. "It's not your fault," they say, "it's those predatory lenders. They fooled you, tricked you!" Which is what people want to hear, after all. No one wants to be told that they screwed up. They just want their money back.
So after all that rambling, what's my answer? The way I look at it if you get bailed out by the government then the government in essence owns you. That which the government can give, the government can take away. It may seem like you should just start cheating and let the government bail you out. But if you do that then you're a slave to that same government. In addition there are still rules in place regarding lending. Those people who bought too much house and tried to live beyond their means will have difficulty getting loans in the future. Additionally there is growing public anger about this issue, and politicians respond to anger. Maybe they'll even get things right this time.
Finally, you're not "naive/uninformed". Quite the contrary. Your question is a good one. It shows that you've been paying attention and that you're angry at what you see as injustice. And no, I don't mean to patronize you by saying this. I'm happy that people are paying attention. It makes for good questions for me to answer.
Q: Eric Democko - Continuing with the beer and porn theme, should the government (federal or state) legalize marijuana?
A: You've hit on one of the issues where my libertarianism meets my social conservatism. These are the issues that I find I have the most trouble resolving, so thanks for the opportunity to think and muse about it.
First, let's get the disclaimer out of the way: I have not ever used marijuana. [Ed: You mean you didn't inhale? No, I mean I've never inhaled, exhaled, toked up, or anything else.] I have been around people under the influence and have observed its impact. I also know the stereotypes and cultural significance of the drug. But a user I am not, so my ramblings on the subject are going to be a little uninformed from that point of view.
The libertarian in me says, "Sure, legalize pot. What do I care what people do to themselves?" If someone wants to smoke themselves into oblivion it doesn't directly affect my life, and thus I don't really care. There may be indirect costs in the same way there are indirect costs for smokers and drinkers, but if I take a hands-off standpoint on those, then why not pot too?
A second argument in favor of legalizing marijuana is that it would free up law enforcement resources and the legal system. This is a compelling argument. Federal, state, and local governments spend millions (if not billions) of dollars every year prosecuting users of marijuana. If we just legalized pot then those dollars would be spent elsewhere. I would add that some of those dollars would be spent dealing with abuse of marijuana similar to the abuse of alcohol we have today, but the point is a valid one.
My socially conservative side asks, "What about the social ills caused by drug use?" It's a cliched argument, but not one that's invalid. Marijuana is a mind-altering substance. Prolonged use can have life-altering results. Do we want our society to condone the use of this substance? I won't go so far as to say that pot is a gateway drug that leads inexorably to harder drugs like cocaine, but by being permissive of one drug, why not others? A slippery-slope argument fits in this case. The day after pot is legalized there will be a movement to legalize all drugs. And that's something that is bad for society.
In my mind marijuana combines the worst aspects of smoking and alcohol use. You get the health impacts of smoke, plus the mind-altering impact of alcohol, all in one little joint. Yes, I know the impacts are different. And an argument can be made that if alcohol is legal, why not marijuana? It's not something I have a good answer for. In the end this is one of those issues where I let feelings rather than logic take over. I don't think that marijuana should be made legal, but I don't have strong rational reasons. I just feel it. Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends.
Below are a couple of websites on both sides of the issue:
Legalize: http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/, http://norml.org/
Keep Illegal: http://www.naturalism.org/marijuan1.htm
Q: Eric Democko - i just used the search feature on the blog- love it! thanks for putting everything up there. great resource
A: You're quite welcome. I'm slowly spreading my wings with this site. I've started posting on Facebook when I put up my answers in the hopes of generating more questions. Hopefully that forces me to answer questions faster and more concisely. [Ed: And better? What about better? That too.] I'm going back through all my answers and putting labels in for the various topics I've touched on. This is both for the reader and for my own bookkeeping. As I stated when I started this project I intend to write a book on questions, and some of the ones you've submitted will undoubtedly wind up getting some treatment.
Q: Tara - Question: Which is the better beer - Sam Adams White Ale or Harpoon 100 Barrel Series Maple Wheat?
A: I dislike wheat beers in general. I've had Sam Adams White Ale before, but not the Harpoon variety. I would guess that I would dislike them both equally, but since I'm biased towards Sam Adams in general I'll say that Sam Adams White Ale is better.
Q: Todd Nielson - Total newbie to Linux, particularly to Ubuntu (which you very kindly recommended). I downloaded the latest copy of Open Office, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to install it. What do I gotta do?
A: Open Office should have come with the install of Ubuntu that you did. If you click "Applications -> Office" there should be "Document", "Spreadsheet", etc. If you did not install Open Office then the easiest way to do it is to go to "Applications -> Add/Remove". That takes you to the Ubuntu software management tool, which will get you access to all sorts of neat applications. Search for "Open Office" and you should find it right away. Good luck!
Q: Todd Nielson - What is Norwegian Wood? And, if not self-explanatory, how do you know if it is good or not?
A: As far as I can tell Norwegian Wood can be one of many things:
- A book by Haruki Murakami (found here)
- A song by the Beatles (information here
- A low-quality wood used to make cheap furniture.
- A euphemism for a variety of sexual acts including masturbation and lesbianism.
Without knowing which one you meant it's hard for me to answer the second part of your question. If you mean the book or song, I've never read the book or heard the song, so good is in the eye of the beholder on those. If you mean the wood that comes from trees, by definition it's not very good so I'd say if you can't break a piece of it over your knee then you're in good shape. If you mean the wood that comes from, um, well, other activities, then that's a little too subjective for me to answer.
Friday, February 13, 2009
44 - Answers
It didn't occur to me until I started answering these questions that this week I had to research both beer AND porn. I love this job.
Q: Eric Democko - as previously discussed, please provide us with a detailed history of the India Pale Ale (citing more than just wikipedia or wikipanion). and what are some of the top rated ones? (maybe on beeradvocate?)
A: I spent some time looking around both the Internet and my local public library for an answer to this question. What follows is a quick history of India Pale Ale; for a more complete history just follow the links that follow.
India Pale Ale was invented to solve a problem: getting beer to the British armed forces serving all over the globe during the heyday of the British Empire. Journeys to the far reaches of the Empire (most notably India) took months, passed through hot climates, and resulted in beer that flat, stale, and undrinkable when it arrived. Throughout the 18th century there were many attempts to solve this problem, including such clever ideas as removing the water from the beer and making the soldiers add it themselves when it arrived.
The problem was solved by a brewer named George Hodgson who worked at the Bow Brewery in East London. In the days before refrigeration was available to preserve beer brewers had two ways to keep beer fresh: alcohol and hops. Hodgson took a recipe for Pale Ale that he'd used since the 1750's and vastly increased the amount of hops and alcohol (often up to 10% by volume). This meant that the beer would arrive at its destination, if not "fresh" then less bad. The beer was a hit and has evolved since then into a popular variety to this day.
From "The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing" by Dave Miller: "This beer was brewed very strong and well hopped because it was intended for a long sea voyage, at the end of which it fortified Her Majesty's troops during the heyday of the British Raj. These days IPA is scarcely stronger than ordinary pale ale, but is usually hoppier."
Below are links to some good articles that helped me form this answer:
http://www.evansale.com/india-pale-ale-article.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_pale_ale
http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/styles/2_2style.html
As requested I went to http://www.beeradvocate.com to find the top rated IPAs. They can be found here and in the list below:
1. India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Meantime Brewing Company Limited
2. Blackheart - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Three Floyds Brewing Co. / Brewery & Pub
3. Drake's IPA - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Drake's Brewing Co.
4. 1800 Old English IPA - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Minneapolis Town Hall Brewery
5. Lost Sailor India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Berkshire Brewing Company Inc.
6. Schlafly Export India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Saint Louis Brewery / Schlafly Tap Room
7. Black Toque - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Phillips Brewing Company
8. Golding Indian Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Brasserie Bièropholie
9. Thulza Doom - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Three Floyds Brewing Co. / Brewery & Pub
10. Fuller's India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Fuller Smith & Turner PLC
Personally I'm not a fan of IPAs. I did buy a six-pack of Harpoon IPA to help my research of this question, and I liked it as much as I liked the IPA we had at the Tap and Mallet beer tasting event, which was not very much.
Brett Gobe - Salty or sweet snacks?
A: Overall I'm a salty snacker. I've always had a soft spot in my heart for popcorn, with movie theatre popcorn being one of my few true vices in this world. I have also been a fan of pretzels over the past few years. A couple guys I work with have introduced me to some very tasty varieties including honey-wheat and butter-salt.
Q: Bill Jeffers - When did the pornography industry get into full...um...swing?
A: Pornography has existed in one form or another since the dawn of mankind. There has been erotic imagery and artwork throughout history, starting with paintings and sculpture and proceeding all the way to live video on the Internet. The "Porn Industry" is a concept that emerged in the 20th century as pornography moved from an ad-hoc nature to something that responded to consumer demand.
I think the proper answer to your question lies in the date when pornography began to enter the mainstream of society. I place that date at December of 1953, which is the date that Hugh Hefner first published the magazine Playboy (all links are to Wikipedia to make this answer as SFW as possible). This magazine took pornography from seedy bookstores and theatres and into the homes of millions of people (albeit mostly college males). After Playboy came Penthouse and Hustler, which spawned literally hundreds of other magazines.
Once porn became more mainstream that opened the door for the establishment of the porn movie industry. This industry really got going during the late 1970s and 1980s with the advent of home movie players. It is widely accepted that once the porn industry adopted VHS as its medium of choice for video distribution the format wars of the 1980s were over. Building on these successes led to the proliferation of pornography on the Internet.
Q: Adam Barnello - If it's Tim and "I," then who, pray tell, is the editor?
A: Something I've used as a literary device for many years is a surrogate personality that I can use to explore my psyche. [Ed: So you mean I'm not real? I'm afraid not.] On my old Clarkson website I conducted a few self-interviews using this surrogate personality. I find it an amusing way to explore my personality and to give people a window into my thought process. One of my favorite bloggers Glenn Reynolds uses this technique from time to time in his blog posts as a way to put little tongue-in-cheek comments into his posts.
So the answer to your question is that I am my own editor. Not quite in the same way that I am my own drummer, but close.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - How do you feel about a private equity company(KPS Capital) buying a locally/family/employee owned and operated business(High falls Brewery)?
A: My feelings about such acquisitions depend on the circumstances involved. As I understand the story, High Falls Brewery was in danger of going bankrupt and this private equity company came along and bought them to save them. This saved many local jobs and preserved a popular local business. In general I do not have a problem with large corporate ownership of something so long as that corporate ownership does not change the thing. In this case it seems to me that had the equity firm not come along and bought High Falls then it would have shut down. The real answer here will only emerge in time. If the buyers live up to their word and keep the brewery open and growing then I'd say that the sale was a good one.
Q: Eric Democko - as previously discussed, please provide us with a detailed history of the India Pale Ale (citing more than just wikipedia or wikipanion). and what are some of the top rated ones? (maybe on beeradvocate?)
A: I spent some time looking around both the Internet and my local public library for an answer to this question. What follows is a quick history of India Pale Ale; for a more complete history just follow the links that follow.
India Pale Ale was invented to solve a problem: getting beer to the British armed forces serving all over the globe during the heyday of the British Empire. Journeys to the far reaches of the Empire (most notably India) took months, passed through hot climates, and resulted in beer that flat, stale, and undrinkable when it arrived. Throughout the 18th century there were many attempts to solve this problem, including such clever ideas as removing the water from the beer and making the soldiers add it themselves when it arrived.
The problem was solved by a brewer named George Hodgson who worked at the Bow Brewery in East London. In the days before refrigeration was available to preserve beer brewers had two ways to keep beer fresh: alcohol and hops. Hodgson took a recipe for Pale Ale that he'd used since the 1750's and vastly increased the amount of hops and alcohol (often up to 10% by volume). This meant that the beer would arrive at its destination, if not "fresh" then less bad. The beer was a hit and has evolved since then into a popular variety to this day.
From "The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing" by Dave Miller: "This beer was brewed very strong and well hopped because it was intended for a long sea voyage, at the end of which it fortified Her Majesty's troops during the heyday of the British Raj. These days IPA is scarcely stronger than ordinary pale ale, but is usually hoppier."
Below are links to some good articles that helped me form this answer:
http://www.evansale.com/india-pale-ale-article.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_pale_ale
http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/styles/2_2style.html
As requested I went to http://www.beeradvocate.com to find the top rated IPAs. They can be found here and in the list below:
1. India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Meantime Brewing Company Limited
2. Blackheart - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Three Floyds Brewing Co. / Brewery & Pub
3. Drake's IPA - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Drake's Brewing Co.
4. 1800 Old English IPA - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Minneapolis Town Hall Brewery
5. Lost Sailor India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Berkshire Brewing Company Inc.
6. Schlafly Export India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Saint Louis Brewery / Schlafly Tap Room
7. Black Toque - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Phillips Brewing Company
8. Golding Indian Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Brasserie Bièropholie
9. Thulza Doom - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Three Floyds Brewing Co. / Brewery & Pub
10. Fuller's India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Fuller Smith & Turner PLC
Personally I'm not a fan of IPAs. I did buy a six-pack of Harpoon IPA to help my research of this question, and I liked it as much as I liked the IPA we had at the Tap and Mallet beer tasting event, which was not very much.
Brett Gobe - Salty or sweet snacks?
A: Overall I'm a salty snacker. I've always had a soft spot in my heart for popcorn, with movie theatre popcorn being one of my few true vices in this world. I have also been a fan of pretzels over the past few years. A couple guys I work with have introduced me to some very tasty varieties including honey-wheat and butter-salt.
Q: Bill Jeffers - When did the pornography industry get into full...um...swing?
A: Pornography has existed in one form or another since the dawn of mankind. There has been erotic imagery and artwork throughout history, starting with paintings and sculpture and proceeding all the way to live video on the Internet. The "Porn Industry" is a concept that emerged in the 20th century as pornography moved from an ad-hoc nature to something that responded to consumer demand.
I think the proper answer to your question lies in the date when pornography began to enter the mainstream of society. I place that date at December of 1953, which is the date that Hugh Hefner first published the magazine Playboy (all links are to Wikipedia to make this answer as SFW as possible). This magazine took pornography from seedy bookstores and theatres and into the homes of millions of people (albeit mostly college males). After Playboy came Penthouse and Hustler, which spawned literally hundreds of other magazines.
Once porn became more mainstream that opened the door for the establishment of the porn movie industry. This industry really got going during the late 1970s and 1980s with the advent of home movie players. It is widely accepted that once the porn industry adopted VHS as its medium of choice for video distribution the format wars of the 1980s were over. Building on these successes led to the proliferation of pornography on the Internet.
Q: Adam Barnello - If it's Tim and "I," then who, pray tell, is the editor?
A: Something I've used as a literary device for many years is a surrogate personality that I can use to explore my psyche. [Ed: So you mean I'm not real? I'm afraid not.] On my old Clarkson website I conducted a few self-interviews using this surrogate personality. I find it an amusing way to explore my personality and to give people a window into my thought process. One of my favorite bloggers Glenn Reynolds uses this technique from time to time in his blog posts as a way to put little tongue-in-cheek comments into his posts.
So the answer to your question is that I am my own editor. Not quite in the same way that I am my own drummer, but close.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - How do you feel about a private equity company(KPS Capital) buying a locally/family/employee owned and operated business(High falls Brewery)?
A: My feelings about such acquisitions depend on the circumstances involved. As I understand the story, High Falls Brewery was in danger of going bankrupt and this private equity company came along and bought them to save them. This saved many local jobs and preserved a popular local business. In general I do not have a problem with large corporate ownership of something so long as that corporate ownership does not change the thing. In this case it seems to me that had the equity firm not come along and bought High Falls then it would have shut down. The real answer here will only emerge in time. If the buyers live up to their word and keep the brewery open and growing then I'd say that the sale was a good one.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
37 - Answer(s)
Q: Bill Jeffers - ANSWER MY QUESTION ALREADY! Why do we call chicken meat chicken, turkey meat turkey, but we call cow meat beef, pig meat pork, etc. Is it because there are so many different types of cow and pig cut? Or do birds get special treatment in the meat world?
A: To answer this question we must venture back to 1066 and the Norman conquest of England (Wikipedia article here). There are two things that we’re interested in about the invasion. First, the invading Normans spoke Old French and the English spoke Old English. Second, following the invasion a new nobility was formed by the conquering Normans while the English made up the peasant class. Lots of other things are interesting about the conquest, but these two basic facts are all we need to answer the question.
The establishment of these new classes and differences in languages meant that the same animal was now known by two different words depending on where the animal was. The peasants called their livestock in their fields by their Old English names. These can be roughly translated as “cow”, “pig”, “sheep”, etc. The Norman nobles referred to the meat that they were being served at table by the Old French names for the animals the meat came from. Thus, “cow” became “bouef” (beef), pig became “porc” (pork), “sheep” became “moutons” (mutton).
Now what about chicken and turkey? Well they are technically considered another French word, “poultry”. But I suspect that the languages were merged more by then, and that they used the same word on the farm and at the table.
Q: Sarah LaBombard - After just talking to you, word on the street is that you're a big puss.....is this true?
A: I am a big puss. A huge puss, in fact. My puss-itude knows no bounds.
But what is meant by “puss”? Well the main way that I think I’m a puss is my lack of courage in certain situations. For example, I don’t like calling strangers on the phone. I get uncomfortable, nervous, and often sound like a moron. The only way I can avoid this is to rehearse what I’m going to say. Sometimes I go so far as to write out notes before the call so I can keep myself on track.
There are other ways I could get into, but I’ll save them for another time. For now it’s enough to know that yes, I am a big puss.
Q: Karyn Graves - Why is the location of a one game playoff based on a coin toss instead of head-to-head record, or even most runs scored???
A: Every year Major League Baseball flips a coin for every possible tiebreaking game during the runup to the playoffs. This is something that’s escaped my notice, which makes me feel somewhat sheepish.
My first reaction is to agree with you, Karyn. It makes sense that the regular season matchups between the two teams tied for a playoff spot should factor into how that tie gets resolved. Head to head record does seem the most logical thing. The question then becomes did the two teams play each other an equal number of times at each other’s home field. Generally this is true, so it makes sense to use head-to-head matchup to decide such things.
The coin toss adds randomness to the process, which can be said to add fairness. The theory is that it doesn't matter how you did during the regular season when it comes to the playoffs. Why should regular season performance come into play when deciding where a playoff is played? My answer to that question is that regular season performance DOES matter in the playoffs, specifically in the area of seeding. Because of that it stands to reason that regular season matchups should be used in determining playoff location. If and only if there is a tie on that front should they resort to a coin flip.
In closing, I'm very sorry that the Twins lost the coin toss and subsequently the one-game playoff to the White Sox. I was rooting for you. May your luck improve next year.
A: To answer this question we must venture back to 1066 and the Norman conquest of England (Wikipedia article here). There are two things that we’re interested in about the invasion. First, the invading Normans spoke Old French and the English spoke Old English. Second, following the invasion a new nobility was formed by the conquering Normans while the English made up the peasant class. Lots of other things are interesting about the conquest, but these two basic facts are all we need to answer the question.
The establishment of these new classes and differences in languages meant that the same animal was now known by two different words depending on where the animal was. The peasants called their livestock in their fields by their Old English names. These can be roughly translated as “cow”, “pig”, “sheep”, etc. The Norman nobles referred to the meat that they were being served at table by the Old French names for the animals the meat came from. Thus, “cow” became “bouef” (beef), pig became “porc” (pork), “sheep” became “moutons” (mutton).
Now what about chicken and turkey? Well they are technically considered another French word, “poultry”. But I suspect that the languages were merged more by then, and that they used the same word on the farm and at the table.
Q: Sarah LaBombard - After just talking to you, word on the street is that you're a big puss.....is this true?
A: I am a big puss. A huge puss, in fact. My puss-itude knows no bounds.
But what is meant by “puss”? Well the main way that I think I’m a puss is my lack of courage in certain situations. For example, I don’t like calling strangers on the phone. I get uncomfortable, nervous, and often sound like a moron. The only way I can avoid this is to rehearse what I’m going to say. Sometimes I go so far as to write out notes before the call so I can keep myself on track.
There are other ways I could get into, but I’ll save them for another time. For now it’s enough to know that yes, I am a big puss.
Q: Karyn Graves - Why is the location of a one game playoff based on a coin toss instead of head-to-head record, or even most runs scored???
A: Every year Major League Baseball flips a coin for every possible tiebreaking game during the runup to the playoffs. This is something that’s escaped my notice, which makes me feel somewhat sheepish.
My first reaction is to agree with you, Karyn. It makes sense that the regular season matchups between the two teams tied for a playoff spot should factor into how that tie gets resolved. Head to head record does seem the most logical thing. The question then becomes did the two teams play each other an equal number of times at each other’s home field. Generally this is true, so it makes sense to use head-to-head matchup to decide such things.
The coin toss adds randomness to the process, which can be said to add fairness. The theory is that it doesn't matter how you did during the regular season when it comes to the playoffs. Why should regular season performance come into play when deciding where a playoff is played? My answer to that question is that regular season performance DOES matter in the playoffs, specifically in the area of seeding. Because of that it stands to reason that regular season matchups should be used in determining playoff location. If and only if there is a tie on that front should they resort to a coin flip.
In closing, I'm very sorry that the Twins lost the coin toss and subsequently the one-game playoff to the White Sox. I was rooting for you. May your luck improve next year.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
20 - Answers (Part 2)
What follows are very long answers to the final two questions from the last installment of "Ask Mitssob".
Q: Bill Jeffers - Do you seriously think George Bush II was good for this country???
A: Before I actually answer your question, I’d like to discuss the wording of the question itself. Simply reading your question aloud leads me to think that you already know the answer, and that nothing I say is going to convince you one way or another. But I know you, Bill, and I know that you’re a reasonable man (and no, I don’t mean to patronize you). I’ll do my best to convince you that my answer is correct.
Your choice to call President Bush “George Bush II” gives me the chance to discuss something that has been bothering me since the 2000 Presidential campaign. The current President of the United States is named George Walker Bush. He is not “George Bush II”, nor is he “George Bush Jr.” I realize that it seems like a minor thing, but I think it’s important.
In order to properly answer this question I will look at the President’s performance in regards to three large areas that all Presidents must deal with: economics, judges, and national security. I’ll discuss what he has done, and lay it against what I think of his actions. In this way I should be able to come to an answer to your question. Let me preface this by saying that my analysis is by no means complete. There are other areas that Presidents must deal with, and if you’d like me to comment on these, then feel free to ask. I could obviously spend more time on this, but I think I’ve come to a good answer.
First up is economics. While the ultimate responsibility for setting tax rates and budgets belongs to the Congress, the President submits economic proposals for consideration. The economic health of the United States is generally considered to be a good barometer of the performance of a President, and thus I think it’s a good measure of how good a President has been for this country.
So how has the US fared economically during the Bush administration? During the campaign of 2000 the economy was heading into a recession. I specifically remember then-candidate Bush bringing that fact up several times, only to be laughed at and dismissed as trying to talk down the Clinton administration. When President Bush took office in January of 2001, the economy had entered a recession, exactly as he had predicted. The stock market “bubble” had burst, and projected budget surpluses had become actual budget deficits. In short, things were on the decline. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the economy took another major shock. Unemployment climbed, the stock market continued down.
As is usually the case with matters of economics, the current President gets blame (or credit, as the case may be) for the economy that their predecessor leaves behind. In this case, President Bush was immediately tagged with the recession. In the months following 9/11, the President implemented a strategy to reverse the recession. That strategy worked. Therefore, credit for the economic recovery that followed the recession belongs to President Bush. Let me repeat that: President Bush is in large measure responsible for the healthy and strong economy that exists today. He lowered tax rates for all Americans, which put more money into the economy as a whole. He cut capital gains taxes which encouraged investment. The investment led to jobs, which led to lower unemployment, which led to more people making more money. It also led to a surge in the stock markets in America, which created more wealth both for corporations and individuals. In fact, the only area I wish that the President had done a better job with was putting pressure on Congress to lower spending by the federal government.
If you don’t believe me, or think that I’m painting a rosy picture, then ask yourself this: economically, how are you doing? Do you have a job? Does it pay well? Do you own a house? If so, what interest rate are you paying? How are your friends doing? Do they have jobs? Do they own houses? If the economy were doing poorly, would you be able to answer those questions the same way? I didn’t think so. Speaking for myself, economically I’m doing fine. Quite well, in fact. Therefore, I think that President Bush has been very good for this country economically.
Next, let me talk for a brief moment about the judicial branch. One of the ways that a President can leave his mark on the country is in the area of judicial nominations, both to federal courts and to the Supreme Court. I personally think that President Bush has been good for the country in this area. He has nominated highly qualified judges to the federal bench, and his two nominees to the Supreme Court were both excellent men. What I like about his nominees is that they believe that the role of a judge is as an interpreter of laws, not the creator of laws. I share this belief, which is why I think the President has been good for the country in this area.
Finally, let me cover the very broad area of national security. This is the primary purpose of the President of the United States. According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of all armed forces of the United States. What he says, goes.
On September 11th, 2001, the United States of America was the victim of a terrorist attack. Does President Bush deserve some blame for not preventing this attack? Absolutely. Excuses can be made, of course. He had only been in office for nine months at the time of the attacks. Given the nature of governmental bureaucracy, any policy changes he might have desired did not have time to be implemented. However, there were indications that an attack was coming, and those indications were not handled properly. The President, as I said before, is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him.
In response to the attacks of 9/11, President Bush openly declared war on terrorism. He launched a military campaign to oust some of the organizational structure behind the attacks from the nation of Afghanistan. Was this specific action good for our country? Honestly, I don’t think so. Do I think that 9/11 merited a response? Absolutely. But what that response should have been I am not sure. Do I fault the President for his actions in this area? No, not really. He was under pressure to do something, and overthrowing the Taliban was certainly not the worst thing he could have done. Doing nothing would have been the worst thing. The President understood that, and so he plotted a course of action and followed it. The fact that he did something was good for the country, though again, I would probably have chosen a different course.
Then in April of 2002 the buildup to the eventual War in Iraq began. To set the stage, I’m going to make a number of assertions. If you doubt these, then look them up yourself. I don’t have the time or the patience for an argument.
- Iraq was in violation of 14 separate UN Resolutions in April of 2003.
- The war that had been declared against Iraq in 1991 had never legally ended. Sadaam Hussein was in violation of the cease-fire that had been established with the United States by firing at American military planes flying patrols in the no-fly zone over central Iraq.
- There were stockpiles of “weapons of mass destruction” (consisting primarily of chemical weapons) in Iraq. Those weapons were moved from Iraq to Syria during the year long buildup to the war between April of 2002 and April of 2003.
- There were functional ties between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda (the group behind 9/11). By “functional ties” I do not mean “Iraq was responsible for 9/11”. And by the way, I find it insulting that I even had to type that previous sentence.
- Iraq provided material support to terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East.
In April of 2003 the invasion of Iraq began, concluding a few weeks later with the capture of the capital of Baghdad. In the three and a half years that followed, the United States has been fighting to give the Iraqi people a chance to govern themselves. This has resulted in the deaths of over 3000 American servicemen, and the deaths of tens of thousands of terrorists.
So has this been good for the country? That’s hard to say. I think that the end result of the war (a stable and democratic Iraq) will be good for the country. However, the public face of that war is most certainly not good for this country. The terrorists know this, which is why they continue to stage attacks in Iraq. I use the word "stage" very carefully. They know that by showing American citizens death, American citizens will eventually become tired of it and demand an end to it. It is happening now, and it is definitely not good for the country. So my final verdict on national security is that the President has not been good for the country. I believe that his heart is in the right place, but his actions have not played out in the ways that I would have liked.
I can think of one additional way that President Bush has been “bad” for the country, though I cannot blame him for it. The level of discourse in America has been reduced substantially since President Bush’s election in 2000. In fact, the election itself became the catalyst for this. There are people to this day who fervently believe that the election was stolen, that President Bush is not the properly elected President of the United States of America. To those people I can only say that I’m sorry you believe that, and I wish you all the best, but I can’t talk to you. I just can’t. You believe something that simply isn’t true, and because it is a belief I can’t convince you otherwise.
And this is my point. Much of the hatred of the President is something that cannot be reasoned with, cannot be rationalized, and cannot be truly countered. People just hate the man. Not just his policies, not just the actions he has taken as President. They hate the man himself. I find this sad. Really. Again, is this the President’s fault? No, I don’t think so. But it hasn’t been good for the country, and I’d be foolish to ignore it.
So what’s the final answer? According to my own scorecard, I think that there is no doubt that President Bush has been good for this country. No doubt at all. People who think otherwise are welcome to their opinions, of course. But that’s my answer. Thanks for the question, Bill. I enjoyed this exercise quite a bit.
Q: Jennifer Walden - Which is more difficult? Admitting you have a problem, or doing something about it?
A: Speaking only for myself, I have always found it easier to admit that I have a problem than to do something about it. To be more specific, I find it easier to admit that there IS a problem. My outward hyperactivity notwithstanding, at my core I am a very shy person. I tend to be fairly passive when it comes to most situations. Therefore, I find it pretty easy to recognize problems, but much harder to break the status quo and do something about them. I'm the kind of person who likes to leave well enough alone, and one for whom if a problem isn't beating me upside the head, I tend to just let it slide.
One area where this question is relevant is the field of addiction. The only addiction I have at present is to caffeine. I have been hooked since the summer of 2001. I am a typical addict, in that I know that I can quit (and tell myself that I can quit any time), but don't for a variety of reasons. I'm atypical in that I know that I have a problem, but choose not to do anything about it. I do this because as addictions go, caffeine is a mild one. Physiologically, I know that if I were to quit my body would protest, but I'd eventually get through it with little difficulty.
Speaking more philosophically, knowledge of one’s self is something that many people have a problem with. It’s hard to look into the mirror, ask yourself if something is wrong, and get an honest answer. I have encountered this in my own life, as I'm sure everyone has. Sometimes it is only through the eyes of other people can we truly see ourselves. This is the purpose of things like interventions. Friends and loved ones gather around an addict and force them to confront their problem. In cases such as these, I would argue that doing something is easier than admitting the problem.
So in the end it comes down to the person. What kind of person are you? Ask yourself this question. I think you'll be surprised by the way that your mind wraps itself around it.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Do you seriously think George Bush II was good for this country???
A: Before I actually answer your question, I’d like to discuss the wording of the question itself. Simply reading your question aloud leads me to think that you already know the answer, and that nothing I say is going to convince you one way or another. But I know you, Bill, and I know that you’re a reasonable man (and no, I don’t mean to patronize you). I’ll do my best to convince you that my answer is correct.
Your choice to call President Bush “George Bush II” gives me the chance to discuss something that has been bothering me since the 2000 Presidential campaign. The current President of the United States is named George Walker Bush. He is not “George Bush II”, nor is he “George Bush Jr.” I realize that it seems like a minor thing, but I think it’s important.
In order to properly answer this question I will look at the President’s performance in regards to three large areas that all Presidents must deal with: economics, judges, and national security. I’ll discuss what he has done, and lay it against what I think of his actions. In this way I should be able to come to an answer to your question. Let me preface this by saying that my analysis is by no means complete. There are other areas that Presidents must deal with, and if you’d like me to comment on these, then feel free to ask. I could obviously spend more time on this, but I think I’ve come to a good answer.
First up is economics. While the ultimate responsibility for setting tax rates and budgets belongs to the Congress, the President submits economic proposals for consideration. The economic health of the United States is generally considered to be a good barometer of the performance of a President, and thus I think it’s a good measure of how good a President has been for this country.
So how has the US fared economically during the Bush administration? During the campaign of 2000 the economy was heading into a recession. I specifically remember then-candidate Bush bringing that fact up several times, only to be laughed at and dismissed as trying to talk down the Clinton administration. When President Bush took office in January of 2001, the economy had entered a recession, exactly as he had predicted. The stock market “bubble” had burst, and projected budget surpluses had become actual budget deficits. In short, things were on the decline. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the economy took another major shock. Unemployment climbed, the stock market continued down.
As is usually the case with matters of economics, the current President gets blame (or credit, as the case may be) for the economy that their predecessor leaves behind. In this case, President Bush was immediately tagged with the recession. In the months following 9/11, the President implemented a strategy to reverse the recession. That strategy worked. Therefore, credit for the economic recovery that followed the recession belongs to President Bush. Let me repeat that: President Bush is in large measure responsible for the healthy and strong economy that exists today. He lowered tax rates for all Americans, which put more money into the economy as a whole. He cut capital gains taxes which encouraged investment. The investment led to jobs, which led to lower unemployment, which led to more people making more money. It also led to a surge in the stock markets in America, which created more wealth both for corporations and individuals. In fact, the only area I wish that the President had done a better job with was putting pressure on Congress to lower spending by the federal government.
If you don’t believe me, or think that I’m painting a rosy picture, then ask yourself this: economically, how are you doing? Do you have a job? Does it pay well? Do you own a house? If so, what interest rate are you paying? How are your friends doing? Do they have jobs? Do they own houses? If the economy were doing poorly, would you be able to answer those questions the same way? I didn’t think so. Speaking for myself, economically I’m doing fine. Quite well, in fact. Therefore, I think that President Bush has been very good for this country economically.
Next, let me talk for a brief moment about the judicial branch. One of the ways that a President can leave his mark on the country is in the area of judicial nominations, both to federal courts and to the Supreme Court. I personally think that President Bush has been good for the country in this area. He has nominated highly qualified judges to the federal bench, and his two nominees to the Supreme Court were both excellent men. What I like about his nominees is that they believe that the role of a judge is as an interpreter of laws, not the creator of laws. I share this belief, which is why I think the President has been good for the country in this area.
Finally, let me cover the very broad area of national security. This is the primary purpose of the President of the United States. According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of all armed forces of the United States. What he says, goes.
On September 11th, 2001, the United States of America was the victim of a terrorist attack. Does President Bush deserve some blame for not preventing this attack? Absolutely. Excuses can be made, of course. He had only been in office for nine months at the time of the attacks. Given the nature of governmental bureaucracy, any policy changes he might have desired did not have time to be implemented. However, there were indications that an attack was coming, and those indications were not handled properly. The President, as I said before, is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him.
In response to the attacks of 9/11, President Bush openly declared war on terrorism. He launched a military campaign to oust some of the organizational structure behind the attacks from the nation of Afghanistan. Was this specific action good for our country? Honestly, I don’t think so. Do I think that 9/11 merited a response? Absolutely. But what that response should have been I am not sure. Do I fault the President for his actions in this area? No, not really. He was under pressure to do something, and overthrowing the Taliban was certainly not the worst thing he could have done. Doing nothing would have been the worst thing. The President understood that, and so he plotted a course of action and followed it. The fact that he did something was good for the country, though again, I would probably have chosen a different course.
Then in April of 2002 the buildup to the eventual War in Iraq began. To set the stage, I’m going to make a number of assertions. If you doubt these, then look them up yourself. I don’t have the time or the patience for an argument.
- Iraq was in violation of 14 separate UN Resolutions in April of 2003.
- The war that had been declared against Iraq in 1991 had never legally ended. Sadaam Hussein was in violation of the cease-fire that had been established with the United States by firing at American military planes flying patrols in the no-fly zone over central Iraq.
- There were stockpiles of “weapons of mass destruction” (consisting primarily of chemical weapons) in Iraq. Those weapons were moved from Iraq to Syria during the year long buildup to the war between April of 2002 and April of 2003.
- There were functional ties between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda (the group behind 9/11). By “functional ties” I do not mean “Iraq was responsible for 9/11”. And by the way, I find it insulting that I even had to type that previous sentence.
- Iraq provided material support to terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East.
In April of 2003 the invasion of Iraq began, concluding a few weeks later with the capture of the capital of Baghdad. In the three and a half years that followed, the United States has been fighting to give the Iraqi people a chance to govern themselves. This has resulted in the deaths of over 3000 American servicemen, and the deaths of tens of thousands of terrorists.
So has this been good for the country? That’s hard to say. I think that the end result of the war (a stable and democratic Iraq) will be good for the country. However, the public face of that war is most certainly not good for this country. The terrorists know this, which is why they continue to stage attacks in Iraq. I use the word "stage" very carefully. They know that by showing American citizens death, American citizens will eventually become tired of it and demand an end to it. It is happening now, and it is definitely not good for the country. So my final verdict on national security is that the President has not been good for the country. I believe that his heart is in the right place, but his actions have not played out in the ways that I would have liked.
I can think of one additional way that President Bush has been “bad” for the country, though I cannot blame him for it. The level of discourse in America has been reduced substantially since President Bush’s election in 2000. In fact, the election itself became the catalyst for this. There are people to this day who fervently believe that the election was stolen, that President Bush is not the properly elected President of the United States of America. To those people I can only say that I’m sorry you believe that, and I wish you all the best, but I can’t talk to you. I just can’t. You believe something that simply isn’t true, and because it is a belief I can’t convince you otherwise.
And this is my point. Much of the hatred of the President is something that cannot be reasoned with, cannot be rationalized, and cannot be truly countered. People just hate the man. Not just his policies, not just the actions he has taken as President. They hate the man himself. I find this sad. Really. Again, is this the President’s fault? No, I don’t think so. But it hasn’t been good for the country, and I’d be foolish to ignore it.
So what’s the final answer? According to my own scorecard, I think that there is no doubt that President Bush has been good for this country. No doubt at all. People who think otherwise are welcome to their opinions, of course. But that’s my answer. Thanks for the question, Bill. I enjoyed this exercise quite a bit.
Q: Jennifer Walden - Which is more difficult? Admitting you have a problem, or doing something about it?
A: Speaking only for myself, I have always found it easier to admit that I have a problem than to do something about it. To be more specific, I find it easier to admit that there IS a problem. My outward hyperactivity notwithstanding, at my core I am a very shy person. I tend to be fairly passive when it comes to most situations. Therefore, I find it pretty easy to recognize problems, but much harder to break the status quo and do something about them. I'm the kind of person who likes to leave well enough alone, and one for whom if a problem isn't beating me upside the head, I tend to just let it slide.
One area where this question is relevant is the field of addiction. The only addiction I have at present is to caffeine. I have been hooked since the summer of 2001. I am a typical addict, in that I know that I can quit (and tell myself that I can quit any time), but don't for a variety of reasons. I'm atypical in that I know that I have a problem, but choose not to do anything about it. I do this because as addictions go, caffeine is a mild one. Physiologically, I know that if I were to quit my body would protest, but I'd eventually get through it with little difficulty.
Speaking more philosophically, knowledge of one’s self is something that many people have a problem with. It’s hard to look into the mirror, ask yourself if something is wrong, and get an honest answer. I have encountered this in my own life, as I'm sure everyone has. Sometimes it is only through the eyes of other people can we truly see ourselves. This is the purpose of things like interventions. Friends and loved ones gather around an addict and force them to confront their problem. In cases such as these, I would argue that doing something is easier than admitting the problem.
So in the end it comes down to the person. What kind of person are you? Ask yourself this question. I think you'll be surprised by the way that your mind wraps itself around it.
Friday, February 2, 2007
20 - Answers (Part 1)
Two of the questions this week require so much contemplation and thought that I'm going to answer them in a separate post (which I've been working on for a couple of days). Just to hold you all over (and because one of the questions is time sensitive), here are the answers to the rest.
Q: Brett Gobe - Earl Grey or Green Tea?
A: I'd have to go with Earl Grey. I'm not really a fan of Green Tea. I like my tea to have a bit of a kick, and green tea just doesn't do it for me.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - will the groundhog see his shadow?
A: Yes. This will result in six more weeks of winter, which could be extended to as many as eight more weeks of winter if he's REALLY spooked by his shadow. Along those lines, I wonder why there isn't a scale to this system? What if he's only slightly scared? Shouldn't that result in only two more weeks of winter? Just a thought.
Q: Adam Barnello - Rent or Buy? AKA, should I buy a house?
A: In my opinion, rent, then buy. Renting is a great way to get a feel for the city in which you live, and also gives you the opportunity to save up some money for a down payment. Once you have enough, I highly recommend buying. Interest rates are still low by historical standards, and you can lock yourself into a good rate. Home ownership is a good investment, so I'd say go for it when you're ready.
Q: Karyn Graves - Serena was pregnant?
A: Yes, as a matter of fact, she was. Now she is no longer pregnant. She is a mother. For those of you who aren't aware, Serena Blackmer gave birth to a baby girl on Monday. The baby's name is "Alexandra Mae Blackmer", and weighed in at 8 pounds 15 ounces. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Blackmer's and wish them all the best with their new daughter. For pictures and more details check out charlieandserena.com.
Q: Bill Jeffers - And when do we get to hear more about this growing up thing? Everyone seems to be doing it lately so I thought I might try it. But if you want to demo it for me that would be great.
A: Let me use the occasion of your question to just ramble a bit, Bill. In the course of typing I think you'll see what I mean by "growing up". If not, then I'll try again later! Oh, and while I'm honored that you'd consider using me as a "demo", I wouldn't recommend it.
Things are a little crazy in my life right now. Work has gone from "really fun" to "not as much fun" in the space of about a month. My group was the victim of a reorganization, and as a result I'm working on things that I never really wanted to work on. Now, I'm still employed, and I still get to work with some really talented people, but unfortunately a lot of the joy (for lack of a better word) has gone out of my job. This is something that has never really applied to me before; I'm one of those fortunate enough to really like what I do for a living. But ever since the reorganization I'm not as happy as I usually am. Am I complaining too much? Yeah, I think so. Do other people have it worse than me? Absolutely. But I have to be honest with myself. This change has me feeling more cynical and disaffected than I normally am, and frankly I don't like it. I know that I need to change my attitude, but actually changing it has proven difficult. Part of my "growing up" is dealing with all aspects of this situation. It's been interesting to say the least.
In addition there is tension in my band lately as well. It basically boils down to everyone in the band being happy with playing shows in and around Rochester / Syracuse / Buffalo except for our trumpet player. He has grand aspirations for this band which I do not share. I (and everyone else in the band) am perfectly happy working for a living and playing music as a hobby, while he wants to make a living playing music. This has led to some tense inter-band discussions of late, and I don't see that situation changing. The whole situation has me feeling on edge and nervous, and as with my work changes has taken a lot of the joy out of drumming. In another month I'll begin working on my third album (tentatively titled "I Hope You Didn't Pay Money For This"), and maybe that will turn my attitude around. Who knows?
Finally, recent events in my life and the lives of others have thrown certain things into focus for me. I'm starting to realize that if I wait for my life to settle down then I'll never get anything done, and that I need to decide what it is I want and just go for it. If I worry too much about the consequences, if I continue to second-guess myself, I'm never going to live up to my potential as a human. This may require change. Then again, it might not. I don't know yet. When I figure it out, you'll be the first to know.
Q: Brett Gobe - Earl Grey or Green Tea?
A: I'd have to go with Earl Grey. I'm not really a fan of Green Tea. I like my tea to have a bit of a kick, and green tea just doesn't do it for me.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - will the groundhog see his shadow?
A: Yes. This will result in six more weeks of winter, which could be extended to as many as eight more weeks of winter if he's REALLY spooked by his shadow. Along those lines, I wonder why there isn't a scale to this system? What if he's only slightly scared? Shouldn't that result in only two more weeks of winter? Just a thought.
Q: Adam Barnello - Rent or Buy? AKA, should I buy a house?
A: In my opinion, rent, then buy. Renting is a great way to get a feel for the city in which you live, and also gives you the opportunity to save up some money for a down payment. Once you have enough, I highly recommend buying. Interest rates are still low by historical standards, and you can lock yourself into a good rate. Home ownership is a good investment, so I'd say go for it when you're ready.
Q: Karyn Graves - Serena was pregnant?
A: Yes, as a matter of fact, she was. Now she is no longer pregnant. She is a mother. For those of you who aren't aware, Serena Blackmer gave birth to a baby girl on Monday. The baby's name is "Alexandra Mae Blackmer", and weighed in at 8 pounds 15 ounces. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Blackmer's and wish them all the best with their new daughter. For pictures and more details check out charlieandserena.com.
Q: Bill Jeffers - And when do we get to hear more about this growing up thing? Everyone seems to be doing it lately so I thought I might try it. But if you want to demo it for me that would be great.
A: Let me use the occasion of your question to just ramble a bit, Bill. In the course of typing I think you'll see what I mean by "growing up". If not, then I'll try again later! Oh, and while I'm honored that you'd consider using me as a "demo", I wouldn't recommend it.
Things are a little crazy in my life right now. Work has gone from "really fun" to "not as much fun" in the space of about a month. My group was the victim of a reorganization, and as a result I'm working on things that I never really wanted to work on. Now, I'm still employed, and I still get to work with some really talented people, but unfortunately a lot of the joy (for lack of a better word) has gone out of my job. This is something that has never really applied to me before; I'm one of those fortunate enough to really like what I do for a living. But ever since the reorganization I'm not as happy as I usually am. Am I complaining too much? Yeah, I think so. Do other people have it worse than me? Absolutely. But I have to be honest with myself. This change has me feeling more cynical and disaffected than I normally am, and frankly I don't like it. I know that I need to change my attitude, but actually changing it has proven difficult. Part of my "growing up" is dealing with all aspects of this situation. It's been interesting to say the least.
In addition there is tension in my band lately as well. It basically boils down to everyone in the band being happy with playing shows in and around Rochester / Syracuse / Buffalo except for our trumpet player. He has grand aspirations for this band which I do not share. I (and everyone else in the band) am perfectly happy working for a living and playing music as a hobby, while he wants to make a living playing music. This has led to some tense inter-band discussions of late, and I don't see that situation changing. The whole situation has me feeling on edge and nervous, and as with my work changes has taken a lot of the joy out of drumming. In another month I'll begin working on my third album (tentatively titled "I Hope You Didn't Pay Money For This"), and maybe that will turn my attitude around. Who knows?
Finally, recent events in my life and the lives of others have thrown certain things into focus for me. I'm starting to realize that if I wait for my life to settle down then I'll never get anything done, and that I need to decide what it is I want and just go for it. If I worry too much about the consequences, if I continue to second-guess myself, I'm never going to live up to my potential as a human. This may require change. Then again, it might not. I don't know yet. When I figure it out, you'll be the first to know.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
4 - Answer(s)
Q: Lisa Jeffers - What will my time be in the 5K on Saturday?
A: I answered this question on Friday night in an instant message to Bill, but saved my answer for this space until I got around to writing my full response to the questions posed to me. I said that Lisa would run the 5K in 23 minutes. I was not correct. I’ll leave it to Lisa to announce her time in the 5K, but I will say that she did it faster than I could have. Good job!
Q: Brett Gobe - Why does the cheese stand alone?
A: This question comes from a nursery rhyme called “The Farmer in the Dell”. If you need a reminder as to the lyrics (which I did before I could tackle this question), here they are (and feel free to sing along):
The farmer in the dell, the farmer in the dell,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the farmer in the dell.
The farmer takes a wife, the farmer takes a wife,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the farmer takes a wife.
The wife takes a child, the wife takes a child,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the wife takes a child.
The child takes a nurse, the child takes a nurse,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the child takes a nurse.
The nurse takes a cow, the nurse takes a cow,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the nurse takes a cow.
The cow takes a dog, the cow takes a dog,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the cow takes a dog.
The dog takes a cat, the dog takes a cat,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the dog takes a cat.
The cat takes a rat, the cat takes a rat,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the cat takes a rat.
The rat takes the cheese, the rat takes the cheese,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the rat takes the cheese.
The cheese stands alone, the cheese stands alone,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the cheese stands alone.
First, I have a problem with the cheese standing in general. All of the other things contained in the rhyme are creatures with legs, which means that they are capable of standing. The cheese has no legs (unless they’ve been carved), and so I don’t think it can be said to “stand”. I know, I’m probably being a little bit too literal in my reading. In proper English, “standing” can also be taken to mean that an object is not in motion. Fair enough. But given the rest of the items in the list, I find the choice of the word “standing” to be a little vague.
Next, the words of the rhyme seem to contradict the last line. The second to last verse reads “The rat takes the cheese”. If the rat has taken the cheese, how can the cheese stand alone? Isn’t it standing with the rat? And what does the rat do with the cheese? If it’s a normal rat, it will probably eat the cheese, not stand with it. So that’s another problem I have.
Now, putting aside my objections to the lyrics, I consulted the Internets for guidance, and I was surprised to come across this very question at Yahoo! Answers. Many of the answers were too simple, but one of them got me thinking a bit. The person said, "The cheese can't chase anything." I got to thinking about that, and I realized that the reason the cheese stands alone is that it is the only inanimate object in the list. It can’t “take” anything, because it is incapable of taking. Because of this, the cheese must stand alone. I find this a fascinating bit of reasoning, so I submit it here as the answer to the question.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Will mullets ever come back in style?
A: I consulted some people I work with on this question, and got the following answers:
Mike W: “Were they ever in fashion?”
Aaron D: “Only if you grow one. Grow it, and they will follow.”
Bill N: “Probably.”
Now for my thoughts. I must start by stating that in my opinion, the mullet is a crime against hair. However, my ability to tell people what to do in general is pretty limited. As long as people have hair, they will continue to style it however they see fit. If enough popular people start sporting a particular hairstyle, then that style will take off. I was reminded of this phenomenon while watching “I Love the 90’s” on VH1. They highlighted the emergence of the “Caesar” hairstyle during the mid 90’s, showing all sorts of famous people sporting it. That's another hairstyle that I think is pretty bad, but people went along with it.
I guess my point is that if enough popular and/or public people begin to do something, then much of the public will follow them. This is the nature of popular culture, not just now but throughout history. We will imitate what we see and hear. Thus, if enough people grow mullets, then they will come back into “style” as it were. Therefore, my final judgement is that yes, mullets will come back. It is inevitable. You might as well give in and start growing it out now. And send me pictures, too.
Q: Eric Carney - What is the purpose of a garter besides an excuse to feel your wife under her wedding dress and make men stand as far back in a room as possible?
A: I once again consulted the Internets on this one. In my brief search, I could only find one site that dealt with the history of the garter toss: WedAlert. The main answer they give is this:
"The garter tradition originated back to the 14th century. In parts of Europe the guests of the bride and groom believed having a piece of the bride’s clothing was thought to bring good luck. They would actually destroy the brides dress by ripping off pieces of fabric. Obviously, this tradition did not sit well with the bride, so she began throwing various items to the guests – the garter being one of them. It became customary for the bride to toss the garter to the men. But this also caused a great problem for the bride….sometimes the men would get drunk, become impatient and try to remove the garter ahead of time. Therefore, the custom derived at having the groom remove and toss the garter to the men. With this change, the bride began to toss the bridal boutique to the unwed girls who were eligible for marriage."
I did find a site where you can find a garter, so ladies, if you're in the market, you can find them here.
Q: Sarah LaBombard - What was the first job you ever had?
A: Starting at about age 11 I began babysitting for my little sister. I eventually began babysitting for kids in my neighborhood. I really enjoyed doing it. Kids liked me and parents trusted me, which meant that I had a lot of repeat customers. I did this all the way through high school, and even a couple of summers following during college.
My first "real" job, which I classify as involving a paycheck, was as a paperboy. When I first moved to New Hampshire at age 10, the local paper (the Concord Monitor) was an afternoon paper. When I was 12 the kid who delivered the paper in our neighborhood decided he didn’t want to do it anymore, so I took the job over from him. I would get home from school to find a bundle of papers on our front porch. I’d sling the official Concord Monitor bag over my shoulder (I still have the bag), get on my bike, and ride around the neighborhood stuffing the paper into the slot. Then when I was 13 the paper switched from afternoon to morning. I remember that the switch happened on my birthday, as a weird coincidence. I started to have to get up at about 5:30am or so to deliver the paper. I tired of this after a month or so, and so I quit, and the guy who delivered to the neighborhoods outside of ours took over for me.
A: I answered this question on Friday night in an instant message to Bill, but saved my answer for this space until I got around to writing my full response to the questions posed to me. I said that Lisa would run the 5K in 23 minutes. I was not correct. I’ll leave it to Lisa to announce her time in the 5K, but I will say that she did it faster than I could have. Good job!
Q: Brett Gobe - Why does the cheese stand alone?
A: This question comes from a nursery rhyme called “The Farmer in the Dell”. If you need a reminder as to the lyrics (which I did before I could tackle this question), here they are (and feel free to sing along):
The farmer in the dell, the farmer in the dell,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the farmer in the dell.
The farmer takes a wife, the farmer takes a wife,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the farmer takes a wife.
The wife takes a child, the wife takes a child,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the wife takes a child.
The child takes a nurse, the child takes a nurse,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the child takes a nurse.
The nurse takes a cow, the nurse takes a cow,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the nurse takes a cow.
The cow takes a dog, the cow takes a dog,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the cow takes a dog.
The dog takes a cat, the dog takes a cat,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the dog takes a cat.
The cat takes a rat, the cat takes a rat,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the cat takes a rat.
The rat takes the cheese, the rat takes the cheese,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the rat takes the cheese.
The cheese stands alone, the cheese stands alone,
Hi-ho, the derry-o, the cheese stands alone.
First, I have a problem with the cheese standing in general. All of the other things contained in the rhyme are creatures with legs, which means that they are capable of standing. The cheese has no legs (unless they’ve been carved), and so I don’t think it can be said to “stand”. I know, I’m probably being a little bit too literal in my reading. In proper English, “standing” can also be taken to mean that an object is not in motion. Fair enough. But given the rest of the items in the list, I find the choice of the word “standing” to be a little vague.
Next, the words of the rhyme seem to contradict the last line. The second to last verse reads “The rat takes the cheese”. If the rat has taken the cheese, how can the cheese stand alone? Isn’t it standing with the rat? And what does the rat do with the cheese? If it’s a normal rat, it will probably eat the cheese, not stand with it. So that’s another problem I have.
Now, putting aside my objections to the lyrics, I consulted the Internets for guidance, and I was surprised to come across this very question at Yahoo! Answers. Many of the answers were too simple, but one of them got me thinking a bit. The person said, "The cheese can't chase anything." I got to thinking about that, and I realized that the reason the cheese stands alone is that it is the only inanimate object in the list. It can’t “take” anything, because it is incapable of taking. Because of this, the cheese must stand alone. I find this a fascinating bit of reasoning, so I submit it here as the answer to the question.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Will mullets ever come back in style?
A: I consulted some people I work with on this question, and got the following answers:
Mike W: “Were they ever in fashion?”
Aaron D: “Only if you grow one. Grow it, and they will follow.”
Bill N: “Probably.”
Now for my thoughts. I must start by stating that in my opinion, the mullet is a crime against hair. However, my ability to tell people what to do in general is pretty limited. As long as people have hair, they will continue to style it however they see fit. If enough popular people start sporting a particular hairstyle, then that style will take off. I was reminded of this phenomenon while watching “I Love the 90’s” on VH1. They highlighted the emergence of the “Caesar” hairstyle during the mid 90’s, showing all sorts of famous people sporting it. That's another hairstyle that I think is pretty bad, but people went along with it.
I guess my point is that if enough popular and/or public people begin to do something, then much of the public will follow them. This is the nature of popular culture, not just now but throughout history. We will imitate what we see and hear. Thus, if enough people grow mullets, then they will come back into “style” as it were. Therefore, my final judgement is that yes, mullets will come back. It is inevitable. You might as well give in and start growing it out now. And send me pictures, too.
Q: Eric Carney - What is the purpose of a garter besides an excuse to feel your wife under her wedding dress and make men stand as far back in a room as possible?
A: I once again consulted the Internets on this one. In my brief search, I could only find one site that dealt with the history of the garter toss: WedAlert. The main answer they give is this:
"The garter tradition originated back to the 14th century. In parts of Europe the guests of the bride and groom believed having a piece of the bride’s clothing was thought to bring good luck. They would actually destroy the brides dress by ripping off pieces of fabric. Obviously, this tradition did not sit well with the bride, so she began throwing various items to the guests – the garter being one of them. It became customary for the bride to toss the garter to the men. But this also caused a great problem for the bride….sometimes the men would get drunk, become impatient and try to remove the garter ahead of time. Therefore, the custom derived at having the groom remove and toss the garter to the men. With this change, the bride began to toss the bridal boutique to the unwed girls who were eligible for marriage."
I did find a site where you can find a garter, so ladies, if you're in the market, you can find them here.
Q: Sarah LaBombard - What was the first job you ever had?
A: Starting at about age 11 I began babysitting for my little sister. I eventually began babysitting for kids in my neighborhood. I really enjoyed doing it. Kids liked me and parents trusted me, which meant that I had a lot of repeat customers. I did this all the way through high school, and even a couple of summers following during college.
My first "real" job, which I classify as involving a paycheck, was as a paperboy. When I first moved to New Hampshire at age 10, the local paper (the Concord Monitor) was an afternoon paper. When I was 12 the kid who delivered the paper in our neighborhood decided he didn’t want to do it anymore, so I took the job over from him. I would get home from school to find a bundle of papers on our front porch. I’d sling the official Concord Monitor bag over my shoulder (I still have the bag), get on my bike, and ride around the neighborhood stuffing the paper into the slot. Then when I was 13 the paper switched from afternoon to morning. I remember that the switch happened on my birthday, as a weird coincidence. I started to have to get up at about 5:30am or so to deliver the paper. I tired of this after a month or so, and so I quit, and the guy who delivered to the neighborhoods outside of ours took over for me.
Sunday, August 6, 2006
2 - Answer(s)
Q: Sarah LaBombard - Are you taking over for Jeeves since he retired?
A: Actually, I hadn't considered that. I don't have the programming skill, nor the time to take on that type of task. Furthermore, I don't like wearing tuxedos :).
I'll use the occasion of your question to explain a bit further what it is that I'm doing here. I believe that in order to find the right answers you must first ask the right questions. About two years ago I started collecting some questions about conventional wisdom and popular culture. I'll keep these to myself for now, but I used the questions to explore my feelings on subjects. What I'm doing here on Jolinko is a request for more questions to answer. I don't claim to have the answers, and if my initial request sounded like an arrogant, I-know-more-than-you type of thing, then I apologize for not explaining myself fully. So bring on questions. Any topic, any subject, any level of detail. I'll tackle it!
Q: Brett Gobe - How is your French coming along?
A: Not too badly, actually. I can ask for directions, tell people I don't understand French, and say "please" and "thank you". Hopefully I don't get my ass kicked.
For those of you who don't know, I'm going to Paris and London with Allison and the Blackmers's's. We're leaving tomorrow and coming back next Tuesday. There will be many pictures taken, many stories to tell, and you'll get both when I come back.
Q: Bill Jeffers - What the hell is wrong with me?
A: I'm tempted to say something like "Bill, there aren't enough bytes on the Internets to explain this", but that's too easy. I'm also tempted to go the other way and start calling your friends and family to get their impressions. Maybe even do some psycho-analysis on you. But I'm afraid of what I'd find. Really. So we'll go with door number three: "A lot."
See you guys when I get back!
A: Actually, I hadn't considered that. I don't have the programming skill, nor the time to take on that type of task. Furthermore, I don't like wearing tuxedos :).
I'll use the occasion of your question to explain a bit further what it is that I'm doing here. I believe that in order to find the right answers you must first ask the right questions. About two years ago I started collecting some questions about conventional wisdom and popular culture. I'll keep these to myself for now, but I used the questions to explore my feelings on subjects. What I'm doing here on Jolinko is a request for more questions to answer. I don't claim to have the answers, and if my initial request sounded like an arrogant, I-know-more-than-you type of thing, then I apologize for not explaining myself fully. So bring on questions. Any topic, any subject, any level of detail. I'll tackle it!
Q: Brett Gobe - How is your French coming along?
A: Not too badly, actually. I can ask for directions, tell people I don't understand French, and say "please" and "thank you". Hopefully I don't get my ass kicked.
For those of you who don't know, I'm going to Paris and London with Allison and the Blackmers's's. We're leaving tomorrow and coming back next Tuesday. There will be many pictures taken, many stories to tell, and you'll get both when I come back.
Q: Bill Jeffers - What the hell is wrong with me?
A: I'm tempted to say something like "Bill, there aren't enough bytes on the Internets to explain this", but that's too easy. I'm also tempted to go the other way and start calling your friends and family to get their impressions. Maybe even do some psycho-analysis on you. But I'm afraid of what I'd find. Really. So we'll go with door number three: "A lot."
See you guys when I get back!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)