[Editor's Note: As this is the final Ask Mitssob it stands to reason that Tim would be very late with it. And look at that, he is! I've been pinging him weekly for the past four months. He blames the snow, NaNoWriMo, his video editing business, work travel, every tired old excuse he's ever had. The answers finally showed up on my doorstep yesterday along with a bouquet of flowers. I don't know if the two are related. If they are I'm touched, otherwise I'm mildly creeped out.
One more thing: after editing these answers I have to say that they are, without a doubt, the most average set that Tim's ever delivered. The overall quality of answers throughout the past four years and 65 episodes was not increased or decreased by these answers. It's really remarkable.]
Q: Dan - if there's nothing missing in my life then why do these tears come at night?
A: The song poses the question "if there's nothing missing in my life," so I answer, "There is." Now, why the fact that there is something missing from your life causes tears to come is another question. I supposed the most likely explanation is that you are a very sensitive man who finds no shame in showing emotion through crying.
Oh, and another thing: I could have gone my whole life without hearing this song and died a happy man. But no, Dan, you had to ask this question and make me find the song and listen to it. For that, may you roast in hell for all eternity.
Q: MattB - What does Jarsh's dance to the aforementioned song look like? Good/bad/hilarious/other?
A: Jarsh's dance to that song, like all of Jarsh's dancing, would be epic. Simply epic.
Q: Luke - How many times will Serena try something?
A: Out of respect for Serena, who is one of my oldest and best friends, I will not even discuss the circumstances of this question, much less answer it.
Q: Phil - why did luke come back to jolinko or life?
A: Luke came back to Jolinko because Jolinko is, as the kids say, "da bomb". Actually, I'm not sure if kids say "da bomb" anymore. In fact, I haven't got the foggiest idea what kids say. Popular culture and I agreed to see other people sometime in the mid-2000's and frankly it's been for the best.
But that's irrelevant. The point is, who wouldn't want to come back to Jolinko?
Q: Luke - Why did Phil feel the need to write "or life" in tiny font?
A: Apparently you and Phil have some personal issues that you both need to work through. Do I detect some subtle tension between you two? Maybe some unresolved feelings? Do we need a group hug? Maybe a drum circle?
Q: Vanessa - I want the latest info on the Arrested Development movie. I know thats not a question...but run with it.
A: Here. [Ed: You were just trying for shortest answer with that one, weren't you? Yup.]
Q: Bill J - Gimme some tips on routers. What's the difference between the 30 dollar one and the 100 dollar one? First person to say $70 gets a virtual punch in the face.
A: The difference in price likely reflects a difference in features found in the routers. Below is a quick list:
- Ethernet Ports: 4 is common and usually sufficient. You'll pay a bit more for an 8-port router. Unless you're networking together a lot of stuff in one office you don't need 8 ports. 4 will be plenty.
- Wireless: The most common standards are 802.11b, g and n. Higher letters are faster (802.11b is 11 megabits per second (Mbps), g is 54 Mbps, and n is over 160 Mbps). Those speeds, though, are the raw over-the-air bit rates. When you talk real-world data they're about 2/3 as fast on average. Anyway, higher letters will cost more, but will also perform better. Additionally, newer hardware (such as newer laptops, smart phones, TVs, etc) will drop older standards. Unless you've got something that requires 802.11b I'd just go as high as you can.
- Security: Most routers come with some kind of firewall software built into them. Basically speaking firewalls allow the router to filter out IP ports that outside users can use to get into your system. You might pay a little more for the super-smart filters but frankly you'll be fine with any firewall.
Incidentally, I know very little about the other kind of router. I'm not much of a woodworker and have never even used one. I know that they're used to cut grooves into wood (for decoration, creating joints, etc.) but as far as providing tips I'm the wrong guy.
Q: democko - What do you plan on doing with your life after Ask Mitssob is over? 2 chicks at the same time? Also, who are we going to ask our random questions to? Jolinko at large?
A: Two chicks at the same time? I've had enough trouble maintaining zero chicks at the same time, much less two. Come to think of it, I haven't discussed my adventures in single-hood here. I guess that's because there's nothing that interesting to tell. [Ed: Also, no one asked. Because frankly, who cares? You're single and lonely. We get it. True, but this is my column and I'll cry if I want to.] I joined a couple of popular online dating sites in an effort to find true love and have had some interesting experiences. Nothing against any of the women I've met through them, but let's just say that I haven't yet found what I'm looking for. I did gain a lot of experience in first dates, and I did drink a lot of coffee, but as for "the one", she's still out there.
Getting back to your question, I have several projects that will keep me busy once this is over. First and foremost is my video editing side-business, "Changing Seasons Productions". I recently wrapped up a DVD project for local band "The Beaumonts". On November 19 I and several of my friends filmed a double-header show at Waterstreet, after which I will have two new DVDs to produce. I also filmed the Tuba Christmas 2010 production in Rochester, during which a nice woman asked if she could buy a copy so I made that DVD, and also provided copies to some friends who had both played in the show and attended. After that I'm not sure what's next but now that I'm getting my name out there as a video producer I'm starting to get some attention. Hopefully it turns into more business.
I also want to dedicate more time to writing. NaNoWriMo has come and gone, and as usual caused a big delay in these answers. I have to admit that I had a lot of trouble this year. I didn't like my characters, didn't like where my story went, and basically felt like writing was a huge chore. But I slogged through and wound up with my 7th NaNoWriMo victory. Hooray, I guess. I'm going to spend a little time editing the story, then get back to my much-worked-on novel from the past few NaNoWriMo sessions. Another draft is coming in the summer and then maybe I'll start shopping it around.
Finally I'll be working on my house. I've recently finished up work on my second guest bedroom and will next turn my attentions to the room off my garage. It's currently my office but I've always hated having my office there. The room, being right off the garage, practically begs to be turned into a mud room, so that's what I'm going to do. While I'm at it I'll be moving my laundry up from the basement and installing it there. It's the most major home project I've ever done and I'm looking forward to driving it through to completion.
So in short, I've got a lot on my plate in the place of Ask Mitssob. I'll miss it, I know, and I might come back to it in the next few years, but there are only so many hours in the day and I just can't dedicate any time to this project any more.
As to your second question I am currently working through how to set up and moderate a weekly "Ask Jolinko" feature, similar to Brett Gobe's wildly successful "Quiz of the Week" feature. Consider it my legacy in retirement. I think harnessing the collective intelligence of Jolinko could be a fun project. I think the big problem is going to be keeping track of the questions and answers such that people can search through and get good information. I've also secured @askmitssob on Twitter, but this is mostly a placeholder. If you follow it you'll be sorely disappointed, at least for the time being.
Q: MattB - Last night I had a dream I got a 4 on the QOTW and I was really excited. What does that say about my life?
A: Nothing good, let me assure you. You have fixated upon Brett Gobe's famous Quiz of the Week (and by extension Brett Gobe Himself) as the source of your happiness. We'll get more into this in a little bit.
Q: democko - lets really lay it on Tim since this is the last one. think about all kinds of questions you might have. past, present, future, alternate reality...
A: That's the spirit! Bring it on!
Q: Phil - when will the bills next win more than 8 games in a season?
Q: Sarah - When will the Bills be decent again?
A: 2013. Of course since this will occur after the forthcoming end of the world in 2012 Bills fans have nothing to look forward to. But they should be used to that by now.
Q: Vanessa - I need a rollerderby name. What should it be?
A: Some thoughts off the top of my head:
- Xena: Warrior Princess
- Unholy Roller
- The Rolling Pin
- I'm Gonna Take Off My Skate And Try To Stab You With It
Q: Banjo - Why wouldn't Matt Barrett dream of a perfect 5 on the QOTW? Is his low expectations going to hurt him in later in life when he sees the relative achievement of everyone else around him? Or will he be the only one happy and content with the life he is living, and therefore lead a better and more fulfilling life than those of us striving to meet unobtainable goals?
A: I think Matt's issues with Brett Gobe are the reason that he didn't dream of a perfect 5. He knows (or more accurately, his subconscious knows) that he doesn't know Brett well enough to score a perfect 5, and his dream reflected that.
The second part of your question (other than being a grammatical trainwreck) touches on an interesting subject. Expectations management is definitely a key to one's happiness. Personally I try to have desires but not expectations. Expectations can be let down. Desires can be acted upon.
Digging a little deeper, I think that it's a false comparison to say that people striving to meet unobtainable goals won't be as happy as people who are content with their situation in life. I understand what you mean but I don't think that it's true. Whether one is striving for unobtainable goals or sitting on one's ass eating Cheetos all day doesn't have anything to do with one's happiness. People can be happy in any circumstance in life. Any old saying tells us that money cannot buy happiness. I believe that this is true. Happiness, I've learned, is a choice. If you're happy chasing the unobtainable, good for you. If you're happy sitting on your ass eating Cheetos, good for you too. Ultimately it's up to each person to decide what a fulfilling life is and strive for that.
Finally, let me close with some suggested reading. My favorite radio talk show host right now is a man named Dennis Prager. Through his show I've learned a great deal about human nature, philosophy, and happiness. He's so serious about happiness that he dedicates an hour per week of his show to the subject. If you're looking for information about happiness you should read his book Happiness is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
Q: Phil - why does banjo care so much about matt's dream? is it because he has a secret love interest with matt? or is it just his true caring nature to care? further why do i care that banjo cares?
A: When I started this feature in 2006 I never expected to be using my skills as a writer to address the issues inherent in an all-male threesome. Yet here we are.
Q: Mr Rob Allen - what is the most disappointing experience I will have in my life
A: Your final words. They're going to suck. But just about everyone's final words suck, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Q: Brett - Who is the most viable GOP 2012 presidential candidate?
A: The field as I see it today can be divided into the following categories:
Thanks For Playing (Again)
Ron Paul, Texas Congressman and perrenial Republican and Libertarian candidate for President - He falls into the protectionist wing of libertarianism, which is not a wing that I occupy. He'll never win, but he'll keep running until he pulls in his final breath, so we're stuck with him.
Maybe Next Time
Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana - I really like Bobby Jindal and think he'd make a fantastic Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate. His management of the Gulf Oil Spill stood in stark contrast with the bumbling response of the federal government, which couldn't seem to get out of it's own way. He's young, articulate, and learning fast how to be a major political player. But he's not ready yet, and fortunately for him he seems to know it. I think we'll look him up in either 2016 or 2020.
Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey - Chris Christie is one of my favorite political figures, bar none. He doesn't take lip from anyone, stands up to political "sacred cows", and has a quick response for things that would cause most politicians to run for cover. But he has said that he's not running in 2012 and I believe him. Hopefully he reconsiders for 2016 or 2020.
Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska - Despite being on the national stage for the better part of the past 2 years, Sarah Palin is not ready to be a Presidential candidate. I do not believe that she is as stupid as her detractors claim, nor as smart as her supporters believe. Unfortunately she's been so vilified by her detractors that she can't possibly be an effective candidate this time around. Call me again in 2016 or 2020 and we'll talk. Until then, best of luck to her in whatever venture(s) she chooses to pursue.
You're Still Around?
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House - Newt's been around a long time. He's a thinker and a man of action in the Republican party, but for some reason I just don't like him. These days I feel like the only thing he has to offer is himself, and frankly that's not enough for me.
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania - Defeated narrowly in 2006, Rick Santorum is the most socially conservative of the candidates that I can see. And for that reason people (and by "people" I mean "non-conservative Republicans") don't think he has a chance. Personally I think he would be good, but I also really hate the idea of Senators as Presidents. Senators deliberate and compromise and talk and deliberate some more. Executives (like governors) lead and do. It's why they, as a rule, make better Presidents.
Should Have Been You Instead of McCain
Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota - I like him. Republican governor of a relatively liberal state. He wasn't perfect, but he was effective.
Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska - Already talked about her, but let me just add that if she had been the candidate instead of McCain it would have been a much closer race. She still would have lost, mind you, but it would have been a lot more interesting.
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts - I like him too. Another Republican governor of a very liberal state. He's run successful companies, managed the Olympics in Utah, was an effective governor, and was a fairly good Presidential candidate. His biggest black mark is RomneyCare, a precursor to ObamaCare. Personally I think he can sell the Republican party on the differences between the two but it's going to be a very hard fight.
Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana - He has recently been in the news as part of the trend of governors taking on public employee unions. I think he's done a good job so far and am interested in seeing how he does as a candidate.
So what's my final answer? I'm going to go with Mitt Romney. I've been a fan of his for several years and think that he will be a fantastic presidential candidate in 2012 and an even better president come 2013.
Q: Banjo - How do you feel about Quantum Suicide theory? Does reality really split into multiple diverging universes with each and every choice that is made, or is there simply an abundance of universes for every possible outcome of ever possible event with a fixed starting point?
How do you feel about Schrödinger's cat? Furthermore should Schrödinger be brought up on charges of animal cruelty?
If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it really even matter if it makes a noise? Furthermore, if we have all these forests full of trees, and there's no one around to hear anything, have we succeeded in protecting our natural resources?
A: I like your enthusiasm. Let's dive in!
1. Before I answer, allow me to state that how I feel about Quantum Suicide Theory is irrelevant to whether or not it's true. It's kind of like asking how I feel about gravity. Sure I hate gravity, but so what? My hatred of gravity does not lessen its hold on me.
To more directly answer your question, I subscribe to the "many worlds" theory of quantum mechanics. The 4th dimensional reality that we live in is collapsed down from all the possible outcomes of all the possible decisions for this instant in time. For example, there is a universe in which I finished this answer a month ago and one in which I'm never going to finish.
Strangely this isn't the first theoretical physics question to come across my desk. I tackled it in the first few months of this column back in 2006. I highly recommend watching the Flash animation that kicked off the debate three and a half years ago. It's educational, funny, and very well made.
2. I think that Schrödinger's cat is a very silly thought experiment. Basically it goes like this: seal a cat in a box with some (non-deadly) radioactive material, a glass vial of poison and a hammer connected to a Geiger counter. The radioactive material will begin to decay and at some point the Geiger counter will be triggered, which causes the hammer to fall and break the vial of poison and kill the cat. But (and here's the point) when is the cat dead? According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics nothing is known about a system until it is observed. Therefore in the above thought experiment, the cat is both alive AND dead until you open the box to find out, at which time it becomes alive OR dead.
I do not think that Schrödinger should be brought up on animal cruelty charges since there's no evidence that he actually did what the thought experiment. Anyone who actually does this experiment should be brought up on charges, though.
3. No, it doesn't matter, but this rhetorical question is one that will never die.
The second part of this question is a non-sequitor. A well-phrased and humorous non-sequitor, but a non-sequitor nonetheless. [Ed. Seriously? Seriously.] Whether there's anyone around to hear trees falling in the forrest has no relation to whether we've done a good job protecting our natural resources.
Q: karyn - If CUPBAA promised bumper stickers and watches for each donation, would more people donate to support the band? Also, are you donating anything to Clarkson (and/or the band) this year?
A: It might. It's a nice gesture and a nice incentive to provide potential donors. And yes, I'm planning to make a donation to the recently-introduced CUPBAA Scholarship Fund, and also a donation to Clarkson University as a whole.
Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank you personally, Karyn, for all the great questions over the years. Looking back I have learned more answering your questions than anyone else's, so thank you!
Q: SteveFaux - Other than the two games against NE, how many Bills games will I get to see on TV in the greater boston area?
[Editor's Note: Tim answered this question halfway through the NFL season. Normally I'd delete this answer outright but since this is the last episode I'll leave it in.]
A: Not as many as you would like but more than the good citizens of New England would like. So in the end you'll both be unhappy. And that's a good thing.
Seriously, a quick check of the schedule reveals that Buffalo is playing all of its remaining games at 1pm on Sundays, sometimes on CBS and sometimes on FOX. New England's remaining games are spread all over the place, and more often than not they are not playing at the same time and on the same network as Buffalo. In fact, the only two weeks where there is a definite conflict are 14 and 17.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that, though. Since Buffalo is not a good team (which is like saying "Potsdam is not a warm place" or "Bill is not a quiet man") the draw in any matchup will be their opponent. There are some complelling matchups in your future, though. I count more than a few weeks where it's possible that you'd get to see them (Week 9 vs. Chicago, Week 12 vs. Pittsburgh, Week 15 at Miami, etc).
My verdict: You'll get to see the Bills get beaten three more times this season, not counting the second beating at the hands of the Patriots.
Q: Luke - How many tears were shed by Steve Faux when cloves became illegal due to being dubbed a flavored cigarette?
A: As has become the new tradition in Ask Mitssob, I'll let someone else answer this question. In this case, Steve himself:
SteveFaux: There were a few tears of anger, then i quit smoking.
And there you have it, folks. The final Ask Mitssob. It's been a pleasure. Thanks for reading, thanks for the questions, and thanks for the laughs. Goodbye.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
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.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
23 - Answers
Q: Jennifer Walden - In a mascot brawl - Who would win, the UMASS Minuteman, or the UMaine Bear?
A: I think that there are two ways of looking at this question: What the mascots represent, and the actual mascots themselves. First, let's look at what the mascots represent, and how they would match up in a fight.
The U-Maine bear is an American Black Bear. It is a formidable opponent in a fight, with sharp claws and teeth, and weighing in between 400 and 500 pounds. Personally, I wouldn't want to fight on. On the other hand you have the Minuteman, which is either a colonial militiaman armed with a musket, or a thermonuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missile. Now, in the case of the missile, I think the missile would win (though it's debatable that the missile could in fact win without surviving). In the case of the militiaman, if he's well trained in the use of his musket he could probably hunt the black bear and kill it. In hand-to-hand combat, however, the black bear would almost certainly win.
The second way to look at this question is the actual mascots themselves. If I remember correctly, the Minuteman had a rather comically over-sized head but was otherwise fairly normally proportioned. He was armed with a (presumably fake) musket. The Black Bear also had a removable head, but on the whole it was much more normally proportioned. The suit looked quite furry, which was probably both warm and also well-protecting. Based on these things, I think that the Black Bear would certainly win the fight. All that he would have to do is knock the Minuteman down (probably easy given the comically over-sized head), and the fight would be over.
On a side note, this would be a hilarious event to watch. I think that it should be part of the intermission entertainment at college hockey games. Who do you have to call to set this kind of thing up?
Q: Bill Jeffers - How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
A: I've been waiting for someone to ask me this question. It's an age-old question, and one that can be tackled in a variety of ways. What I decided to do was to get myself a Tootsie Pop, measure it, and then start licking away. Here are the results of that experiment:
The Tootsie Pop in question was 1 1/8" in diameter on the skinny edge, and 1 1/4" in diameter at the bulge. It was a grape flavored one, though I'm pretty sure that doesn't factor into this equation. I started out by just licking it and counting every 10, but that was quite tedious, so I started counting in 20's. By 180 I could clearly see (and taste) the tootsie center, but it looked like a little vein rather than the full center. I decided that this wasn't enough, so I kept going. By lick 1000 the diameters had shrunk to 3/4" and 1" respectively. Unfortunately I had to give up the experiment at lick 1200 (hard as this might be to believe, but I had better things to do), but based on that rate I would have reached the "center" by approximately the 2400th lick. So that's going to be my answer. If someone resubmits this question I'll tackle it again.
A: I think that there are two ways of looking at this question: What the mascots represent, and the actual mascots themselves. First, let's look at what the mascots represent, and how they would match up in a fight.
The U-Maine bear is an American Black Bear. It is a formidable opponent in a fight, with sharp claws and teeth, and weighing in between 400 and 500 pounds. Personally, I wouldn't want to fight on. On the other hand you have the Minuteman, which is either a colonial militiaman armed with a musket, or a thermonuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missile. Now, in the case of the missile, I think the missile would win (though it's debatable that the missile could in fact win without surviving). In the case of the militiaman, if he's well trained in the use of his musket he could probably hunt the black bear and kill it. In hand-to-hand combat, however, the black bear would almost certainly win.
The second way to look at this question is the actual mascots themselves. If I remember correctly, the Minuteman had a rather comically over-sized head but was otherwise fairly normally proportioned. He was armed with a (presumably fake) musket. The Black Bear also had a removable head, but on the whole it was much more normally proportioned. The suit looked quite furry, which was probably both warm and also well-protecting. Based on these things, I think that the Black Bear would certainly win the fight. All that he would have to do is knock the Minuteman down (probably easy given the comically over-sized head), and the fight would be over.
On a side note, this would be a hilarious event to watch. I think that it should be part of the intermission entertainment at college hockey games. Who do you have to call to set this kind of thing up?
Q: Bill Jeffers - How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
A: I've been waiting for someone to ask me this question. It's an age-old question, and one that can be tackled in a variety of ways. What I decided to do was to get myself a Tootsie Pop, measure it, and then start licking away. Here are the results of that experiment:
The Tootsie Pop in question was 1 1/8" in diameter on the skinny edge, and 1 1/4" in diameter at the bulge. It was a grape flavored one, though I'm pretty sure that doesn't factor into this equation. I started out by just licking it and counting every 10, but that was quite tedious, so I started counting in 20's. By 180 I could clearly see (and taste) the tootsie center, but it looked like a little vein rather than the full center. I decided that this wasn't enough, so I kept going. By lick 1000 the diameters had shrunk to 3/4" and 1" respectively. Unfortunately I had to give up the experiment at lick 1200 (hard as this might be to believe, but I had better things to do), but based on that rate I would have reached the "center" by approximately the 2400th lick. So that's going to be my answer. If someone resubmits this question I'll tackle it again.
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, January 12, 2007
18 - Answers
Q: Karyn Graves - Where did you go?
A: I'll hit this one first, since it gives me the chance to explain my absence. After my last post I went back to NH to visit my parents for Christmas. Then I came back here in time to spend New Years at the Stoffel's (which was a great time, by the way). Since then I've just been trying to keep up with life in general. I have been editing and finishing my novel from this year's NaNoWriMo, playing several shows with my band, and watching Season 5 of 24 as fast as I can in preparation for the new season. In short, I've been busy. Is that an excuse? No, not really. If I'd really wanted to get this done sooner I certainly could have done it. I've been lax, and I'm sorry. I hope my answers to this rather eclectic bunch of questions are worth the wait.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Easy question: Wii or PS3?
A: This is not as easy a question as I thought. Both of these two next generation systems have their advantages and appeals in my mind. The Wii is (relatively) cheap, has the ability to play GameCube games directly as well as a huge library of Nintendo and Sega games through emulation (via an online service), and has a very cool game control interface. The PS3 can play the entire library of PS1 and PS2 games, is fully HD capable, and has the ability to play BluRay movies. Both have extensive online abilities, and both have great games that I would go out and buy immediately if I bought the system (Zelda for the Wii and Resistance for the PS3).
If money were no object (and if I could only get one) I would definitely go with the PS3. I've got a larger library of PS1 and PS2 games, and there are a lot of game families that will be out for the PS3 that I enjoy (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc). However, money is definitely a variable in this equation. The Wii retails for $250, while the PS3 can cost as much as $700. With that in mind, I'd have to say that the Wii is my first choice.
Will I buy either of them right away? No. When my PS2 bites the dust, I'll replace it with a PS3. I probably won't wait for my GameCube to die before buying a Wii to replace it, though I'll most likely wait until the price drops $50 or so. We'll see.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - is Santa real?
A: This is one of the most complicated questions that's ever been posed to me. I'm going to tackle it in three different ways: literal, historical, and esoteric. These interpretations depend on what one means by "Santa". Keep reading and hopefully it'll become clear.
Literal: If by "Santa" you mean the fat, jolly man who lives at the North Pole and runs a massive toy manufacturing and distribution enterprise, then no. He is not real. Sorry. Now, the various men (and some women) who dress up in red suits and play "Santa Claus" are real. In that sense, Santa is real because those people are real. Do they run around on Christmas night delivering toys to the good girls and boys? No, probably not. But they are playing the role of Santa, and thus keeping the idea of Santa alive, and I think that counts for something.
Historical: The figure we know today as "Santa Claus" is based on a real man named Saint Nicholas. Many cultures picked up on this figure and created their own interpretations and legends around him. I won't get too much into detail on this one; click here for a really good Wikipedia article on the origins of Santa. It's pretty complete, and I won't try and top it.
Esoteric: The way I look at it, Santa Claus can be viewed as the spirit of giving in the holiday season (that holiday being Christmas, Hannukah, Ramadan, or whatever floats your boat). In that more romantic sense, Santa is real as long as people keep giving gifts to one another. Sappy? Yes, and I acknowledge that. But I get pretty sentimental this time of year, so indulge me. As I've grown older, the real meaning of Christmas has changed for me. It's no longer just about toys and presents. It's about family and giving. I take a lot of joy in giving presents to my friends and loved ones.
Final answer: Yes. Santa is real.
Q: Karyn Graves - How likely is it that there was just one mouse in the house (that we already caught), and so we can put the traps away now? (or should we do some other work to prevent any further occurences?)
A: It's been three weeks since you asked me this question. If you haven't seen any mice since then, I think it's likely that the mouse you caught was acting alone. It's always possible that it wasn't, however. I would keep traps out for another couple of weeks just to be sure. As far as preventing further occurences, you should keep all doors and windows firmly shut to prevent more mice from getting inside. You should also remove incentives for them to be in your house in the first place. Don't leave food lying around, clean up crumbs, etc.
Q: Brett Gobe - Tupac or Big E Smalls?
A: It should be perfectly obvious that I'm neither. Seriously? I'm not a hip-hop or rap fan at all. If forced to choose, I'd say Tupac because his songs were at least slightly tolerable. Big E Smalls was someone I could never take seriously. I heard that he was somewhat of a philanthropist, and if that's the case then that's a good thing, but he still wrote and recorded bad music.
A: I'll hit this one first, since it gives me the chance to explain my absence. After my last post I went back to NH to visit my parents for Christmas. Then I came back here in time to spend New Years at the Stoffel's (which was a great time, by the way). Since then I've just been trying to keep up with life in general. I have been editing and finishing my novel from this year's NaNoWriMo, playing several shows with my band, and watching Season 5 of 24 as fast as I can in preparation for the new season. In short, I've been busy. Is that an excuse? No, not really. If I'd really wanted to get this done sooner I certainly could have done it. I've been lax, and I'm sorry. I hope my answers to this rather eclectic bunch of questions are worth the wait.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Easy question: Wii or PS3?
A: This is not as easy a question as I thought. Both of these two next generation systems have their advantages and appeals in my mind. The Wii is (relatively) cheap, has the ability to play GameCube games directly as well as a huge library of Nintendo and Sega games through emulation (via an online service), and has a very cool game control interface. The PS3 can play the entire library of PS1 and PS2 games, is fully HD capable, and has the ability to play BluRay movies. Both have extensive online abilities, and both have great games that I would go out and buy immediately if I bought the system (Zelda for the Wii and Resistance for the PS3).
If money were no object (and if I could only get one) I would definitely go with the PS3. I've got a larger library of PS1 and PS2 games, and there are a lot of game families that will be out for the PS3 that I enjoy (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc). However, money is definitely a variable in this equation. The Wii retails for $250, while the PS3 can cost as much as $700. With that in mind, I'd have to say that the Wii is my first choice.
Will I buy either of them right away? No. When my PS2 bites the dust, I'll replace it with a PS3. I probably won't wait for my GameCube to die before buying a Wii to replace it, though I'll most likely wait until the price drops $50 or so. We'll see.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - is Santa real?
A: This is one of the most complicated questions that's ever been posed to me. I'm going to tackle it in three different ways: literal, historical, and esoteric. These interpretations depend on what one means by "Santa". Keep reading and hopefully it'll become clear.
Literal: If by "Santa" you mean the fat, jolly man who lives at the North Pole and runs a massive toy manufacturing and distribution enterprise, then no. He is not real. Sorry. Now, the various men (and some women) who dress up in red suits and play "Santa Claus" are real. In that sense, Santa is real because those people are real. Do they run around on Christmas night delivering toys to the good girls and boys? No, probably not. But they are playing the role of Santa, and thus keeping the idea of Santa alive, and I think that counts for something.
Historical: The figure we know today as "Santa Claus" is based on a real man named Saint Nicholas. Many cultures picked up on this figure and created their own interpretations and legends around him. I won't get too much into detail on this one; click here for a really good Wikipedia article on the origins of Santa. It's pretty complete, and I won't try and top it.
Esoteric: The way I look at it, Santa Claus can be viewed as the spirit of giving in the holiday season (that holiday being Christmas, Hannukah, Ramadan, or whatever floats your boat). In that more romantic sense, Santa is real as long as people keep giving gifts to one another. Sappy? Yes, and I acknowledge that. But I get pretty sentimental this time of year, so indulge me. As I've grown older, the real meaning of Christmas has changed for me. It's no longer just about toys and presents. It's about family and giving. I take a lot of joy in giving presents to my friends and loved ones.
Final answer: Yes. Santa is real.
Q: Karyn Graves - How likely is it that there was just one mouse in the house (that we already caught), and so we can put the traps away now? (or should we do some other work to prevent any further occurences?)
A: It's been three weeks since you asked me this question. If you haven't seen any mice since then, I think it's likely that the mouse you caught was acting alone. It's always possible that it wasn't, however. I would keep traps out for another couple of weeks just to be sure. As far as preventing further occurences, you should keep all doors and windows firmly shut to prevent more mice from getting inside. You should also remove incentives for them to be in your house in the first place. Don't leave food lying around, clean up crumbs, etc.
Q: Brett Gobe - Tupac or Big E Smalls?
A: It should be perfectly obvious that I'm neither. Seriously? I'm not a hip-hop or rap fan at all. If forced to choose, I'd say Tupac because his songs were at least slightly tolerable. Big E Smalls was someone I could never take seriously. I heard that he was somewhat of a philanthropist, and if that's the case then that's a good thing, but he still wrote and recorded bad music.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
15 - Answers
Q: Bill Jeffers - Black and Navy-still fashion faux pas or the new thing?
A: Didn't you used to work at Tuxedo Junction? Doesn't that make you more qualified to answer this question than me? I'm sorry, I'm answering your question with another question. That's not very useful of me.
I'm really not all that current on the latest in men's fashion (pants are still in, right?), but my impression is that black and navy together is just not right. Now, I'm not talking about wearing black pants and navy socks, or navy pants and black shoes. That's okay. But wearing black pants and a navy blazer is just wrong. I don't care if it's "the new thing" or not. It looks ugly. Is it a "faux pas"? Yes, I would say so.
Q: Joe Zaffarano - If a safe is unlocked, is it still a safe?
A: A safe can be basically defined as a container with a lock. This definition does not get into the state of the lock, merely that the lock exists. Therefore, the fact that a safe is unlocked does not make it not a safe. It is merely a state of the safe. So the answer to the question is yes, an unlocked safe is still a safe.
Q: Kevin Graves - Should I try learning a new musical instrument, or just stick to the drums?
A: Congratulations, Kevin. You win the award for best question this week. Let me first spin the story of the question (and please correct me if I get anything wrong). This question comes from a Pep Band Road trip to RPI. I think this was my Junior year, which would make it during Kevin's tenure as a graduate student. We were short a drummer for the trip, and so Kevin was lending a hand on the quads. He played some cheers and a couple of songs on the quads, and then switched back to his regular instrument (trumpet). After playing one song, a kid came up to Kevin and said in a serious and deadpan voice, "You should stick with the drums." The entire band was in stitches over this, and it became a running joke for months to come.
As far as your question, you should definitely stick with the drums. You already knew quite a bit about drumming when we played together in Pep Band, and rather than learning a totally new instrument, you should focus your energies on improving your drumming skills. And while you're at it, teach your son too :). The world can always use more drummers.
A: Didn't you used to work at Tuxedo Junction? Doesn't that make you more qualified to answer this question than me? I'm sorry, I'm answering your question with another question. That's not very useful of me.
I'm really not all that current on the latest in men's fashion (pants are still in, right?), but my impression is that black and navy together is just not right. Now, I'm not talking about wearing black pants and navy socks, or navy pants and black shoes. That's okay. But wearing black pants and a navy blazer is just wrong. I don't care if it's "the new thing" or not. It looks ugly. Is it a "faux pas"? Yes, I would say so.
Q: Joe Zaffarano - If a safe is unlocked, is it still a safe?
A: A safe can be basically defined as a container with a lock. This definition does not get into the state of the lock, merely that the lock exists. Therefore, the fact that a safe is unlocked does not make it not a safe. It is merely a state of the safe. So the answer to the question is yes, an unlocked safe is still a safe.
Q: Kevin Graves - Should I try learning a new musical instrument, or just stick to the drums?
A: Congratulations, Kevin. You win the award for best question this week. Let me first spin the story of the question (and please correct me if I get anything wrong). This question comes from a Pep Band Road trip to RPI. I think this was my Junior year, which would make it during Kevin's tenure as a graduate student. We were short a drummer for the trip, and so Kevin was lending a hand on the quads. He played some cheers and a couple of songs on the quads, and then switched back to his regular instrument (trumpet). After playing one song, a kid came up to Kevin and said in a serious and deadpan voice, "You should stick with the drums." The entire band was in stitches over this, and it became a running joke for months to come.
As far as your question, you should definitely stick with the drums. You already knew quite a bit about drumming when we played together in Pep Band, and rather than learning a totally new instrument, you should focus your energies on improving your drumming skills. And while you're at it, teach your son too :). The world can always use more drummers.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)