Q: Phil - Where the fuck have you been?
A: I've been to 8 countries outside the US (chronologically they are Ireland, Canada, England, France, Australia, Denmark, Mexico and Aruba) and 29 out of 50 states. I've been near the geographic center of North America, and to the southern-most point in the US. I've been to a LOT of airports around the country, including a personal best 5 in one day (AGS-ATL-HSV-BWI-ROC) on April 27, 2012. The longest day of my travel life was in October of 2008 when I flew from Rochester, NY to Canberra, Australia. I departed Rochester at about 3pm on October 3, 2008 and landed in Canberra (hopping through Chicago, San Francisco and Sydney) at about 11am on October 5, 2008. All told I spent about 38 hours traveling, which is a record I hope stands for the rest of my life.
Q: Luke - Will the Clarkson Men's Hockey Team ever win a National Championship? Is Casey Jones' system failing, or is the new cadre of recruits going to finally make it work? Who is the guy behind the Richard Nixon mask? THESE QUESTIONS AND MORE ON THE NEXT.......ASK MITTSOB
A: Three questions and a dramatic statement. Not exactly the normal format of a question I get but I'll tackle them one at a time.
First, I think that it's likely that the Clarkson Men's Hockey team will win a National Championship (by which I assume that you mean the NCAA Men's Hockey Tournament and not, for example, the National Spelling Bee). Unfortunately the last time the team made the finals was was 1970 when they lost to Cornell 6-4, and they haven't even made the tournament since 2008 when they lost in the quarterfinals to Michigan 2-0. Given the team's performance over the past few years (see question 2) it feels unlikely but times change and I have faith in our team!
As to your second question, I sheepishly admit that I have not watched nor listened to a minute of Clarkson Hockey this season outside of the game that I attended at RIT in October. Yes, I'm a bad fan. To help close that gap I brought up the ECAC Hockey Page for Clarkson to see how the season unfolded, and the more I read the more disappointed I became. We went 8-11-3 in conference, lost in the first round of the ECAC playoffs to RPI, and to make matters worse we went 1-2-1 against SLU. Those facts alone give me pause and make me question how effective our coach's system is. Looking deeper we were in the bottom half of most statistics including Goals, PIM, Power-play (goals, opportunities, etc), Saves and Save Percentage. The only area that we seemed to do well was in Penalty Kills (3rd). With all of that data I won't jump to the "OMG Casey Jones' system is failing OMG" position, but I will express my disappointment in this past season and my hope that new recruits will help. Time, as always, will tell.
Finally, as to the identity of the guy behind the Richard Nixon mask, I plead total ignorance as to what you're talking about. Is there someone in a Richard Nixon mask attending Clarkson Men's Hockey games? The only person I identify with being behind a Richard Nixon mask is Brett Gobe, but that only makes him A guy in the Richard Nixon mask, not THE guy in the Richard Nixon mask.
Q: Mike Guethle - We've had the snowiest January on record followed by the coldest February on record. March shows no sign of warmup. When will the snow melt, and is barn cat dead?
A: Based on when the snow melted last year (a comparably cold winter) I would say that the snow will finally finish melting sometime in the first week of April. The last snowfall of the season will likely come in May of this year given the trends of the past few years, but any accumulations will be short lived.
Because it was such a brutally cold winter in the northeastern United States I'm going to guess that Barn Cat did not survive. That makes me sad despite the fact that I have not, nor never will actually MEET Barn Cat. Hopefully I am wrong about Barn Cat's fate.
Q: Matt Neal - Are smurfs insects or mammals?
A: Smurfs appear to have a skeletal structure covered by muscle, fat, skin and hair. Therefore I think this puts them into the mammal category.
Q: Phil - Will the Sabres successfully complete the tank job or will they Buffalo all over it?
A: Unfortunately my lack of hockey viewing this season extends to the NHL as well. When I moved to western New York in 2002 I decided to adopt the Buffalo Sabres as my professional hockey team but my attention has waned in the past few years. Thus I was only peripherally aware of the tank job that Buffalo was attempting this season. I say "was" because at the time of this writing (April 11, 2015) Buffalo has clinched last place with a loss to the Columbus Blue Jackets on Friday, April 10, 2015, so it seems that they've succeeded. Their prize is a guaranteed #2 lottery pick and a 20% chance at the #1 overall lottery pick. Was it worth it? Personally I think it's dangerous to put all of one's faith into a single draft pick, but let's face it, it's hard to finish worse than last. But if any city can figure out how, it's Buffalo!
Q (1 of 2): Bill - Who are the two candidates for president in 2016? Editor: don't let him wuss out on this, I want a definitive, well-thought out answer.
A: As a consumer of political news I welcome this challenge, but as a man with limited time on his hands I loathe this challenge. But accept this challenge I will!
Some ground rules and formatting up front. Candidates are grouped by political party and presented in alphabetical order. Next to each name will be their current/most recent political job. I'll try to include at least one recent news article about the person in the answer embedded with my thoughts and opinions on the person.
Democrats
At the time of this writing (March-April, 2015) two Democrats have announced their intention to run for President. The popular view is that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee but that is far from certain (see: Obama, Barack Hussein).
Joe Biden (Vice President of the United States of America)
"Uncle Joe" Biden has been involved in American politics since the late 60's, and was elected to the Senate in 1972. He has mounted several presidential campaigns over the years and was a prominent Democrat member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his tenure in the Senate. In 2008 after losing in the Democrat primary he was chosen by candidate Obama to be his running mate and became the 45th Vice President of the United States in 2008, a position he retained in 2012 with President Obama's reelection.
Vice President Biden is well known for his gaffes and inappropriate and borderline racist comments over the years but he has not suffered any serious consequences for them. Likewise his foreign policy experience (one of the reasons that he was chosen for Vice President) has been criticized by many people including most recently former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Will any of that impact his ability to try for another run at the Presidency? No. The only thing stopping him from trying is Hillary Clinton, which is the same thing stopping anyone from running on the Democrat side. Personally I hope he tries again because he's an entertaining figure in politics and he'll provide some much-needed comic relief.
Hillary Clinton (Most recently Secretary of State of the United States of America)
The first entry in our "Back to the 90's" series is Hillary Clinton, who announced her candidacy on Sunday, April 12, 2015. Former Secretary Clinton has been engaged in the American political scene for the last 40+ years. Her husband William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd President of the US. During his presidency she was brought in to design and implement a new Health Care system for the country (known at the time as Hillarycare).
After her husband left office in 2000 she was elected Senator from New York, and after a term and a third she ran for President starting in 2007. Her election to the Presidency was supposed to be a shoe-in but she ran into the political force of Barack Hussein Obama and wound up losing the Democrat Primary in 2008. Her name was floated as a potential Vice President for Obama, but ultimately she was offered and accepted the Secretary of State position after his election. What did she accomplish as Secretary of State? Not much. She flew hundreds of thousands of miles around the world meeting with diplomats and visiting foreign countries. To me that qualifies her as a travel agent or host of a show on the Travel Channel. She presented the President of Russia a misspelled reset button to symbolize a reset in Russia/US relations. She claimed to have come under sniper fire during a visit to Iraq (which was later proven false). On September 11, 2012 the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya was overrun by a coordinated attack in which the ambassador and three other American embassy personnel were killed. She blamed the attack on reaction to an obscure YouTube video (unlikely but also not disprovable), later famously proclaiming "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
The past few weeks have uncovered new scandals regarding her time at the State Department (another well-written summary can be found here). The Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from foreign governments while she was secretary, in direct violation of administration policy. She and members of her staff used a privately owned and maintained email server at her residence in Chappaqua, NY to conduct official State Department Business. She turned over all work-related emails from that server to the State Department and then deleted all emails on the server, thus ensuring that the public will never know if she ACTUALLY turned over all of her work-related emails. Most recently a book called Clinton Cash has been written detailing how Former President Clintons' speaking fees increased after she became Secretary of State and how her positions changed based on contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
But what difference at this point does it make? She's Hillary Clinton! First Woman President! And remember the 90's? They were great, right? Hillary Clinton was in the White House in the 90's! Also, vagina! #ReadyForHillary
Al Gore (Most recently Vice President of the United States of America)
Speaking of the 90's, ladies and gentlemen, Al Gore! The recent stumblings of Hillary Clinton have sent the left side of the political world looking for alternatives. The New York Times chimed in recently with this piece practically begging the former Vice President to run.
Al Gore served as a congressman from Tennessee from starting in 1977 and was elected to the Senate from that state in 1984. In 1992 he was chosen by Bill Clinton to be his Vice President where he served until 2000. In 2000 he lost the Presidential Election to George W. Bush. Since that loss he has been involved in a wide variety of environmental causes and has amassed a multi-million dollar fortune in the process. He founded (and later sold) a liberal-left media group called CurrentTV.
The fact that his name is being floated now interests me as an observer of these things. Has it been long enough since the 2000 debacle for Al Gore to make a reappearance? Personally I think so. 16 years is enough time for a new generation of voters to come of age and for the sins of the past to be forgotten (for example, Al Gore was raising campaign money from the Chinese well before Frank Underwood was).
But who cares what's in that lockbox? Remember the 90's? They were great, right? Al Gore was in the White House in the 90's! Also, environment! #ReadyForAlGore
Martin O'Malley (Most recently Governor of Maryland)
Martin O'Malley served two terms as Governor of Maryland from 2007 to 2015. Before that he was mayor of Baltimore from 1999 to 2007. He's got executive experience and left-wing values, so in a normal year that would make him a viable candidate for the Democrat party's nomination. Unfortunately for him this is not a normal year. He's starting to make appearances in NH and has begun to (gently) poke at Hillary. What I expect will happen is that eventually the Clintons will swat him like a mosquito and that will be the end of his candidacy.
Bernie Sanders (Senator from Vermont)
Bernie Sanders is an Independent Senator from Vermont who is a self-labeled Democratic Socialist (in the mold of the Democratic Socialist parties in Europe) who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. He began his political career as Mayor of Burlington in 1981 and was elected to the House of Representatives on his second effort in 1990. He was elected to the Senate in 2006 and won reelection in 2012. He is currently the only officially-declared challenger to Hillary Clinton.
Senator Sanders has been a champion of far-left causes for his entire career. He is most famous for delivering an 8.5 hour speech on the Senate floor (incorrectly labeled as a filibuster) in December of 2010 against extension of the tax cuts signed into law during the George W. Bush administration. His platform seems to be a very far-left populist message of taking money from billionaires and distributing it to the rest of the country. It's a very popular message among the left but I'm not sure how it's going to play in a general election. Regardless I'm happy that he's in the race because he'll put pressure on Secretary Clinton and provide some competition on that side of the race.
Elizabeth Warren (Senator from Massachusetts)
Senator Warren is currently a darling among the left. Part of her admiration seems to be based on her firm allegiance to the "you didn't build that" wing of the Democrat party. Her left-populist, class-envy positions are popular with the far-left and there's already a movement to draft her into the nomination. Thus far she has not declared or indicated any interest, but if Hillary Clinton were to suddenly disappear she would be a first-tier candidate.
There are many similarities between Senator Warren and President Obama. Both are former college professors. Both were aided in achieving their college positions by their minority status (1/2 African-American for Obama, 1/12th Native-American for Warren, though this was later proven false and provided her the nickname "Fauxcahontas"). Both hold views that are on the far-left of the American political spectrum. Both were first-term Senators when they seriously considered Presidential runs. So if you think that the Obama regime has been a success, by all means let's try it again!
James Webb (Most recently Senator from Virginia)
James "Jim" Webb served one term as Senator from Virginia from 2007 to 2012. He was elected as part of the Democrat wave of 2006 where the Republicans lost both the Senate and the House. In his time in the Senate he served on the prominent military and foreign committees (Foreign Relations, Veterans Affairs and Armed Services). He decided to leave after one term, and in November of 2014 formed an exploratory committee for a Presidential run, which is unique among the candidates on the Democrat side of the ledger.
Senator Webb falls into the same left-wing populist category as our current President, but the fact that he served a full term in the Senate gives him more experience than Senator Warren, so he's go that that going for him, which is nice. Personally I believe that his run is for a position in a future Clinton administration (most likely Defense Secretary). This is a tactic used over the years by many candidates, and we'll have several more examples when we get to the Republicans.
Republicans
As a conservative I am supremely happy with the crop of candidates. I will say upfront that I have not currently chosen a candidate, but out of the ones listed below there are only a couple that I would not enthusiastically support. All face an uphill battle but I believe that all are qualified to at least wage that battle.
Jeb Bush (Most recently Governor of Florida)
For our third and final entry in the "Back to the 90's" sweepstakes, I give you Jeb Bush. Governor Bush is the son and brother of former US Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush respectively. He was elected as Governor of Florida in 1998 after losing in 1994 and served two terms as Governor. During his tenure he lowered taxes and implemented conservative government reforms including cutting spending and making it easier to remove government employees. He worked to reform education, something that he has continued in his time outside of office with his support of Common Core. At this point he has only declared that he's exploring a run for President, not actually declared but the popular opinion is that he'll get in sometime this spring/summer.
Governor Bush is the leader among establishment Republicans and has the most big-money donors supporting him. That will help his chances but with the rise of the conservative grass roots since 2009 I don't know if it will be enough.
Ben Carson (N/A)
Dr. Ben Carson is a pediatric neurosurgeon who was invited to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2013. There he gave a very pointed and critical speech directed partly at President Obama, who was in the room with him during the speech. For this he received praise from conservatives and condemnation from the left. Since that time he has become a prominent conservative commentator, appearing often on Fox News and talk radio outlets. He officially announced his candidacy via a video released on May 3, 2015.
Dr. Carson's views tend to the conservative/libertarian, which I like, but mastery of Medicine does not qualify someone to be President, nor does rhetorical flourish, so I'm not a fan of his Presidential run and I don't think he has a chance of winning. His knowledge of foreign affairs is particularly lacking as evidenced by an interview he gave with one of my favorite conservative talk show hosts. In my opinion he is running not for President but for a Cabinet Secretary position (Surgeon General most likely) in the eventual Republican nominee's administration.
Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey)
Governor Chris Christie is one of my personal favorite figures in national politics today. He began his political career in 1995 as a county legislator, was appointed US Attorney for New Jersey by President George W. Bush from 2002 to 2008, and then ran for an won the Governorship in 2009. He won reelection in 2014 and is currently the chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
Governor Christie is a bombastic, fearless, articulate man. He balanced budgets in New Jersey without raising income, sales or business taxes. He is a vocal critic of the teacher's unions in New Jersey, and supports school choice. Unfortunately he has been dogged by a number of media-driven complaints and controversies for the past two years. The most famous of these involved the closure of two lanes of the Fort Lee entrance to the George Washington bridge from September 9-13, 2013. This caused numerous traffic headaches for residences and became a national scandal known as Bridgegate. The closures were ordered by one of Christie's aides who was later fired. In January of 2014 Governor Christie held an epic 108 minute long press conference, answering every question that the press could come up with about the incident, which seemed to deflate a lot of attention. An investigation of the incident concluded in December of 2014 and cleared the Governor of any wrongdoing.
He's been keeping out of the spotlight lately, which I think is for the best. In my opinion he would be an entertaining candidate, but I don't think he's the best we can do.
Ted Cruz (Senator from Texas)
In general I do not like Senators as Presidents. The last six and a half years have more than borne this out. However, I really like Ted Cruz. He is smart and a great speaker, and he backs up his principles with action (filibustering overnight in the Senate, for example). He does well in large groups and in long interviews, and does not require a teleprompter to tell him what to say. He clerked in the Supreme Court and has argued nine times in front of that same court.
He was also the first Republican to openly declare his/her candidacy. Since the announcement he has made the rounds in Iowa, given several media interviews, and started meeting with voters. The most recent controversy he's been involved in is regarding an interview given by Mark Halparin in which Cruz was challenged to prove that he was authentically Cuban. Senator Cruz bore it well and the interviewer was rightly chastised for his racism. It isn't the end of it, but the public shaming of Halparin is encouraging.
Carly Fiorina (Most recently candidate for Senator from California)
Carly Fiorina is most famous for being CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) from 2002 to 2005. Her first political activity was an unsuccessful senate campaign in 2010, but she's been very vocal about her desire to run for President this cycle. On the one hand I like executive experience, and Carly Fiorina certainly has that. She seems very smart, accomplished, and can think fast on her feet. She has been going after Hillary Clinton in speeches and is at least partly shielded from gender politics by being a woman. She officially announced her candidacy during an appearance on ABC's This Week program on May 3, 2015.
Unfortunately I think her lack of national political experience is going to hurt her as the race gets going. True, she's a good speaker and can battle back against the inevitable bias in the media, but that won't be enough to push her candidacy over the edge. I see Carly Fiorina giving this a go for two reasons. First, to raise her national profile. She could come back and run for Senate or Governor from California again. Second, she could also be running for a Cabinet Secretary position, probably Secretary of Treasury.
Lindsey Graham (Senator from South Carolina)
I am not a fan of Lindsey Graham. He has been in Washington for far too long, and as such has become a member of the establishment wing of the Republican Party (see also McCain, John, Boehner, John and McConnell, Mitch). Anyone who has spent that much time in the US Senate is not qualified to be President of the United States of America. The one interesting thing about his candidacy is that it increases the probability of the Naked Leprechaun Riding on a Unicorn Scenario, which I will come to in due time. [Ed. The WHAT?!? Trust me, it's good!]
Mike Huckabee (Most recently governor of Arkansas)
Governor Huckabee is a big-government conservative in the mold of George W. Bush. He is socially conservative, a darling of the evangelical right movement, and an effective communicator. He was able to turn his unsuccessful Presidential runs in 2008 and 2012 into a successful television show on the Fox News Channel. Recently he announced that he was going to take a leave from the show, and on May 5, 2015 he announced his candidacy.
Governor Huckabee's brand of "compassionate conservatism" died with the George W. Bush administration in 2008. Sadly the Governor does not yet realize that, but he will, and when he does I hope that he steps aside gracefully.
John Kasich (Governor of Ohio)
John Kasich is currently in his second term as governor of Ohio having won a decisive victory in 2014. Prior to that he served in Congress from 1983 until 2001, then went on to host a show on Fox News until 2007. His name has recently started to be spoken more loudly by the political class, and given the importance of Ohio to the electoral college and his performance as governor (generally positive) I think it's likely he'll get in.
Rick Perry (Most recently Governor of Texas)
Rick Perry is considered a dark horse candidate given his struggles in the 2012 Republican Presidential campaign. His experience as governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015 certainly helps his chances, as does the fact that he's run and lost. He seems to have learned some lessons and is keeping a low profile. He has not officially declared, nor has he formed an exploratory committee, but his name remains in the mix.
Rand Paul (Senator from Kentucky)
Rand Paul announced his candidacy on April 7, 2015. His launch was rocky (he got into an on-air confrontation with Savannah Guthrie of the Today Show), but during it he did succeed in pushing back against the media and that shows that he's a fighter. Rand Paul is firmly in command of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, and a formidable wing it is. His father Ron Paul has been a darling of that movement for a long time, and Senator Paul seems to have inherited that support.
He, like Ted Cruz, also suffers from being a first-term senator. Given that there are three total (see our next contestant) that's not that big of an issue, but it's still an issue. I think his bigger issue is going to be the fact that this election is going to be more and more focused on foreign policy, and Rand Paul's isolationist instincts are not going to serve him well.
Marco Rubio (Senator from Florida)
Rounding out the class of first-term Senators running for President, I bring you Marco Rubio. Elected in 2010, Senator Rubio has made a name for himself as a foreign policy expert in the Senate. I have seen and heard him give numerous interviews on foreign policy and he is impressive in those settings. He works without notes, has a clear vision, and articulates it well.
Senator Rubio announced his candidacy on April 13, 2015 in a speech in Miami, FL. The fact that two major politicians from Florida are in the race and that makes the aforementioned Naked Leprechaun Riding A Unicorn Scenario more likely. [Ed. I'm starting to think that you just made up that term. I only wish I had come up with it first!]
Rick Santorum (Most recently Senator from Pennsylvania)
On the plus side Rick Santorum has been out of the US Senate for long enough that any establishment stain has long since washed away. On the minus side, well, he's just not a good candidate. He's been running for President of Iowa for the better part of a decade but hasn't gained much national momentum. He collected the second most delegates in the 2012 Republican Primary but that doesn't seem to matter this time around. Personally I hope he decides to sit this one out but I doubt he will.
Scott Walker (Governor of Wisconsin)
A very successful governor with a rising national profile, Scott Walker is my personal favorite candidate in the batch. First elected governor in 2010 he upset the left in Wisconsin by introducing drastic overhauls in the budget and limiting the power of public employee unions. In retaliation there were demonstrations, protests, and eventually a recall election in 2012 which he won handily. He campaigned again in 2014 and again won re-election.
In January of 2015 Scott Walker first formed an exploratory committee around a Presidential run and began making speeches in Iowa and other places around the country. He would be the first President in a very long time without a college degree (he quit his Senior year to accept a job offer and never finished). Personally I find that to be to his benefit.
Matchup and Victor
Democrats: Hilary Clinton
Who else could it be? I mean really, it doesn't matter how many scandals come about, how many rules and/or laws that she's broken, or how incompetent she has been in her government jobs. She's the nominee. Get used to it. #ReadyForHillary
Republicans: Brokered Convention
One possibility that 2016 presents on the Republican side is what's known as a Brokered Convention. This means that no one candidate has enough delegates to win outright and that the rules of the convention will pick the candidate. I like to think of it like how the Vatican chooses a new pope but without the white smoke. Because of how rare it would be, Hugh Hewitt (another of my favorite radio talk show hosts) calls this the Naked Leprechaun Riding a Unicorn Scenario.
So once the dust settles who will win? My money is on Governor Walker. Admittedly this is some wishful thinking on my part, but to me Scott Walker is the best possible choice for the Republicans.
Q (2 of 2): Bill - Which pair of pep band offspring are the first to hook up? You know it's going to happen eventually...
A: There have been pairings in the pep band for as long as the pep band has existed. Some of these have succeeded (often times spectacularly) while others have failed (equally spectacularly). Pairings of pep band offspring, however, is something that is naturally going to be rarer given the smaller pool of people to draw from.
But how small is that pool? I've decided to bound the potential candidates with the following rules:
1. One parent must have been a member in good standing of the Clarkson University Pep Band for one full hockey season.
2. Both parents must have attended Clarkson University for at least one full year.
This disqualifies a large number of people (including myself and Steve Faux) but leaves in place people like you and your wife. You're welcome. With those rules in place I racked my brain and was able to come up with the following (admittedly incomplete) list in no particular order:
Greg and Kathy Dilmore: 4
Kevin and Karyn Graves: 2
Tim and Marybeth Livingston: 3
Charlie and Serena Blackmer: 4
Jarsh Beckstein: 2
Eric and Alicia Democko: 2
Matt and Meg Stoffel: 2
Bill and Lisa Jeffers: 2
Brian and Jen Walden: 1
Tim and Melissa Sweet: 2
Miscellaneous other couplings I'm forgetting about: 5-10
(I embarrassingly can't remember if Todd or Tony reproduced within the rules above, so if they did then their children apply too. Sorry guys!)
This brings the total number of children to between 25 and 30. Not bad! Let's assume for the sake of this question that all of these children attend Clarkson once they are old enough. The age distributions bring a large number of them to Clarkson at the same time, and common interests (pep band, general Clarkson-ness) means that the probability of romantic interaction become very high.
Assuming that none of the geographically co-located children have been matched together before college (there are large collections in Rochester, NY and Albany, NY, so it's certainly possible), the odds that two of them will get together increase once they reach college age. But which you ask (bringing the question full circle)? I really can't say, but I will say that it WILL happen.
Q: AndrewSmith - What happens to Guethle on St Pattys day?
A: The same thing that happens to Guethle on every other day of the year: he wakes up, he drinks, he has adventures, he drinks, he sleeps.
Q: Jacob - DANCE!?
A: NO THANK YOU!?
Q: Jesse_Burton - How long is original recipe fourloko good for?
A: FourLoko is a combination malt beverage and energy drink that was first introduced in 2005. Its main ingredients are alcohol (12% ABV), caffeine, taurine and guarana. FourLoko became a craze between 2008 and 2010 for its intoxicating and energizing effects. It was banned from several college campuses after incidents involving students drinking too much of the product and the hilarity that did not ensue. In response to the controversy they relaunched without the energy drink components (caffeine, taurine and guarana) and became more of a standard malt beverage.
I posed this question to the competition and learned that malt beverages expire after about 4 months. However if you keep it unopened and refrigerated it will technically never go "bad", it will just grow weaker and less fresh with time.
Q: waits - What form of Guethle would most likely be successful I.e. profitable in the world outside the linkos?
A) reality tv documentary
B) reality dating show
C) Guethle show I.e. Truman show
D) Book deal
E) blog
F) advertising poster boy for a new dating website.
A: Again basing this only on my limited interactions with Guethle (mostly over the last few months on this forum) I'm going to combine A and E leading to D. I can see Mike beginning a blog and hosting his own YouTube TV show, using both platforms to entertain people with his stories and adventures. After a few months/years of this he should have built up an audience and can peddle that into a book deal.
Mike, if you're interested I'd love to help out with this project. There's gold in them thar hills!
Q: Sheamus - What question should I ask in Ask Mitssob - Episode 72?
A: Because it takes me so long to answer these questions (and despite my best efforts that trend is sadly going to continue) I recommend asking a question that you WANT an answer to, but not one that you NEED an answer to.
Q: Jacob - What dead language should we all learn and program into Jolinko for our own personal use?
A: The easiest dead language to use would probably be Old English. The structure and form seems to be close enough to modern English that we could stumble through with minimal effort. If you want to go really obscure there are many choices. Personally I think Aramaic would be a good one to resurrect. However I think a more productive use of resources would be to use a language that is still in use today so that the community can grow more worldly.
Q: Jesse_Burton - What will my raise be this year and should I be happy about what I get?
A: Based on nothing in particular I think that you will get a raise of between 1% and 5%, since that seems to be a standard these days.
The second part of your question touches on the topic of expectations and happiness. As I've mentioned in past episodes, one of my favorite radio talk show hosts is a man named Dennis Prager. He dedicates the second hour of his Friday show to Happiness, and has written a fantastic book on the subject called Happiness is a Serious Problem. He wrote a column in 2012 entitled Who Is Happy?, and one part of it is relevant to your question:
People who have few expectations.
The more we expect, the less happy we will be — because the more we expect, the less grateful we are for what we receive. And ingratitude is the mother of unhappiness.
I think that's a good way to look at things. If you don't have expectations then you will be happier with the outcomes, and this applies to your situation. If you don't expect to get a raise then you will probably be happy with whatever raise you get. And if you don't get a raise then you won't be disappointed if one doesn't come.
Q: Steve Faux - Why is deciding on a baby name so difficult?
A: First, congratulations on the forthcoming arrival of Faux Baby! Hopefully you and the Fantastic Mrs. Faux are getting through the pregnancy with minimal difficulty and are getting excited for the arrival of your offspring.
Your question is timely since my wife and I have struggled with this problem as well. I think it's difficult because it's a major decision. It is a choice that will define your child's life, something that he or she will be stuck with forever. You'll be calling your child this name through good times and bad. It will help define their identity. Therefore it's not something to be taken lightly.
The second reason its difficult is that you have to pair the name with your surname, and that can prove difficult. "Boss" and "Faux" aren't the most common names, and they naturally eliminate some choices. In any event it's a tough decision and I wish you both the best of luck both with that, and with everything else that's coming your way.
Q: Matt Barrett - What are the chances Steve Faux names his child Seven?
A: Given that the Fantastic Mrs. Faux is involved in the decision I'd say that the chances are somewhere between zero and none.
Q: Sheamus - When will my neighbors take down their Christmas lights?
A: In my opinion it's permissible to leave Christmas lights up while there is still snow on the ground, regardless of what month it is. It's currently April as I write this and snow is still on the ground here in Rochester (albeit fading very quickly), so I would think that your neighbors would take their lights down soon.
Q: Matt Neal - Why do I only have lucid dreams when I drink heavily?
A: Lucid dreaming is the state of dreaming where you are aware that you're dreaming. A quick search yielded a very interesting message board thread on this topic. My guess is that the alcohol is relaxing to you and puts your body into a deeper sleep than normal.
Showing posts with label babies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label babies. Show all posts
Monday, May 18, 2015
Sunday, June 21, 2009
51 - Answers
Q: Nate - Where do babies come from?
A: How is it that you've gotten through this much of your life without an answer to this question? Didn't they have health class in Connecticut? Maybe now that you're a married man (and belated congratulations to you and Mrs. D, by the way) you have a need for an answer. Well I'm here to help!
Contrary to popular myth babies do not come via air-lift from a large winged bird. The scientific answer is that babies come from the pairing of sperm and egg, followed by gestation, followed by birth. So how do sperm and egg get together, you ask? That would be through what I will delicately call the "physical act of love" (see also: horizontal mambo, bedroom Olympics, and "I'm Nate D, who the hell are you?"). Hope this helped in some small way.
Q: Matt - I just got over a case of the swine flu. Long story short, my doctor prescribed a 5-day regimen of Tamiflu. It was only 10 pills (2 every day), but the prescription cost $115. Why are prescription drugs so expensive?
A: There are many factors that go into the cost of prescription drugs. During my research I found a very good article put out by the people at PHRMA, which can be read in PDF form here. I learned a few interesting things about the development of drugs, including the fact that only 5 out of every 10,000 potential drugs ever make it to clinical trials, and only 1 out of those 5 ever become drugs. Therefore the cost of the drugs that are produced must make up for those "failed" drugs. Another factor in the cost of drugs are the many layers of regulation that the drug must go through prior to being approved for use by the public.
In the specific case of your prescription for Tamiflu I'm going to blame good-old supply and demand. The outbreak of the Swine Flu earlier this summer had the effect of a major increase in the demand for Tamiflu. As a result supplies grew scarcer, and thus price went up. I don't read anything nefarious into the price increase, though there may in fact be some profit-taking by the drug companies.
Q: Bill - I'm interested to hear how political the answer is.
A: Me too. My editor was a little worried that I'd go overboard with another patented Tim Rant about government and spending and all that nonsense. Luckily for my editor I'm too busy and too tired to go off. Maybe next time.
Q: Bill - I know it's been explained to me before, but I was younger and didn't pay attention: Where did horsepower originate and how is it calculated?
A: The term horsepower was created by James Watt in the late 18th century. His goal was to come up with a way to compare the energy output of steam engines with the energy from draft horses, which are horses used for heavy labor such as farming. The original calculation was done by counting how many times a horse could turn a mill-wheel in an hour. By this method one horsepower is 33,000 foot-pounds of force per minute, or 550 ft-lb/sec. In modern times horsepower is still used as a way to represent the power of piston-based (and other) engines.
Q: Jon - 1 hp = 745.699872 watts
A: You are correct, congratulations.
Q: Matt - Watt's a watt?
A: Yes, a watt is a watt. Thank you for pointing that out to the Ask Mitssob audience. You've done us all a service.
Q: Bridget - I have a question.....Yoohoo....what IS it, and why is it so fucking good?
A: Yoo-hoo is a chocolate beverage originally developed in the 1920s in New Jersey. An even more literal definition of what Yoohoo is can be found below:
Water, dairy whey, high fructose corn syrup and/or sugar, non-fat ilk, cornsyrup solids, cocoa processed with potassium carbonate, soybean oil (partially hydrogenated), sodium caseinate, salt, tricalcium phosphate, dipotassium phosphate, xanthan gum, guar gum, mono and di glycerides, vanillan, lecithin, calcium ascorbate, natural flavor, vitamin A palmitate, niacinamide, vitamin D, riboflavin.
Click here for a detailed history of the beverage in question.
As to why it is "so fucking good", that's hard to say. I would say that it's because of the combination of ingredients. Anyone can make chocolate milk, but there are special bottling techniques used in making Yoo-hoo that probably contribute to the taste.
Q: Rob - Why on the Jolinko home page area does it continue to display a single person under the friend finder for me? It alternates between a list of people I don't know, and only one persons icon, yours Tim.
A: Apparently Jolinko is attempting to recommend me as a friend for you, Rob, despite the fact that I'm not sure I've ever met you. Still, Jolinko is all-powerful and all-knowing, so maybe our friendship was meant to be. Who knows?
Q: vanessa - mine is the same way!
A: Well if I'm being recommended to two different people then my plans for world domination must be further along than I thought! I guess I'll have to advance my plans to take over the world's financial system and...
Oh wait, is this thing on? Whoops!
A: How is it that you've gotten through this much of your life without an answer to this question? Didn't they have health class in Connecticut? Maybe now that you're a married man (and belated congratulations to you and Mrs. D, by the way) you have a need for an answer. Well I'm here to help!
Contrary to popular myth babies do not come via air-lift from a large winged bird. The scientific answer is that babies come from the pairing of sperm and egg, followed by gestation, followed by birth. So how do sperm and egg get together, you ask? That would be through what I will delicately call the "physical act of love" (see also: horizontal mambo, bedroom Olympics, and "I'm Nate D, who the hell are you?"). Hope this helped in some small way.
Q: Matt - I just got over a case of the swine flu. Long story short, my doctor prescribed a 5-day regimen of Tamiflu. It was only 10 pills (2 every day), but the prescription cost $115. Why are prescription drugs so expensive?
A: There are many factors that go into the cost of prescription drugs. During my research I found a very good article put out by the people at PHRMA, which can be read in PDF form here. I learned a few interesting things about the development of drugs, including the fact that only 5 out of every 10,000 potential drugs ever make it to clinical trials, and only 1 out of those 5 ever become drugs. Therefore the cost of the drugs that are produced must make up for those "failed" drugs. Another factor in the cost of drugs are the many layers of regulation that the drug must go through prior to being approved for use by the public.
In the specific case of your prescription for Tamiflu I'm going to blame good-old supply and demand. The outbreak of the Swine Flu earlier this summer had the effect of a major increase in the demand for Tamiflu. As a result supplies grew scarcer, and thus price went up. I don't read anything nefarious into the price increase, though there may in fact be some profit-taking by the drug companies.
Q: Bill - I'm interested to hear how political the answer is.
A: Me too. My editor was a little worried that I'd go overboard with another patented Tim Rant about government and spending and all that nonsense. Luckily for my editor I'm too busy and too tired to go off. Maybe next time.
Q: Bill - I know it's been explained to me before, but I was younger and didn't pay attention: Where did horsepower originate and how is it calculated?
A: The term horsepower was created by James Watt in the late 18th century. His goal was to come up with a way to compare the energy output of steam engines with the energy from draft horses, which are horses used for heavy labor such as farming. The original calculation was done by counting how many times a horse could turn a mill-wheel in an hour. By this method one horsepower is 33,000 foot-pounds of force per minute, or 550 ft-lb/sec. In modern times horsepower is still used as a way to represent the power of piston-based (and other) engines.
Q: Jon - 1 hp = 745.699872 watts
A: You are correct, congratulations.
Q: Matt - Watt's a watt?
A: Yes, a watt is a watt. Thank you for pointing that out to the Ask Mitssob audience. You've done us all a service.
Q: Bridget - I have a question.....Yoohoo....what IS it, and why is it so fucking good?
A: Yoo-hoo is a chocolate beverage originally developed in the 1920s in New Jersey. An even more literal definition of what Yoohoo is can be found below:
Water, dairy whey, high fructose corn syrup and/or sugar, non-fat ilk, cornsyrup solids, cocoa processed with potassium carbonate, soybean oil (partially hydrogenated), sodium caseinate, salt, tricalcium phosphate, dipotassium phosphate, xanthan gum, guar gum, mono and di glycerides, vanillan, lecithin, calcium ascorbate, natural flavor, vitamin A palmitate, niacinamide, vitamin D, riboflavin.
Click here for a detailed history of the beverage in question.
As to why it is "so fucking good", that's hard to say. I would say that it's because of the combination of ingredients. Anyone can make chocolate milk, but there are special bottling techniques used in making Yoo-hoo that probably contribute to the taste.
Q: Rob - Why on the Jolinko home page area does it continue to display a single person under the friend finder for me? It alternates between a list of people I don't know, and only one persons icon, yours Tim.
A: Apparently Jolinko is attempting to recommend me as a friend for you, Rob, despite the fact that I'm not sure I've ever met you. Still, Jolinko is all-powerful and all-knowing, so maybe our friendship was meant to be. Who knows?
Q: vanessa - mine is the same way!
A: Well if I'm being recommended to two different people then my plans for world domination must be further along than I thought! I guess I'll have to advance my plans to take over the world's financial system and...
Oh wait, is this thing on? Whoops!
Thursday, April 2, 2009
46 - Answers
Q: Bill Jeffers - Where do babies come from? OK but seriously folks...what makes diapers so absorbent? How can my Oops I Crapped My Pants hold that much?
A: Well when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...wait, what? Seriously? You just had your first kid. You know more about this than I do. And by the way, congratulations to you and Lisa on the arrival of Evelyn Shannon Jeffers. I hope she grows up to look like her mother. I mean, nothing personal here, but Lisa's a lot more attractive than you are. I'm just saying.
As to your real question, diapers are absorbent because of the materials that are used. I found a very good article on the subject at Answers.com, which can be read here. Normally I don't like to plug the competition but in this case their knowledge far outweighs mine. I recommend the whole article to anyone who's even remotely curious about the subject, but the relevant portion of their article follows:
The single most important property of a diaper, cloth or disposable, is its ability to absorb and retain moisture. Cotton material used in cloth diapers is reasonably absorbent, but synthetic polymers far exceed the capacity of natural fibers. Today's state-of-the-art disposable diaper will absorb 15 times its weight in water. This phenomenal absorption capacity is due to the absorbent pad found in the core of the diaper. This pad is composed of two essential elements, a hydrophilic, or water-loving, polymer and a fibrous material such as wood pulp. The polymer is made of fine particles of an acrylic acid derivative, such as sodium acrylate, potassium acrylate, or an alkyl acrylate. These polymeric particles act as tiny sponges that retain many times their weight in water. Microscopically these polymer molecules resemble long chains or ropes. Portions of these chemical "ropes" are designed to interact with water molecules. Other parts of the polymer have the ability to chemically link with different polymer molecules in a process known as cross linking. When a large number of these polymeric chains are cross linked, they form a gel network that is not water soluble but that can absorb vast amounts of water. Polymers with this ability are referred to as hydrogels, superabsorbents, or hydrocolloids. Depending on the degree of cross linking, the strength of the gel network can be varied. This is an important property because gel strength is related to the tendency of the polymer to deform or flow under stress. If the strength is too high the polymer will not retain enough water. If it too low the polymer will deform too easily, and the outermost particles in the pad will absorb water too quickly, forming a gel that blocks water from reaching the inner pad particles. This problem, known as gel blocking, can be overcome by dispersing wood pulp fibers throughout the polymer matrix. These wood fibers act as thousands of tiny straws which suck up water faster and disperse it through the matrix more efficiently to avoid gel blocking. Manufacturers have optimized the combinations of polymer and fibrous material to yield the most efficient absorbency possible.
In addition to information about why diapers are absorbent I also found several sites dedicated to comparing absorbency of diapers. My personal favorite is this study done by a young woman named Vanessa W. back in the year 2000. It's not the most up-to-date study, but I was amused by the vintage Internet website layout. You can also try this site done by the folks at DiaperWare.
Since I don't know how what material "Oops I Crapped My Pants" is made of I can't say how they can hold that much. But thanks for giving me an excuse to link to a YouTube of this fabulous commercial.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - How do YOU feel about GM?
A: General Motors is a car company. I don't know if I have any "feelings" about it. At least not the same way I have feelings about, say my friends and family. Or the Boston Red Sox. But I do have some admittedly uninformed opinions about how they run their business, and also some ideas about how they could recover and return to profitability.
One problem I see for GM is their reliance on Unionized labor. As I understand it the United Auto Workers (UAW) have an agreement with GM that covers medical costs for all retired GM employees, as well as generous pensions for those same employees. The way I look at it no company can possibly succeed when it pays for people who no longer work for them. Yes, many companies offer pensions and health benefits to their retirees. But employees are retiring earlier and living longer than the people who set up those systems ever planned. The bottom line is that GM is having to pay a substantial percentage of money per car manufactured just to support workers who no longer work for the company. Now, I hold GM responsible for this problem in the same way that I hold other corporations responsible for the way they overcompensate their managers and CEOs.
A second problem for GM is the fact that they are still structured as though they are the biggest fish in the pond of automobile manufacturers. Their business model is built on the assumption that they will have and maintain a certain percentage of the automobile market. What they must do is adapt to the fact that that percentage is now much smaller than it used to be. There's no reason that GM can't be profitable with a smaller piece of the pie, but they first must recognize and accept the fact that their piece is smaller. That means fewer divisions and fewer models, and a focus on profitable cars. It also means that they should be spending more on research and development of new technologies, something I know that you're involved in, Jarsh. Personally I'd like to see them focusing more on better batteries, and the new Chevy Volt is going to help direct their attention in that direction. And that's a very good thing for them.
In the end I guess the main feeling I have for GM is sympathy. They made a deal with the devil, as it were, by taking loans from the government in order to avoid bankruptcy. Now they're living with the consequences of that deal. Their CEO has been forced out, and they're soon going to face pressure from the government to do things that will not help their return to profitability. I wish them luck, I really do. It would be a shame if Ford were the only US car company left standing after the dust settles.
Q: Brad Pettengill - Out of the 4 games at the ECAC championship, which one was the best?
A: Of the four games I think that the Friday night game between Cornell and Princeton was the best. A full recap of the game can be found here and the boxscore is here. The main reason for this choice is the crowd rather than the hockey. The tickets I had for the game placed my friends and me in the right-hand section of the Cornell fans.
Before I go on let me just say for the record that Cornell fans are among the least original, most rude, and least subtle fans in the ECAC. Every single one of their chants either involved the word "sucks" or some variation of that theme, and were often incoherent. It was a joke when I was in the Clarkson Pep Band that all of Cornell's cheers were basically "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!" I always thought that it was just because we were across the arena from their fan section when we visited Lynah. Having just spent eight periods of hockey in the middle of their fan section I can report that even close up it's still just "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!"
One more thing: My biggest regret of the tournament is that neglected to wear my "Clarkson is Gorges" tee shirt that my sister had printed for me on my birthday a few years ago while she was attending Ithaca College. For those not in on the joke, there is a popular saying in Ithaca that "Ithaca is Gorges", playing on the fact that there are some nice gorges and waterfalls in the area. It's a dumb saying, but one that you can find on shirts, coffee mugs, and bumperstickers.
Anyway, even though the Cornell fans are obnoxious pricks they were numerous and enthusiastic, which made the atmosphere of the game better. They cheered loudly during the pre-game ceremonies, right down to the usual amplification of the word "Red" during the national anthem. Then the game started and Princeton scored almost right away, taking much of the wind out of the Cornell fan's sails. That wind was restored once Cornell finally scored, but then Princeton tacked on one more at the end of the first period and the wind died. The wind died even more at the start of the second period when Princeton scored again. Seeing the pain in the eyes of the Cornell fans was enjoyable.
Cornell decided to start playing during the second half of the third period. Actually it was one player named Evan Barlow who decided to start playing. He took the puck from coast-to-coast during a four on four and scored one of the prettiest goals I've seen in a long time. It was enough to wake the Cornell fans from their slumber. Then Cornell pulled their goalie with a minute left in the game and rather than give up an empty-net goal was actually able to score on Princeton. This happened twice in the tournament, which is remarkable since this move usually backfires in the ECAC (and all throughout hockey, now that I think about it).
When overtime began, even as one who really hates Cornell, I found myself getting swept up into the excitement of overtime hockey. It was hard not to. The Cornell fans were on edge and it was infectious. As overtime progressed I decided that I wanted Cornell to win if for no other reason than the fact that the championship game would be much better with that many Cornell fans there. Princeton/Yale would have been just depressing. Especially with the two sub-par bands that the teams brought with them.
When Cornell finally scored the winning goal in the second overtime the place erupted into a sea of joyous red cheering fans. And I felt happy for them, even as I wished for their utter and complete downfall in the championship game. Which came true, so everyone won, in a strange way.
Q: Todd Nielson - So who do you like in the Frozen Four?
A: I am not going to pretend to know much about the four teams playing, which are Boston University, Vermont, Bemidji State and Miami of Ohio. I don't follow college hockey closely enough to render an informed opinion on the subject. But you asked me who I like, not who I think will win, so I'll give that question some treatment.
Vermont: I can't possibly root for Vermont, both because of the 2001 ECAC playoff debacle and because, well, they're Vermont. [Ed: I thought you liked and admired hippies. You are sadly misinformed.]
Boston University: Boston University has been a rival of the University of Maine for many years, and since the University of Maine is the reason I exist in the first place (it's where my parents met) I can't root for them.
Miami of Ohio: There is only one true Miami. It is the land of Dave Barry, Miami Vice, and the Miami Sound Machine. And hockey is not a part of that true Miami.
Bemidji State: Since they're the smallest, least-likely school to win this tournament, and since everyone loves the underdog, I guess I'll jump on the long-shot bandwagon and support Bemidji State, if only to keep my spelling skills strong.
Q: Adam Barnello - Address my comment from the last Mitssob, please?
A: Sure thing. I've printed your comments below, and I'll intersperse my responses and further thoughts between paragraphs.
"Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends."
What wonderful prose this is! So deep! So meaningful! Well done, Barn! Oh, wait, I wrote that. Sorry.
By the same argument with which you justify your position for maintaining marijuana as illegal, you could easily rationalize the return of prohibition. Or the criminalization of tobacco. Both of these are, in a realistic view, as bad or worse than marijuana in terms of health effects as well as deaths associated with their use, and yet no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night. If we're being honest with ourselves here, one is really no different than the other, except the prohibition on alcohol was repealed.
On your first point I will respond with two of my favorite words: "So what?" What is the problem with the return of prohibition? Or banning tobacco? Yes, it clashes violently with my libertarian side, which is even now shouting, "Tim, how dare you suggest such a thing!" while shaking its fist indignantly. But ultimately we live in a society where the people get to decide these things. If society decides that it once again wants to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol then I'm not going to stand in the way. There is a vocal portion of American society that rails against the evils of tobacco. If they had their way all tobacco would be banned. Should that be allowed? Personally I don't think so, but again, if society decides it then I'm not going to get in the way.
Random detour: Personally I think that a lot of the anger at tobacco companies is misdirected. I believe that, all things considered, alcohol is actually much worse than tobacco. Tobacco harms one person but doesn't change their behavior. Alcohol is a behavior-modifier, and that can be much worse. I've never heard a story of a person who smokes a cigarette and then goes and beats their spouse or child. But I'm sure we've all heard of or experienced first-hand the violence that alcohol causes when abused.
This concludes our random detour. Back to your regularly schedule answer.
Second, I have a problem with the tone of the second part of your comment, specifically the, "no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night." Really? You can speak for everyone who thinks marijuana should be illegal? Accusing ones ideological opponents of hypocrisy and/or inconsistency allows you to dismiss them without engaging their arguments, but it doesn't make your own arguments any better or worse. I can turn right around and say that people who think cigarettes should be illegal have no problem toking up every once in a while. Is it true? I'm sure that there are some people who fall into that category, albeit probably a minority. But putting that statement forward allows me to dismiss arguments against smoking without having to think. And that's not healthy for a debate.
On top of that I don't see the connection. Some people who think marijuana should be illegal drink alcohol. So? It's a non-sequitor. One is legal, the other is not. Yes, yes, I know that the argument is that marijuana is as harmless as alcohol. That doesn't change the fact that one is illegal and one isn't. That's the difference.
It bothers me that you've fallen back onto the party line of "Marijuana is a drug. Drugs are bad." Even as someone who has never used it, and has no interest in doing so, I'd hope you could differentiate between the myths and the truths about it.
I have "fallen back onto the party line" because it is a belief that I hold. Are all drugs bad? To me that's similar to asking if guns are bad. Drugs are drugs. One can cure disease, the other can get you high. I believe that the use of drugs to get a high is something that should not be encouraged by society. Period. Doesn't matter whether it's pot or alcohol or crystal meth. Are there degrees of "badness" to illegal drugs? Of course. And the laws reflect that. If we want that changed, then we need to change the laws, and by extension change society's point of view on these drugs. That's the right way to handle the situation.
Finally, as I said in my original answer, I'm not entirely rational on this subject. I'm allowing emotion to control me more than usual lately. It's something I'm aware of, and am trying to manage. This is because I see my beliefs on a wide range of issues being scorned and tossed aside by a vocal and increasingly powerful minority of society. And that bothers me much more than I let on since I know that nearly all of my friends and loved ones belong to that minority. It's wildly frustrating in a way that's going to continue causing me pain until I figure out what to do about it. And given my emotionally fragile state that's difficult to do.
A: Well when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...wait, what? Seriously? You just had your first kid. You know more about this than I do. And by the way, congratulations to you and Lisa on the arrival of Evelyn Shannon Jeffers. I hope she grows up to look like her mother. I mean, nothing personal here, but Lisa's a lot more attractive than you are. I'm just saying.
As to your real question, diapers are absorbent because of the materials that are used. I found a very good article on the subject at Answers.com, which can be read here. Normally I don't like to plug the competition but in this case their knowledge far outweighs mine. I recommend the whole article to anyone who's even remotely curious about the subject, but the relevant portion of their article follows:
The single most important property of a diaper, cloth or disposable, is its ability to absorb and retain moisture. Cotton material used in cloth diapers is reasonably absorbent, but synthetic polymers far exceed the capacity of natural fibers. Today's state-of-the-art disposable diaper will absorb 15 times its weight in water. This phenomenal absorption capacity is due to the absorbent pad found in the core of the diaper. This pad is composed of two essential elements, a hydrophilic, or water-loving, polymer and a fibrous material such as wood pulp. The polymer is made of fine particles of an acrylic acid derivative, such as sodium acrylate, potassium acrylate, or an alkyl acrylate. These polymeric particles act as tiny sponges that retain many times their weight in water. Microscopically these polymer molecules resemble long chains or ropes. Portions of these chemical "ropes" are designed to interact with water molecules. Other parts of the polymer have the ability to chemically link with different polymer molecules in a process known as cross linking. When a large number of these polymeric chains are cross linked, they form a gel network that is not water soluble but that can absorb vast amounts of water. Polymers with this ability are referred to as hydrogels, superabsorbents, or hydrocolloids. Depending on the degree of cross linking, the strength of the gel network can be varied. This is an important property because gel strength is related to the tendency of the polymer to deform or flow under stress. If the strength is too high the polymer will not retain enough water. If it too low the polymer will deform too easily, and the outermost particles in the pad will absorb water too quickly, forming a gel that blocks water from reaching the inner pad particles. This problem, known as gel blocking, can be overcome by dispersing wood pulp fibers throughout the polymer matrix. These wood fibers act as thousands of tiny straws which suck up water faster and disperse it through the matrix more efficiently to avoid gel blocking. Manufacturers have optimized the combinations of polymer and fibrous material to yield the most efficient absorbency possible.
In addition to information about why diapers are absorbent I also found several sites dedicated to comparing absorbency of diapers. My personal favorite is this study done by a young woman named Vanessa W. back in the year 2000. It's not the most up-to-date study, but I was amused by the vintage Internet website layout. You can also try this site done by the folks at DiaperWare.
Since I don't know how what material "Oops I Crapped My Pants" is made of I can't say how they can hold that much. But thanks for giving me an excuse to link to a YouTube of this fabulous commercial.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - How do YOU feel about GM?
A: General Motors is a car company. I don't know if I have any "feelings" about it. At least not the same way I have feelings about, say my friends and family. Or the Boston Red Sox. But I do have some admittedly uninformed opinions about how they run their business, and also some ideas about how they could recover and return to profitability.
One problem I see for GM is their reliance on Unionized labor. As I understand it the United Auto Workers (UAW) have an agreement with GM that covers medical costs for all retired GM employees, as well as generous pensions for those same employees. The way I look at it no company can possibly succeed when it pays for people who no longer work for them. Yes, many companies offer pensions and health benefits to their retirees. But employees are retiring earlier and living longer than the people who set up those systems ever planned. The bottom line is that GM is having to pay a substantial percentage of money per car manufactured just to support workers who no longer work for the company. Now, I hold GM responsible for this problem in the same way that I hold other corporations responsible for the way they overcompensate their managers and CEOs.
A second problem for GM is the fact that they are still structured as though they are the biggest fish in the pond of automobile manufacturers. Their business model is built on the assumption that they will have and maintain a certain percentage of the automobile market. What they must do is adapt to the fact that that percentage is now much smaller than it used to be. There's no reason that GM can't be profitable with a smaller piece of the pie, but they first must recognize and accept the fact that their piece is smaller. That means fewer divisions and fewer models, and a focus on profitable cars. It also means that they should be spending more on research and development of new technologies, something I know that you're involved in, Jarsh. Personally I'd like to see them focusing more on better batteries, and the new Chevy Volt is going to help direct their attention in that direction. And that's a very good thing for them.
In the end I guess the main feeling I have for GM is sympathy. They made a deal with the devil, as it were, by taking loans from the government in order to avoid bankruptcy. Now they're living with the consequences of that deal. Their CEO has been forced out, and they're soon going to face pressure from the government to do things that will not help their return to profitability. I wish them luck, I really do. It would be a shame if Ford were the only US car company left standing after the dust settles.
Q: Brad Pettengill - Out of the 4 games at the ECAC championship, which one was the best?
A: Of the four games I think that the Friday night game between Cornell and Princeton was the best. A full recap of the game can be found here and the boxscore is here. The main reason for this choice is the crowd rather than the hockey. The tickets I had for the game placed my friends and me in the right-hand section of the Cornell fans.
Before I go on let me just say for the record that Cornell fans are among the least original, most rude, and least subtle fans in the ECAC. Every single one of their chants either involved the word "sucks" or some variation of that theme, and were often incoherent. It was a joke when I was in the Clarkson Pep Band that all of Cornell's cheers were basically "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!" I always thought that it was just because we were across the arena from their fan section when we visited Lynah. Having just spent eight periods of hockey in the middle of their fan section I can report that even close up it's still just "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!"
One more thing: My biggest regret of the tournament is that neglected to wear my "Clarkson is Gorges" tee shirt that my sister had printed for me on my birthday a few years ago while she was attending Ithaca College. For those not in on the joke, there is a popular saying in Ithaca that "Ithaca is Gorges", playing on the fact that there are some nice gorges and waterfalls in the area. It's a dumb saying, but one that you can find on shirts, coffee mugs, and bumperstickers.
Anyway, even though the Cornell fans are obnoxious pricks they were numerous and enthusiastic, which made the atmosphere of the game better. They cheered loudly during the pre-game ceremonies, right down to the usual amplification of the word "Red" during the national anthem. Then the game started and Princeton scored almost right away, taking much of the wind out of the Cornell fan's sails. That wind was restored once Cornell finally scored, but then Princeton tacked on one more at the end of the first period and the wind died. The wind died even more at the start of the second period when Princeton scored again. Seeing the pain in the eyes of the Cornell fans was enjoyable.
Cornell decided to start playing during the second half of the third period. Actually it was one player named Evan Barlow who decided to start playing. He took the puck from coast-to-coast during a four on four and scored one of the prettiest goals I've seen in a long time. It was enough to wake the Cornell fans from their slumber. Then Cornell pulled their goalie with a minute left in the game and rather than give up an empty-net goal was actually able to score on Princeton. This happened twice in the tournament, which is remarkable since this move usually backfires in the ECAC (and all throughout hockey, now that I think about it).
When overtime began, even as one who really hates Cornell, I found myself getting swept up into the excitement of overtime hockey. It was hard not to. The Cornell fans were on edge and it was infectious. As overtime progressed I decided that I wanted Cornell to win if for no other reason than the fact that the championship game would be much better with that many Cornell fans there. Princeton/Yale would have been just depressing. Especially with the two sub-par bands that the teams brought with them.
When Cornell finally scored the winning goal in the second overtime the place erupted into a sea of joyous red cheering fans. And I felt happy for them, even as I wished for their utter and complete downfall in the championship game. Which came true, so everyone won, in a strange way.
Q: Todd Nielson - So who do you like in the Frozen Four?
A: I am not going to pretend to know much about the four teams playing, which are Boston University, Vermont, Bemidji State and Miami of Ohio. I don't follow college hockey closely enough to render an informed opinion on the subject. But you asked me who I like, not who I think will win, so I'll give that question some treatment.
Vermont: I can't possibly root for Vermont, both because of the 2001 ECAC playoff debacle and because, well, they're Vermont. [Ed: I thought you liked and admired hippies. You are sadly misinformed.]
Boston University: Boston University has been a rival of the University of Maine for many years, and since the University of Maine is the reason I exist in the first place (it's where my parents met) I can't root for them.
Miami of Ohio: There is only one true Miami. It is the land of Dave Barry, Miami Vice, and the Miami Sound Machine. And hockey is not a part of that true Miami.
Bemidji State: Since they're the smallest, least-likely school to win this tournament, and since everyone loves the underdog, I guess I'll jump on the long-shot bandwagon and support Bemidji State, if only to keep my spelling skills strong.
Q: Adam Barnello - Address my comment from the last Mitssob, please?
A: Sure thing. I've printed your comments below, and I'll intersperse my responses and further thoughts between paragraphs.
"Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends."
What wonderful prose this is! So deep! So meaningful! Well done, Barn! Oh, wait, I wrote that. Sorry.
By the same argument with which you justify your position for maintaining marijuana as illegal, you could easily rationalize the return of prohibition. Or the criminalization of tobacco. Both of these are, in a realistic view, as bad or worse than marijuana in terms of health effects as well as deaths associated with their use, and yet no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night. If we're being honest with ourselves here, one is really no different than the other, except the prohibition on alcohol was repealed.
On your first point I will respond with two of my favorite words: "So what?" What is the problem with the return of prohibition? Or banning tobacco? Yes, it clashes violently with my libertarian side, which is even now shouting, "Tim, how dare you suggest such a thing!" while shaking its fist indignantly. But ultimately we live in a society where the people get to decide these things. If society decides that it once again wants to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol then I'm not going to stand in the way. There is a vocal portion of American society that rails against the evils of tobacco. If they had their way all tobacco would be banned. Should that be allowed? Personally I don't think so, but again, if society decides it then I'm not going to get in the way.
Random detour: Personally I think that a lot of the anger at tobacco companies is misdirected. I believe that, all things considered, alcohol is actually much worse than tobacco. Tobacco harms one person but doesn't change their behavior. Alcohol is a behavior-modifier, and that can be much worse. I've never heard a story of a person who smokes a cigarette and then goes and beats their spouse or child. But I'm sure we've all heard of or experienced first-hand the violence that alcohol causes when abused.
This concludes our random detour. Back to your regularly schedule answer.
Second, I have a problem with the tone of the second part of your comment, specifically the, "no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night." Really? You can speak for everyone who thinks marijuana should be illegal? Accusing ones ideological opponents of hypocrisy and/or inconsistency allows you to dismiss them without engaging their arguments, but it doesn't make your own arguments any better or worse. I can turn right around and say that people who think cigarettes should be illegal have no problem toking up every once in a while. Is it true? I'm sure that there are some people who fall into that category, albeit probably a minority. But putting that statement forward allows me to dismiss arguments against smoking without having to think. And that's not healthy for a debate.
On top of that I don't see the connection. Some people who think marijuana should be illegal drink alcohol. So? It's a non-sequitor. One is legal, the other is not. Yes, yes, I know that the argument is that marijuana is as harmless as alcohol. That doesn't change the fact that one is illegal and one isn't. That's the difference.
It bothers me that you've fallen back onto the party line of "Marijuana is a drug. Drugs are bad." Even as someone who has never used it, and has no interest in doing so, I'd hope you could differentiate between the myths and the truths about it.
I have "fallen back onto the party line" because it is a belief that I hold. Are all drugs bad? To me that's similar to asking if guns are bad. Drugs are drugs. One can cure disease, the other can get you high. I believe that the use of drugs to get a high is something that should not be encouraged by society. Period. Doesn't matter whether it's pot or alcohol or crystal meth. Are there degrees of "badness" to illegal drugs? Of course. And the laws reflect that. If we want that changed, then we need to change the laws, and by extension change society's point of view on these drugs. That's the right way to handle the situation.
Finally, as I said in my original answer, I'm not entirely rational on this subject. I'm allowing emotion to control me more than usual lately. It's something I'm aware of, and am trying to manage. This is because I see my beliefs on a wide range of issues being scorned and tossed aside by a vocal and increasingly powerful minority of society. And that bothers me much more than I let on since I know that nearly all of my friends and loved ones belong to that minority. It's wildly frustrating in a way that's going to continue causing me pain until I figure out what to do about it. And given my emotionally fragile state that's difficult to do.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
45 - Answers
Q: Lisa Jeffers - Can I go on disability until this baby decides to come out?
A: I believe that if you have a medical need you can go on disability prior to giving birth to your daughter. What exactly "medical need" means is unclear to me, though. If your doctor said that you needed full bed rest then I'm sure that qualifies. General discomfort? That's probably pushing it a bit. I've never been pregnant so I can't speak to how much discomfort it causes, and thus what the line between normal discomfort and disability-level discomfort isn't something I can speak to. I suppose that if you said that you were having trouble doing your job then you could probably go on disability until your daughter is born.
Another answer to the problem is to negotiate with your employer for more time for maternity leave. You could negotiate it such that you get, for example, two weeks prior to your due date plus the time after the birth, which according to Parents.com is 12 weeks in the state of New York. As an unmarried childless male I admit that this isn't something I think about. I know that my employer has a policy about parental leave but I have no idea what it is. I could learn with a simple phone call to HR, and that's something I'll do in time.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Do you know any doctors who will sign off on me going on disbility forever? I think I want to start milking the system like half the rest of the country.
A: Other than Dr. Nick, no, I don't.
Further, I don't believe that "half the rest of the country" is "milking the system". It does seem that way from the amount of noise we hear from the media about bailouts and foreclosures and the rest of it. But I think that most of the country is playing by the rules and doing the right things. The question is should they? I don't have a good answer right now. If only someone would ask me...
Q: Lisa Jeffers - Only half of the country, Bill?
Okay a real question: Why do we (as in the middle class) continue to respect a financial system that obviously favors the people that make morally and financially stupid choices? Am I naive/uninformed, or does it make more sense right now to buy a house that is way out of your price range, don't make payments on it, and get bailed out?
A: Well look at that, someone asked! Thanks, Lisa!
The cynical answer is that yes, you should absolutely just take advantage of the system. When you and Bill were house shopping you should have gone for something that was at least twice as expensive as you could afford. Then when you started to fall behind on your payments you should have just stopped paying. After all, it's your right to have a house, right? (Notice that I said "have", not "own".) And by a strange coincidence, your decision to stop paying your mortgage would have coincided with the government's decision to bail out people exactly like you. So you would have successfully milked the system. Congratulations.
But I don't want to be cynical. I want to try and handle this rationally. So let me tackle your question a piece at a time.
First, the term "middle class" is one that is thrown around a lot, and since I'm a big believer that language needs to be clarified I want to talk about it for a minute. I would guess that the vast majority of American citizens believe themselves to be in the middle class, regardless of how much money they make. I believe that this is because they want to be part of the majority of the country. If you're "middle class" then you're just a normal, hard-working American. You're not one of those evil rich people (who probably screwed you to get rich), but you're also not poor. It's a psychological need, and there's really nothing wrong with it. But it can lead to some interesting class warfare discourse.
Since that's not the point of your question, though, I won't go into further discussion here. The point to keep in mind is that "middle class" means different things in different parts of the country due to the differences in cost of living. A couple living in New York City may make $300,000/year and be middle class, while another couple living in Kansas City, Kansas may make $80,000/year and also be middle class. The thing to remember is that those people in Kansas probably see $300,000/year as being rich.
I realize that all of this may be obvious and that it might sound like I'm talking down to you. I don't mean to. I just wanted to say it anyway to keep it fresh in your minds.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that we have "a financial system that obviously favors the people that make morally and financially stupid choices." Your sentiment is correct but I think that your anger is a little misdirected. Left alone I believe that the financial system would have performed just fine and that the "crisis" that we find ourselves in would have been avoided completely. How can I say that? As I see it the problem is not the financial system. It's the political system. And I say that in a non-partisan way as you'll see in the argument that follows.
Politicians during the 1990s and 2000s felt that the dream of owning a home (the so-called American Dream) was out of reach to too many people in the country. If more people owned homes as a result of the actions of politicians, then those people would vote for the politicians. Cynical? Yes. Accurate? Also yes. These politicians decided to put pressure on banks and lending institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (which are both government entities) to loosen lending practices.
The result?
1. More and more people began to buy homes, which caused a rise in home values thanks to the age-old economic law of supply and demand.
2. That rise in home values led to even more buyers entering the market. People were told that their home would increase in value, and thus that they should buy more house than they thought they could afford. The rise in value would make up the difference, and you could just turn around and sell the house for a big profit.
3. That led to people "flipping" houses, and to speculators risking big to buy houses on the theory that the values would just keep going up and up.
But what goes up must ultimately come down. People gradually stopped buying houses which caused home values to start to drop. The homeowners who had bought more than they could afford suddenly found themselves "under water", meaning that they had a mortgage that was more than the value of their home. They then began to stop paying, which caused banks to start to fail. Credit supplies dried up, which caused more problems and have led us to where we are today.
Now for our first moral issue: is the blame for the housing boom and bust on the buyer or on the seller? Is it with the person who bought more house than they could afford or with the lender who lent them the money? Remember, the lenders were being told to offer more people the chance at the American Dream. So did they do immoral things to meet that demand? Absolutely, and some blame lies with them. But in my opinion the majority of the blame lies with the people who signed mortgages for more than they could afford. Personal responsibility trumps all as I see it.
Having caused the problem in the first place politicians now see it as their duty to fix the problem. Which is very nice of them. But the reasons for fixing the problem are as cynical as what caused the problem int he first place. Bailing out people who made poor decisions is a sure way to keep them voting for you. "It's not your fault," they say, "it's those predatory lenders. They fooled you, tricked you!" Which is what people want to hear, after all. No one wants to be told that they screwed up. They just want their money back.
So after all that rambling, what's my answer? The way I look at it if you get bailed out by the government then the government in essence owns you. That which the government can give, the government can take away. It may seem like you should just start cheating and let the government bail you out. But if you do that then you're a slave to that same government. In addition there are still rules in place regarding lending. Those people who bought too much house and tried to live beyond their means will have difficulty getting loans in the future. Additionally there is growing public anger about this issue, and politicians respond to anger. Maybe they'll even get things right this time.
Finally, you're not "naive/uninformed". Quite the contrary. Your question is a good one. It shows that you've been paying attention and that you're angry at what you see as injustice. And no, I don't mean to patronize you by saying this. I'm happy that people are paying attention. It makes for good questions for me to answer.
Q: Eric Democko - Continuing with the beer and porn theme, should the government (federal or state) legalize marijuana?
A: You've hit on one of the issues where my libertarianism meets my social conservatism. These are the issues that I find I have the most trouble resolving, so thanks for the opportunity to think and muse about it.
First, let's get the disclaimer out of the way: I have not ever used marijuana. [Ed: You mean you didn't inhale? No, I mean I've never inhaled, exhaled, toked up, or anything else.] I have been around people under the influence and have observed its impact. I also know the stereotypes and cultural significance of the drug. But a user I am not, so my ramblings on the subject are going to be a little uninformed from that point of view.
The libertarian in me says, "Sure, legalize pot. What do I care what people do to themselves?" If someone wants to smoke themselves into oblivion it doesn't directly affect my life, and thus I don't really care. There may be indirect costs in the same way there are indirect costs for smokers and drinkers, but if I take a hands-off standpoint on those, then why not pot too?
A second argument in favor of legalizing marijuana is that it would free up law enforcement resources and the legal system. This is a compelling argument. Federal, state, and local governments spend millions (if not billions) of dollars every year prosecuting users of marijuana. If we just legalized pot then those dollars would be spent elsewhere. I would add that some of those dollars would be spent dealing with abuse of marijuana similar to the abuse of alcohol we have today, but the point is a valid one.
My socially conservative side asks, "What about the social ills caused by drug use?" It's a cliched argument, but not one that's invalid. Marijuana is a mind-altering substance. Prolonged use can have life-altering results. Do we want our society to condone the use of this substance? I won't go so far as to say that pot is a gateway drug that leads inexorably to harder drugs like cocaine, but by being permissive of one drug, why not others? A slippery-slope argument fits in this case. The day after pot is legalized there will be a movement to legalize all drugs. And that's something that is bad for society.
In my mind marijuana combines the worst aspects of smoking and alcohol use. You get the health impacts of smoke, plus the mind-altering impact of alcohol, all in one little joint. Yes, I know the impacts are different. And an argument can be made that if alcohol is legal, why not marijuana? It's not something I have a good answer for. In the end this is one of those issues where I let feelings rather than logic take over. I don't think that marijuana should be made legal, but I don't have strong rational reasons. I just feel it. Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends.
Below are a couple of websites on both sides of the issue:
Legalize: http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/, http://norml.org/
Keep Illegal: http://www.naturalism.org/marijuan1.htm
Q: Eric Democko - i just used the search feature on the blog- love it! thanks for putting everything up there. great resource
A: You're quite welcome. I'm slowly spreading my wings with this site. I've started posting on Facebook when I put up my answers in the hopes of generating more questions. Hopefully that forces me to answer questions faster and more concisely. [Ed: And better? What about better? That too.] I'm going back through all my answers and putting labels in for the various topics I've touched on. This is both for the reader and for my own bookkeeping. As I stated when I started this project I intend to write a book on questions, and some of the ones you've submitted will undoubtedly wind up getting some treatment.
Q: Tara - Question: Which is the better beer - Sam Adams White Ale or Harpoon 100 Barrel Series Maple Wheat?
A: I dislike wheat beers in general. I've had Sam Adams White Ale before, but not the Harpoon variety. I would guess that I would dislike them both equally, but since I'm biased towards Sam Adams in general I'll say that Sam Adams White Ale is better.
Q: Todd Nielson - Total newbie to Linux, particularly to Ubuntu (which you very kindly recommended). I downloaded the latest copy of Open Office, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to install it. What do I gotta do?
A: Open Office should have come with the install of Ubuntu that you did. If you click "Applications -> Office" there should be "Document", "Spreadsheet", etc. If you did not install Open Office then the easiest way to do it is to go to "Applications -> Add/Remove". That takes you to the Ubuntu software management tool, which will get you access to all sorts of neat applications. Search for "Open Office" and you should find it right away. Good luck!
Q: Todd Nielson - What is Norwegian Wood? And, if not self-explanatory, how do you know if it is good or not?
A: As far as I can tell Norwegian Wood can be one of many things:
- A book by Haruki Murakami (found here)
- A song by the Beatles (information here
- A low-quality wood used to make cheap furniture.
- A euphemism for a variety of sexual acts including masturbation and lesbianism.
Without knowing which one you meant it's hard for me to answer the second part of your question. If you mean the book or song, I've never read the book or heard the song, so good is in the eye of the beholder on those. If you mean the wood that comes from trees, by definition it's not very good so I'd say if you can't break a piece of it over your knee then you're in good shape. If you mean the wood that comes from, um, well, other activities, then that's a little too subjective for me to answer.
A: I believe that if you have a medical need you can go on disability prior to giving birth to your daughter. What exactly "medical need" means is unclear to me, though. If your doctor said that you needed full bed rest then I'm sure that qualifies. General discomfort? That's probably pushing it a bit. I've never been pregnant so I can't speak to how much discomfort it causes, and thus what the line between normal discomfort and disability-level discomfort isn't something I can speak to. I suppose that if you said that you were having trouble doing your job then you could probably go on disability until your daughter is born.
Another answer to the problem is to negotiate with your employer for more time for maternity leave. You could negotiate it such that you get, for example, two weeks prior to your due date plus the time after the birth, which according to Parents.com is 12 weeks in the state of New York. As an unmarried childless male I admit that this isn't something I think about. I know that my employer has a policy about parental leave but I have no idea what it is. I could learn with a simple phone call to HR, and that's something I'll do in time.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Do you know any doctors who will sign off on me going on disbility forever? I think I want to start milking the system like half the rest of the country.
A: Other than Dr. Nick, no, I don't.
Further, I don't believe that "half the rest of the country" is "milking the system". It does seem that way from the amount of noise we hear from the media about bailouts and foreclosures and the rest of it. But I think that most of the country is playing by the rules and doing the right things. The question is should they? I don't have a good answer right now. If only someone would ask me...
Q: Lisa Jeffers - Only half of the country, Bill?
Okay a real question: Why do we (as in the middle class) continue to respect a financial system that obviously favors the people that make morally and financially stupid choices? Am I naive/uninformed, or does it make more sense right now to buy a house that is way out of your price range, don't make payments on it, and get bailed out?
A: Well look at that, someone asked! Thanks, Lisa!
The cynical answer is that yes, you should absolutely just take advantage of the system. When you and Bill were house shopping you should have gone for something that was at least twice as expensive as you could afford. Then when you started to fall behind on your payments you should have just stopped paying. After all, it's your right to have a house, right? (Notice that I said "have", not "own".) And by a strange coincidence, your decision to stop paying your mortgage would have coincided with the government's decision to bail out people exactly like you. So you would have successfully milked the system. Congratulations.
But I don't want to be cynical. I want to try and handle this rationally. So let me tackle your question a piece at a time.
First, the term "middle class" is one that is thrown around a lot, and since I'm a big believer that language needs to be clarified I want to talk about it for a minute. I would guess that the vast majority of American citizens believe themselves to be in the middle class, regardless of how much money they make. I believe that this is because they want to be part of the majority of the country. If you're "middle class" then you're just a normal, hard-working American. You're not one of those evil rich people (who probably screwed you to get rich), but you're also not poor. It's a psychological need, and there's really nothing wrong with it. But it can lead to some interesting class warfare discourse.
Since that's not the point of your question, though, I won't go into further discussion here. The point to keep in mind is that "middle class" means different things in different parts of the country due to the differences in cost of living. A couple living in New York City may make $300,000/year and be middle class, while another couple living in Kansas City, Kansas may make $80,000/year and also be middle class. The thing to remember is that those people in Kansas probably see $300,000/year as being rich.
I realize that all of this may be obvious and that it might sound like I'm talking down to you. I don't mean to. I just wanted to say it anyway to keep it fresh in your minds.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that we have "a financial system that obviously favors the people that make morally and financially stupid choices." Your sentiment is correct but I think that your anger is a little misdirected. Left alone I believe that the financial system would have performed just fine and that the "crisis" that we find ourselves in would have been avoided completely. How can I say that? As I see it the problem is not the financial system. It's the political system. And I say that in a non-partisan way as you'll see in the argument that follows.
Politicians during the 1990s and 2000s felt that the dream of owning a home (the so-called American Dream) was out of reach to too many people in the country. If more people owned homes as a result of the actions of politicians, then those people would vote for the politicians. Cynical? Yes. Accurate? Also yes. These politicians decided to put pressure on banks and lending institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (which are both government entities) to loosen lending practices.
The result?
1. More and more people began to buy homes, which caused a rise in home values thanks to the age-old economic law of supply and demand.
2. That rise in home values led to even more buyers entering the market. People were told that their home would increase in value, and thus that they should buy more house than they thought they could afford. The rise in value would make up the difference, and you could just turn around and sell the house for a big profit.
3. That led to people "flipping" houses, and to speculators risking big to buy houses on the theory that the values would just keep going up and up.
But what goes up must ultimately come down. People gradually stopped buying houses which caused home values to start to drop. The homeowners who had bought more than they could afford suddenly found themselves "under water", meaning that they had a mortgage that was more than the value of their home. They then began to stop paying, which caused banks to start to fail. Credit supplies dried up, which caused more problems and have led us to where we are today.
Now for our first moral issue: is the blame for the housing boom and bust on the buyer or on the seller? Is it with the person who bought more house than they could afford or with the lender who lent them the money? Remember, the lenders were being told to offer more people the chance at the American Dream. So did they do immoral things to meet that demand? Absolutely, and some blame lies with them. But in my opinion the majority of the blame lies with the people who signed mortgages for more than they could afford. Personal responsibility trumps all as I see it.
Having caused the problem in the first place politicians now see it as their duty to fix the problem. Which is very nice of them. But the reasons for fixing the problem are as cynical as what caused the problem int he first place. Bailing out people who made poor decisions is a sure way to keep them voting for you. "It's not your fault," they say, "it's those predatory lenders. They fooled you, tricked you!" Which is what people want to hear, after all. No one wants to be told that they screwed up. They just want their money back.
So after all that rambling, what's my answer? The way I look at it if you get bailed out by the government then the government in essence owns you. That which the government can give, the government can take away. It may seem like you should just start cheating and let the government bail you out. But if you do that then you're a slave to that same government. In addition there are still rules in place regarding lending. Those people who bought too much house and tried to live beyond their means will have difficulty getting loans in the future. Additionally there is growing public anger about this issue, and politicians respond to anger. Maybe they'll even get things right this time.
Finally, you're not "naive/uninformed". Quite the contrary. Your question is a good one. It shows that you've been paying attention and that you're angry at what you see as injustice. And no, I don't mean to patronize you by saying this. I'm happy that people are paying attention. It makes for good questions for me to answer.
Q: Eric Democko - Continuing with the beer and porn theme, should the government (federal or state) legalize marijuana?
A: You've hit on one of the issues where my libertarianism meets my social conservatism. These are the issues that I find I have the most trouble resolving, so thanks for the opportunity to think and muse about it.
First, let's get the disclaimer out of the way: I have not ever used marijuana. [Ed: You mean you didn't inhale? No, I mean I've never inhaled, exhaled, toked up, or anything else.] I have been around people under the influence and have observed its impact. I also know the stereotypes and cultural significance of the drug. But a user I am not, so my ramblings on the subject are going to be a little uninformed from that point of view.
The libertarian in me says, "Sure, legalize pot. What do I care what people do to themselves?" If someone wants to smoke themselves into oblivion it doesn't directly affect my life, and thus I don't really care. There may be indirect costs in the same way there are indirect costs for smokers and drinkers, but if I take a hands-off standpoint on those, then why not pot too?
A second argument in favor of legalizing marijuana is that it would free up law enforcement resources and the legal system. This is a compelling argument. Federal, state, and local governments spend millions (if not billions) of dollars every year prosecuting users of marijuana. If we just legalized pot then those dollars would be spent elsewhere. I would add that some of those dollars would be spent dealing with abuse of marijuana similar to the abuse of alcohol we have today, but the point is a valid one.
My socially conservative side asks, "What about the social ills caused by drug use?" It's a cliched argument, but not one that's invalid. Marijuana is a mind-altering substance. Prolonged use can have life-altering results. Do we want our society to condone the use of this substance? I won't go so far as to say that pot is a gateway drug that leads inexorably to harder drugs like cocaine, but by being permissive of one drug, why not others? A slippery-slope argument fits in this case. The day after pot is legalized there will be a movement to legalize all drugs. And that's something that is bad for society.
In my mind marijuana combines the worst aspects of smoking and alcohol use. You get the health impacts of smoke, plus the mind-altering impact of alcohol, all in one little joint. Yes, I know the impacts are different. And an argument can be made that if alcohol is legal, why not marijuana? It's not something I have a good answer for. In the end this is one of those issues where I let feelings rather than logic take over. I don't think that marijuana should be made legal, but I don't have strong rational reasons. I just feel it. Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends.
Below are a couple of websites on both sides of the issue:
Legalize: http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/, http://norml.org/
Keep Illegal: http://www.naturalism.org/marijuan1.htm
Q: Eric Democko - i just used the search feature on the blog- love it! thanks for putting everything up there. great resource
A: You're quite welcome. I'm slowly spreading my wings with this site. I've started posting on Facebook when I put up my answers in the hopes of generating more questions. Hopefully that forces me to answer questions faster and more concisely. [Ed: And better? What about better? That too.] I'm going back through all my answers and putting labels in for the various topics I've touched on. This is both for the reader and for my own bookkeeping. As I stated when I started this project I intend to write a book on questions, and some of the ones you've submitted will undoubtedly wind up getting some treatment.
Q: Tara - Question: Which is the better beer - Sam Adams White Ale or Harpoon 100 Barrel Series Maple Wheat?
A: I dislike wheat beers in general. I've had Sam Adams White Ale before, but not the Harpoon variety. I would guess that I would dislike them both equally, but since I'm biased towards Sam Adams in general I'll say that Sam Adams White Ale is better.
Q: Todd Nielson - Total newbie to Linux, particularly to Ubuntu (which you very kindly recommended). I downloaded the latest copy of Open Office, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to install it. What do I gotta do?
A: Open Office should have come with the install of Ubuntu that you did. If you click "Applications -> Office" there should be "Document", "Spreadsheet", etc. If you did not install Open Office then the easiest way to do it is to go to "Applications -> Add/Remove". That takes you to the Ubuntu software management tool, which will get you access to all sorts of neat applications. Search for "Open Office" and you should find it right away. Good luck!
Q: Todd Nielson - What is Norwegian Wood? And, if not self-explanatory, how do you know if it is good or not?
A: As far as I can tell Norwegian Wood can be one of many things:
- A book by Haruki Murakami (found here)
- A song by the Beatles (information here
- A low-quality wood used to make cheap furniture.
- A euphemism for a variety of sexual acts including masturbation and lesbianism.
Without knowing which one you meant it's hard for me to answer the second part of your question. If you mean the book or song, I've never read the book or heard the song, so good is in the eye of the beholder on those. If you mean the wood that comes from trees, by definition it's not very good so I'd say if you can't break a piece of it over your knee then you're in good shape. If you mean the wood that comes from, um, well, other activities, then that's a little too subjective for me to answer.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
36 - Answer(s)
Q: Eric Democko - will the bills make the superbowl this year?
A: No.
Wait, let me think about this for a minute.
No.
And not just because I don’t like the Bills. They have a pretty easy schedule for the rest of the season (@ Rams, @ Cardinals, BYE, Chargers, @ Dolphins, Jets, @ Pats, Browns, @ Chiefs, 49ers, Dolphins, @ Jets, @ Broncos, Pats). I can find at least 6 wins in that list, and that’s more than enough for them to make the playoffs. But when you match the Bills against any other team likely to make the playoffs from the AFC (Jags, Colts, Pats just to name three) I’m not confident the Bills can prevail.
Of course I’ve been wrong before. But not about this.
Q: Karyn Graves - Which ballparks have the home team dugout along 3rd base instead of first and why? And is there an advantage of some kind?
A: Below is a list to answer the first part of this question. The "1" or a "3" next to the team name indicates the baseline of the home team.
Arizona Diamondbacks - 3
Atlanta Braves - 1
Baltimore Orioles - 1
Boston Red Sox - 1
Chicago Cubs - 3
Chicago White Sox - 3
Cincinnati Reds - 1
Cleveland Indians - 3
Colorado Rockies - 1
Detroit Tigers - 3
Florida Marlins - 1
Houston Astros - 1
Kansas City Royals - 1
Los Angeles Angels - 3
Los Angeles Dodgers - 3
Milwaukee Brewers - 1
Minnesota Twins - 3
New York Mets - 1
New York Yankees - 1
Oakland A's - 3
Philadelphia Phillies - 1
Pittsburgh Pirates - 3
San Diego Padres - 1
San Francisco Giants - 3
Seattle Mariners - 1
St. Louis Cardinals - 1
Tampa Bay Rays - 1
Texas Rangers - 1
Toronto Blue Jays - 3
Washington Nationals - 1
I’m less certain about why teams choose to have their dugouts where they do. It could be that they just picked the one that they liked the best. Maybe it’s connected to the nicer of the two clubhouses. I don’t really know. You can make the case for both sides, but I suspect that it just comes down to tradition for that particular team. The only advantage I could see would be environmental. The home team might prefer the dugout that is not facing into the sun. But I don’t think that’s a problem in any major league ballpark.
So in short I have no idea why teams choose to have their dugouts on the first or third base lines. Sorry I can’t shed more light.
Q: Adam Barnello - What are your thoughts about the Lebowski Sequel that's in the works? Does it worry you as much as it does me?
A: I had not heard that there is a Lebowski sequel in the works. My thoughts on the Lebowski franchise (assuming that there is a franchise) in general are mixed. Put simply, I just don’t get the movie. There are movies that are weird and strange that I enjoy. But Lebowski isn’t one of them. I’ve seen it, I laughed, but I don’t GET it. Maybe I haven’t ever watched it under the right conditions (read: drunk), and thus am missing out on some of the genius of the movie. Maybe I will eventually understand the nuances. But not today.
So to answer the second part of your question, no, it doesn’t worry me as much as it does you. I’m not as big a fan of the franchise as you are. Therefore I don’t care about it as much as you. But I hope all of your fears are unfounded and that the sequel lives up to all the dude-ness that it could be.
Q: Nicole Maloney - Maybe Mitssob knows the answer: How can I get Emerson (3months) to take a bottle?!?! I've tried everything I've read. help! (ok, not really expecting an answer here... but if you had one, I'm all ears)
A: Again with the baby questions! I find it amusing that all you parents out there are allowing me to potentially screw up your kids by asking me questions about them. But keep asking, if for no other reason than it gives me something to look back on if/when I become a parent so I can laugh at how ignorant I was.
I’ve spent a little time formulating (HA) my thoughts on this question, but unfortunately I’ve come up with more questions than answers. All I can hope is that my ramblings will help you out. Right at the start I need to disclose that this question has caused me to speculate about not only your breasts but also your breast milk. If that weirds you out then I’m sorry. In addition we’re going to shatter the record for the number of times the word “breast” is used in an answer. I’m trying to be mature about this, but I make no promises.
As I see it the challenge is to get the kid to understand that food can come from two places: your breasts and a bottle. So my first question for you is what are you putting in the bottle? [Ed: What do you expect, Tim? Beer? No, this isn’t Bill’s kid we’re talking about here.] Are you trying to get Emerson to drink formula or breast milk? That might make a difference. Do children know what milk tastes like? I’m not sure, but I can believe it’s possible. Therefore you’d want to make the experiences to be as similar as possible, so if you haven’t tried putting breast milk in the bottle then give that a try.
As to the more practical question of how to get the child to take the bottle, if you’re willing to be a little cruel then you could simply force the issue by denying him your breast. Hunger would eventually force the kid to take the bottle. At least in theory. Would I do this to my own kid (assuming for the moment that I could breastfeed)? No, after a few minutes of crying I’d feel pity and give in. Plus I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work.
Your question sparked a tangential question in my head: Why isn’t there a bottle that’s the size/shape/feel of a breast? It seems like a natural thing to have. Putting aside the obvious weirdness of how it would look (not to mention all the things that it would be used for by college students all over the country), wouldn’t a child be more likely to take a bottle that’s of a familiar size/shape/feel? Just thinking out loud here.
Mothers in the Jolinko community are invited to correct me on this question in the comments. Good luck, Nicole! And once more for good measure: “breast”.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - Where in the world is Mitt Ssob?
A: Mitssob is currently in Rochester, NY, though that has been the exception rather than the rule since February when I took on new job responsibilities at work. My job now calls for me to travel around the country, meet with customers and potential customers, and provide engineering support for integration efforts. In English, I build small radio networks so that our sales guys can make sales and so that our engineers can gather test data. It's a lot of fun, if slightly chaotic at times.
Below is a partial list of the places I’ve been for this new line of work:
Paso Robles, CA (3 hours south of San Francisco)
Ridgecrest, CA (3 hours northeast of LA)
Kileen, TX (Fort Hood)
Fayetteville, NC (Fort Bragg)
Fort Walton Beach, FL
Eatontown, NJ (Fort Monmouth)
Baltimore, MD
San Diego, CA
As you can see I’ve been racking up the frequent flier miles and rental and hotel points. It’s been fun to be on the road. I’ve gotten to meet a lot of very interesting people, both in the military and in the Harris organization (sales and field service guys). I usually also have time to wander around and see some sights, and also eat some good local food.
Soon to be added to this list is Canberra, Australia (an hour flight from Sydney). I’m leaving on October 3 and returning October 11. I’ll provide full details of the trip once I get back, but I do want to share one interesting thing about the flight over there. I depart San Francisco on October 3 at about 7pm local time and land at 7:30am local time on October 5. By a quirk of the International Date Line I will not experience October 4. It’s very strange to think about. I hope nothing exciting happens on that date, because I won’t be around for it! I make up for it on the return trip, though. I depart from Sydney on October 11 at about 3:30pm and land in San Francisco at 8:30pm local time. I’m spending 14 hours in the air, but only 5 hours pass. All told I get to experience October 11 for about 34 hours, making it the longest day of my life.
So that's where Mitssob has been. I'll keep you all posted as to my movements as I make them.
A: No.
Wait, let me think about this for a minute.
No.
And not just because I don’t like the Bills. They have a pretty easy schedule for the rest of the season (@ Rams, @ Cardinals, BYE, Chargers, @ Dolphins, Jets, @ Pats, Browns, @ Chiefs, 49ers, Dolphins, @ Jets, @ Broncos, Pats). I can find at least 6 wins in that list, and that’s more than enough for them to make the playoffs. But when you match the Bills against any other team likely to make the playoffs from the AFC (Jags, Colts, Pats just to name three) I’m not confident the Bills can prevail.
Of course I’ve been wrong before. But not about this.
Q: Karyn Graves - Which ballparks have the home team dugout along 3rd base instead of first and why? And is there an advantage of some kind?
A: Below is a list to answer the first part of this question. The "1" or a "3" next to the team name indicates the baseline of the home team.
Arizona Diamondbacks - 3
Atlanta Braves - 1
Baltimore Orioles - 1
Boston Red Sox - 1
Chicago Cubs - 3
Chicago White Sox - 3
Cincinnati Reds - 1
Cleveland Indians - 3
Colorado Rockies - 1
Detroit Tigers - 3
Florida Marlins - 1
Houston Astros - 1
Kansas City Royals - 1
Los Angeles Angels - 3
Los Angeles Dodgers - 3
Milwaukee Brewers - 1
Minnesota Twins - 3
New York Mets - 1
New York Yankees - 1
Oakland A's - 3
Philadelphia Phillies - 1
Pittsburgh Pirates - 3
San Diego Padres - 1
San Francisco Giants - 3
Seattle Mariners - 1
St. Louis Cardinals - 1
Tampa Bay Rays - 1
Texas Rangers - 1
Toronto Blue Jays - 3
Washington Nationals - 1
I’m less certain about why teams choose to have their dugouts where they do. It could be that they just picked the one that they liked the best. Maybe it’s connected to the nicer of the two clubhouses. I don’t really know. You can make the case for both sides, but I suspect that it just comes down to tradition for that particular team. The only advantage I could see would be environmental. The home team might prefer the dugout that is not facing into the sun. But I don’t think that’s a problem in any major league ballpark.
So in short I have no idea why teams choose to have their dugouts on the first or third base lines. Sorry I can’t shed more light.
Q: Adam Barnello - What are your thoughts about the Lebowski Sequel that's in the works? Does it worry you as much as it does me?
A: I had not heard that there is a Lebowski sequel in the works. My thoughts on the Lebowski franchise (assuming that there is a franchise) in general are mixed. Put simply, I just don’t get the movie. There are movies that are weird and strange that I enjoy. But Lebowski isn’t one of them. I’ve seen it, I laughed, but I don’t GET it. Maybe I haven’t ever watched it under the right conditions (read: drunk), and thus am missing out on some of the genius of the movie. Maybe I will eventually understand the nuances. But not today.
So to answer the second part of your question, no, it doesn’t worry me as much as it does you. I’m not as big a fan of the franchise as you are. Therefore I don’t care about it as much as you. But I hope all of your fears are unfounded and that the sequel lives up to all the dude-ness that it could be.
Q: Nicole Maloney - Maybe Mitssob knows the answer: How can I get Emerson (3months) to take a bottle?!?! I've tried everything I've read. help! (ok, not really expecting an answer here... but if you had one, I'm all ears)
A: Again with the baby questions! I find it amusing that all you parents out there are allowing me to potentially screw up your kids by asking me questions about them. But keep asking, if for no other reason than it gives me something to look back on if/when I become a parent so I can laugh at how ignorant I was.
I’ve spent a little time formulating (HA) my thoughts on this question, but unfortunately I’ve come up with more questions than answers. All I can hope is that my ramblings will help you out. Right at the start I need to disclose that this question has caused me to speculate about not only your breasts but also your breast milk. If that weirds you out then I’m sorry. In addition we’re going to shatter the record for the number of times the word “breast” is used in an answer. I’m trying to be mature about this, but I make no promises.
As I see it the challenge is to get the kid to understand that food can come from two places: your breasts and a bottle. So my first question for you is what are you putting in the bottle? [Ed: What do you expect, Tim? Beer? No, this isn’t Bill’s kid we’re talking about here.] Are you trying to get Emerson to drink formula or breast milk? That might make a difference. Do children know what milk tastes like? I’m not sure, but I can believe it’s possible. Therefore you’d want to make the experiences to be as similar as possible, so if you haven’t tried putting breast milk in the bottle then give that a try.
As to the more practical question of how to get the child to take the bottle, if you’re willing to be a little cruel then you could simply force the issue by denying him your breast. Hunger would eventually force the kid to take the bottle. At least in theory. Would I do this to my own kid (assuming for the moment that I could breastfeed)? No, after a few minutes of crying I’d feel pity and give in. Plus I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work.
Your question sparked a tangential question in my head: Why isn’t there a bottle that’s the size/shape/feel of a breast? It seems like a natural thing to have. Putting aside the obvious weirdness of how it would look (not to mention all the things that it would be used for by college students all over the country), wouldn’t a child be more likely to take a bottle that’s of a familiar size/shape/feel? Just thinking out loud here.
Mothers in the Jolinko community are invited to correct me on this question in the comments. Good luck, Nicole! And once more for good measure: “breast”.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - Where in the world is Mitt Ssob?
A: Mitssob is currently in Rochester, NY, though that has been the exception rather than the rule since February when I took on new job responsibilities at work. My job now calls for me to travel around the country, meet with customers and potential customers, and provide engineering support for integration efforts. In English, I build small radio networks so that our sales guys can make sales and so that our engineers can gather test data. It's a lot of fun, if slightly chaotic at times.
Below is a partial list of the places I’ve been for this new line of work:
Paso Robles, CA (3 hours south of San Francisco)
Ridgecrest, CA (3 hours northeast of LA)
Kileen, TX (Fort Hood)
Fayetteville, NC (Fort Bragg)
Fort Walton Beach, FL
Eatontown, NJ (Fort Monmouth)
Baltimore, MD
San Diego, CA
As you can see I’ve been racking up the frequent flier miles and rental and hotel points. It’s been fun to be on the road. I’ve gotten to meet a lot of very interesting people, both in the military and in the Harris organization (sales and field service guys). I usually also have time to wander around and see some sights, and also eat some good local food.
Soon to be added to this list is Canberra, Australia (an hour flight from Sydney). I’m leaving on October 3 and returning October 11. I’ll provide full details of the trip once I get back, but I do want to share one interesting thing about the flight over there. I depart San Francisco on October 3 at about 7pm local time and land at 7:30am local time on October 5. By a quirk of the International Date Line I will not experience October 4. It’s very strange to think about. I hope nothing exciting happens on that date, because I won’t be around for it! I make up for it on the return trip, though. I depart from Sydney on October 11 at about 3:30pm and land in San Francisco at 8:30pm local time. I’m spending 14 hours in the air, but only 5 hours pass. All told I get to experience October 11 for about 34 hours, making it the longest day of my life.
So that's where Mitssob has been. I'll keep you all posted as to my movements as I make them.
Friday, February 2, 2007
20 - Answers (Part 1)
Two of the questions this week require so much contemplation and thought that I'm going to answer them in a separate post (which I've been working on for a couple of days). Just to hold you all over (and because one of the questions is time sensitive), here are the answers to the rest.
Q: Brett Gobe - Earl Grey or Green Tea?
A: I'd have to go with Earl Grey. I'm not really a fan of Green Tea. I like my tea to have a bit of a kick, and green tea just doesn't do it for me.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - will the groundhog see his shadow?
A: Yes. This will result in six more weeks of winter, which could be extended to as many as eight more weeks of winter if he's REALLY spooked by his shadow. Along those lines, I wonder why there isn't a scale to this system? What if he's only slightly scared? Shouldn't that result in only two more weeks of winter? Just a thought.
Q: Adam Barnello - Rent or Buy? AKA, should I buy a house?
A: In my opinion, rent, then buy. Renting is a great way to get a feel for the city in which you live, and also gives you the opportunity to save up some money for a down payment. Once you have enough, I highly recommend buying. Interest rates are still low by historical standards, and you can lock yourself into a good rate. Home ownership is a good investment, so I'd say go for it when you're ready.
Q: Karyn Graves - Serena was pregnant?
A: Yes, as a matter of fact, she was. Now she is no longer pregnant. She is a mother. For those of you who aren't aware, Serena Blackmer gave birth to a baby girl on Monday. The baby's name is "Alexandra Mae Blackmer", and weighed in at 8 pounds 15 ounces. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Blackmer's and wish them all the best with their new daughter. For pictures and more details check out charlieandserena.com.
Q: Bill Jeffers - And when do we get to hear more about this growing up thing? Everyone seems to be doing it lately so I thought I might try it. But if you want to demo it for me that would be great.
A: Let me use the occasion of your question to just ramble a bit, Bill. In the course of typing I think you'll see what I mean by "growing up". If not, then I'll try again later! Oh, and while I'm honored that you'd consider using me as a "demo", I wouldn't recommend it.
Things are a little crazy in my life right now. Work has gone from "really fun" to "not as much fun" in the space of about a month. My group was the victim of a reorganization, and as a result I'm working on things that I never really wanted to work on. Now, I'm still employed, and I still get to work with some really talented people, but unfortunately a lot of the joy (for lack of a better word) has gone out of my job. This is something that has never really applied to me before; I'm one of those fortunate enough to really like what I do for a living. But ever since the reorganization I'm not as happy as I usually am. Am I complaining too much? Yeah, I think so. Do other people have it worse than me? Absolutely. But I have to be honest with myself. This change has me feeling more cynical and disaffected than I normally am, and frankly I don't like it. I know that I need to change my attitude, but actually changing it has proven difficult. Part of my "growing up" is dealing with all aspects of this situation. It's been interesting to say the least.
In addition there is tension in my band lately as well. It basically boils down to everyone in the band being happy with playing shows in and around Rochester / Syracuse / Buffalo except for our trumpet player. He has grand aspirations for this band which I do not share. I (and everyone else in the band) am perfectly happy working for a living and playing music as a hobby, while he wants to make a living playing music. This has led to some tense inter-band discussions of late, and I don't see that situation changing. The whole situation has me feeling on edge and nervous, and as with my work changes has taken a lot of the joy out of drumming. In another month I'll begin working on my third album (tentatively titled "I Hope You Didn't Pay Money For This"), and maybe that will turn my attitude around. Who knows?
Finally, recent events in my life and the lives of others have thrown certain things into focus for me. I'm starting to realize that if I wait for my life to settle down then I'll never get anything done, and that I need to decide what it is I want and just go for it. If I worry too much about the consequences, if I continue to second-guess myself, I'm never going to live up to my potential as a human. This may require change. Then again, it might not. I don't know yet. When I figure it out, you'll be the first to know.
Q: Brett Gobe - Earl Grey or Green Tea?
A: I'd have to go with Earl Grey. I'm not really a fan of Green Tea. I like my tea to have a bit of a kick, and green tea just doesn't do it for me.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - will the groundhog see his shadow?
A: Yes. This will result in six more weeks of winter, which could be extended to as many as eight more weeks of winter if he's REALLY spooked by his shadow. Along those lines, I wonder why there isn't a scale to this system? What if he's only slightly scared? Shouldn't that result in only two more weeks of winter? Just a thought.
Q: Adam Barnello - Rent or Buy? AKA, should I buy a house?
A: In my opinion, rent, then buy. Renting is a great way to get a feel for the city in which you live, and also gives you the opportunity to save up some money for a down payment. Once you have enough, I highly recommend buying. Interest rates are still low by historical standards, and you can lock yourself into a good rate. Home ownership is a good investment, so I'd say go for it when you're ready.
Q: Karyn Graves - Serena was pregnant?
A: Yes, as a matter of fact, she was. Now she is no longer pregnant. She is a mother. For those of you who aren't aware, Serena Blackmer gave birth to a baby girl on Monday. The baby's name is "Alexandra Mae Blackmer", and weighed in at 8 pounds 15 ounces. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Blackmer's and wish them all the best with their new daughter. For pictures and more details check out charlieandserena.com.
Q: Bill Jeffers - And when do we get to hear more about this growing up thing? Everyone seems to be doing it lately so I thought I might try it. But if you want to demo it for me that would be great.
A: Let me use the occasion of your question to just ramble a bit, Bill. In the course of typing I think you'll see what I mean by "growing up". If not, then I'll try again later! Oh, and while I'm honored that you'd consider using me as a "demo", I wouldn't recommend it.
Things are a little crazy in my life right now. Work has gone from "really fun" to "not as much fun" in the space of about a month. My group was the victim of a reorganization, and as a result I'm working on things that I never really wanted to work on. Now, I'm still employed, and I still get to work with some really talented people, but unfortunately a lot of the joy (for lack of a better word) has gone out of my job. This is something that has never really applied to me before; I'm one of those fortunate enough to really like what I do for a living. But ever since the reorganization I'm not as happy as I usually am. Am I complaining too much? Yeah, I think so. Do other people have it worse than me? Absolutely. But I have to be honest with myself. This change has me feeling more cynical and disaffected than I normally am, and frankly I don't like it. I know that I need to change my attitude, but actually changing it has proven difficult. Part of my "growing up" is dealing with all aspects of this situation. It's been interesting to say the least.
In addition there is tension in my band lately as well. It basically boils down to everyone in the band being happy with playing shows in and around Rochester / Syracuse / Buffalo except for our trumpet player. He has grand aspirations for this band which I do not share. I (and everyone else in the band) am perfectly happy working for a living and playing music as a hobby, while he wants to make a living playing music. This has led to some tense inter-band discussions of late, and I don't see that situation changing. The whole situation has me feeling on edge and nervous, and as with my work changes has taken a lot of the joy out of drumming. In another month I'll begin working on my third album (tentatively titled "I Hope You Didn't Pay Money For This"), and maybe that will turn my attitude around. Who knows?
Finally, recent events in my life and the lives of others have thrown certain things into focus for me. I'm starting to realize that if I wait for my life to settle down then I'll never get anything done, and that I need to decide what it is I want and just go for it. If I worry too much about the consequences, if I continue to second-guess myself, I'm never going to live up to my potential as a human. This may require change. Then again, it might not. I don't know yet. When I figure it out, you'll be the first to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)