Juvenile tactics

DoI have a cousin who had a strange idea of fun. She thought it was absolutely hilarious for her to follow me around, mimicking whatever I did. I'd climb up the stairs; she'd climb up the stairs. I'd sit down on the couch; she'd sit down on the couch. I'd let out a sigh, and so would she.

Mind you, she wasn't a little kid anymore when she did this sort of thing. I can imagine how a five-year-old would find this amusing, but not a pre-teen.

In part, I blame her parents. Her parents should have taught her that this was not polite behavior. Then again, I learned that a lot of adults don't teach their children such niceties. In fact, in my family, they would often blame the child who complained about being mocked or teased. "Be a good sport," they'd say.

There's some merit to saying that people need to learn to be a good sport. However, when the children go out of their way to tease or ridicule others, you need to slap them down. You need to let them know that such behavior is unacceptable. When you respond to these situations by childing the victim and saying "Learn to be a good sport," then you are sending an entirely wrong message. You are telling the tormenters that what they're doing is perfectly acceptable and that they are acting with your blessings. Don't let them off the hook that way.

A vintage Kathy Smith video

So I borrowed this Kathy Smith exercise DVD from the public library. It was titled “Strong, Sleek, & Slim,” and like many of her DVDs, it’s a compilation of three older videos. One of these vids was titled “Ultimate Video Workout,” and it had never been released on DVD before. It’s not hard to see why.

Frankly, this video was kinda embarassing. I love Kathy Smith’s work, but this was clearly one of her earlier and less refined attempts. It’s clearly of 80s vintage, as evidenced by the outfits and the colors, not to mention the dancy and relatively uninteresting aerobic moves. Don’t get me wrong; Kathy Smith is a real pro and I think she’s fantastic. This particular video looks like it came from a time when she was less experienced and had a smaller repertoire, though.

I think that particular video had relatively little appeal, too. One thing that I like about Kathy is the way she creates cardio routines that can appeal to both men and women. Unlike many of Kathy’s later works though, the moves in this video were often distinctly feminine. There were two male performers in this vid, but I think that most men would find its routines to be overly girl.

She did have this very interesting segment in which she and her team built up an extended cardio routine as they pranced around in a parking lot. I have to give her credit for this creative notion. Also, I love the fact that the particpants didn’t seem to be overly choreographed. Oh, they clearly had a pre-arranged sequence of moves, but they also looked like they were pretty much relaxing and having a dance party. Even at this early stage in her career, Kathy already knew how to be creative.

One more comment: One can’t help but notice that Ms. Smith wore an outfit that was tasteful (barring the atrocious 80s aerobic fashions), but that strongly accentuated her figure. Mind you, she’s always had very well-rounded yet athletic curves. In this particular video though, that was much more obvious than usual. I don’t know if it’s because her waistline was a bit smaller back then (if that’s at all possible!), or if it’s because of her attire. I do think that in her later years, she had a tendency to wear dark outfits that de-accentuated her curves. Was this a deliberate attempt to reduce the focus on her figure and emphasize her teaching? I wonder.

Gym jackasses revisited

Earlier, I complained about some jackasses in the gym who like to yell and bark like dogs during our cardio exercise classes. This serves no real purpose, and it's ultimately a mean for them to draw attention to themselves.

Mind you, I like to put some flair into my moves. I like to put some bounce in my steps, and I like to cover a good amount of ground during lateral movements. None of that is for the purpose of attracting attention, though some might perceive it as such. It's all for the purpose of getting a more thorough workout.

Today, I saw an especially egregious example. I was attending this step cardio class, and this one husky guy beside me kept barking like a dog and yelling "Yeah!" or words to that effect. The thing is, half the time, he wasn't even doing the exercises! While everyone else was stepping up and down, he'd be crouching over, but still barking like a dog -- acting as though he were having the time of his life. Sometimes, we'd be doing knee raises, and he would be barely lifting his knees. That didn't stop him from yelling out enthusiastically, though.

Mind you, there are times when I don't have a lot of energy in these classes. There are also times when I don't get the moves right. I would never bark or holler in such circumstances, even if I were the kind of guy who liked to attract attention. Why? Because only a jackass tries to draw attention to himself when he's doing things badly or not making any real effort.

Yet another rant on Windows idiocy

Okay, once again, I have to rant about how idiotic MS Windows is. Just today, I tried to click on an application window -- in effect, switching from one application to another. And what does my computer do? It slows down to a crawl. About fifteen seconds later, the second application window finally appears.

Mind you, these weren't exotic custom applications that I was running. Rather, these were simple Internet Explorer windows displaying very rudimentary content. Nothing spectacular.

The problem is that Windows insists on doing so much garbage in the background that the OS will occasionally grind to almost a halt for no apparent reason. It's the very definition of bloatware.

Last night, I observed the same problem on another computer. After digging around, I found out that one process was reporting a problem to Microsoft, and had slowed the computer down in the process. Yeah, that's great. It wouldn't be such a problem if Windows was fairly reliable, but it's not.

Microsoft Windows, you stink.

Bariatic surgery as the easy way out

I'm watching this documentary on obesity in America. One of the featured characters is this severely overweight fella who has decided to undergo dangerous bariatric surgery in order to lose weight. His physician and family members have advised against this though, stating that he should first try an exercise program.

His response? "It's hard! Exercise is hard!" He figures that surgery is the easy way out.

I always want to avoid feeling disgust toward morbidly obese people; after all, they are humans too, and some of them have serious physical ailments that prevent them from losing weight. When somebody refuses to even try an exercise program though... well, I find that I can't muster up as much sympathy for that person. That person doesn't deserve to be mistreated, but if he's always going to rely on quick and easy (and potentially dangerous) fixes, then that's his fault.

His sister told him, "Just start some sort of exercise program. Everyone has to start somewhere." He replied, "Surgery is a starting point."

I still feel bad for the guy, but what can you do?

Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew

I remember how much I liked watching The Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries when I was a young lad. I could only watch it sporadically, though. We only had one TV at home, and my mom insisted on watching this stupid soap opera instead.

Me, I preferred the intellectual challenge of a good detective story.

So cold

It is so cold. So bloody cold.

I've got this parabolic heating reflector aimed straight at me right now, and it helps. It doesn't provide absolutely even heating though, since I can only point it toward one side of myself. Still, I'm glad that I have it.

What can I say? I don't want to turn the heat up.

Jackasses in the gym

There are a couple of guys who get all noisy during my Monday night cardio bootcamp class. I can't speak for anyone else in the class, but I think that they're pretty annoying. They keep yelling, whooping it up, and barking like a dog. Some would say that they're just being enthusiastic, but frankly, I think that they're just trying to attract attention.

Just today, one of these guys was barking loudly, as though trumpeting how much he was enjoying the class. Even as he was doing that though, he was totally cheating on his squats. He was barely bending his knees, and he was leaning forward rather heavily. Yet there he was, barking around as though he was having the time of his life.

I wish I could confront these guys, but that's a difficult thing to do, especially since there are certain ethnic and cultural issues to consider. In my mind though, I want to tell them: "Shut up!"

It's so cold!

I've been feeling the cold so much more acutely lately. It's not just because we're going through an unusually cold period -- at least, I don't think it is. Rather, I think it's also because I've dropped a bit of body fat, which makes me more sensitive to the cold.

I don't miss the extra insulation, but I do wish that I had more feeling in my fingers. Ugh.

R.I.P., Cheryl

I just learned that Mouseketeer Cheryl Holdridge passed away due to lung cancer. What a terrible shame. She wasn't a great singer, but she was a delightful dancer and she seemed to have so much fun on the show. She also went on to a pretty successful television career in her youth.

You will be missed, Cheryl.

About mendicants

Somebody recently shared the following perspective on panhandlers. I think that her wisdom is well worth sharing.

I know of several people who regard begging as their job. There's a community of such people out there, in fact one of the local newspaper columnists occasionally runs a story on some of them. For a while, a popular story was "My wallet got stolen, can you give me a couple bucks to help me get home?" I always offered to buy the "victim" a cup of coffee while I called the cops so that they could file a police report. The "victim" always remembered an urgent previous engagement.

I have also been quite poor, though not homeless. I took babysitting jobs, I worked several newspaper routes (walking them, and with my baby in a stroller with me). I was grateful if someone gave me a tip, or just money in general. However, I never begged, and I certainly didn't get up in people's faces about it. I knew that if I wanted any little luxuries, that I'd have to earn them myself, without depending on others to give them to me. At that time, a little luxury was a cup of tea...I had cut my food budget to the bone. In fact, I had cut all my budgets to the bone.

Some of us are more private than others. Many people, especially women, are not comfortable with a stranger, especially a large scruffy stranger, accosting us in public. Even if the stranger is not overtly threatening, it goes against all of our safety training. Sure, it would be nice if we didn't have to be wary about such things. But the fact of the matter is, that we do have to be careful. Men don't have quite the same worries, but I think that it's reasonable for even a large, strong, physically able man to be wary about a stranger approaching him out of the blue. As it happens, I am willing to physically defend myself, but I am not really in the best of shape to do so.

Some panhandlers are polite and laidback. Generally, I just shake my head without making eye contact. It's IMPORTANT for safety's sake not to make eye contact with strangers. Other panhandlers are more aggressive, and will follow their target for a while. They won't back off, and can be pretty scary. A polite panhandler can turn into an aggressive one if the target makes eye contact. With these folks, I WILL call the cops or notify the store manager or whatever. Obviously, the aggressive panhandler has problems recognizing other people's boundaries, and I don't know how far he'll go.

Basically, I feel that the vast majority of panhandlers could find other legit ways to make some money. I'm sure that there are some folks out there who have no other choice but to panhandle. However, I really don't think that I've come across them.

Yeah, I do give to some charities. In this way, I'm sure that most of my money is actually giving necessities to people, rather than funding another binge.

It is freezing!

Good grief! I have a lot of tolerance for the cold, partly because I work out a lot and have a revved-up metabolism. The cold weather this week is driving me nuts, though. I can barely shovel the snow in my driveway, thanks to these sub-zero temperatures. What's more, my fingers and toes get way too cold when I drive, to the point that I start to worry about getting frostbite.

And I can't close my garage door. I can't really work on this until the temperature gets warmer.

Whither Maylo?

Whatever happened to Maylo McCaslin? She's this fairly obscure actor that had a lot of TV roles back in the late 1980s. Did she just drop off the radar after marrying Willie Aames?

Also, what happened to Mark Thomas Miller of [em]The Misfits of Science[/em]? I know that Dean Paul Martin and Kevin Peter Hall both died, and Ms. Cox went on to major stardom. What about Mark, though?

Put your back into it! (Part II)

I've read articles which say that some people are overweight because they put very little effort into their day to day motions. Instead of bending down to pick something up from the floor, for example, they'll find a way to lean over and pick it up with much smaller movements instead. Instead of walking at a brisk pace, they saunter. And so forth. He looks like one of those guys.

Again, I try to remind myself that he might have some unknown, non-obvious physical ailment. It's kinda hard to think that when watching him move, though. He certainly doesn't appear to be disabled, and he didn't park in either of the gym's disabled parking spots. Who knows?

Put your back into it! (Part I)

When you see someone who's badly out of shape - and I mean severely so -- what do you think? That he's lazy? Or perhaps that he has some sort of physical malady?

I always want to be careful in this regard. After all, some people have disabilities or physical injuries that are by no means obvious. Having said that, when it comes to the vast majority of out-of-shape Americans, disabilities and injuries have little or nothing to do with their lack of stamina or energy.

Case in point: This one guy at the gym who sometimes participates in the cardio classes that I attend. He's pudgy, but he's not severely overweight; that is, nobody would refer to him as a beached whale. Still, whenever he moves, it's always with the slowest and smallest of motions. I've never seen him do a single jumping jack; rather, he always just kinda kicks his heel off to one side. When the instructor commands us to raise our arms into the air, he slowly lifts his hands up to shoulder level. And instead of kicking forward, he kinda steps forward slowly.

As I said, we have to avoid judging people too harshly, especially when we don't know their medical history. In this case though, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he's just not putting any real effort into his motions. Why do I say that? Because of the way I've seen him move in the locker room. I've been stuck behind him as I was rushing to claim a locker just before our cardio class. Even though the class was schedule to start within a minute or two, he'd be sauntering very slowly... much more slowly than most normal people would walk. He walks at a painstaking, agonizingly slow pace.

Could this be due to a medical condition? Maybe, but it seems unlikely, especially since he doesn't walk with a limp or in any way that suggests pain. What's more, it's not just the way he walks, but all his other motions as well. Heck, there are times when our cardio instructor commands us to walk a few steps forward, and he just stays in place, as though the extra effort just wouldn't be worth it.

More on gym newbies

I wanted to follow up on my previous rant about New Year's resolutioners at the gym.

Having so many newbies around can be understandably annoying for regulars, who tend to view the gym as their own turf. I think we always need to be nice and welcoming to the newcomers, though. It's tough, especially since it's naturaly for us to feel somewhat territorial. Still, let's make the effort.

Not too hard, though. The gym really isn't the kind of place where serious people intend to socialize. In fact, it's often kinda annoying to have someone engage you in long conversation at the gym, especially when you're trying to concentrate on your workout. It can also be annoying to the people around you, especially if you're talking loudly.

So let's strike a balance. Be friendly to the newbies, but don't treat the place as though it were a venue for a gabfest.

Invasion of the New Year's Resolutioners

It's January, and my gym has been invaded by New Year's resolutioners. I was almost unable to find a parking spot at the gym due to the massive surge in attendance. Finding a spot was made even more difficult by the fact that some of these motorists clogged up the lanes by waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to pull out of their spot.... you know, as opposed to driving a little bit further to park elsewhere.

My cardio bootcamp class was overflowing with newbies. We were practically packed in there like sardines. Not a pleasant situation.

Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against newbies; in fact, when they seem friendly, I like to meet them and introduce them to some of the regulars. I also routinely cheer them on when they need encouragement. It is very annoying, however, that they choose to come in droves right after the holidays. The gym simply isn't equipped to deal with these inflated numbers.

It's especially aggravating because you know that the vast majority of these folks aren't taking exercise seriously. How do we know this? Because if they were, they wouldn't be waiting around for January 1st to start getting into shape. This isn't just idle speculation, mind you. Rather, it's pretty obvious --- especially when you see how much attendance drops when February rolls around.

I'll say more about that later.

Zooey

I just learned that Zooey Deschanel, one of my favorite actresses, is starring in the Jim Carrey vehicle, "Yes Man." I have no intention of watching the show, but I am tempted to do so due to Zooey.

Mind you, she has her moments of serious clunkiness, as evidenced in "Tin Man." She can be pretty darned good though, and she's a spectacular singer. Throaty and enchanting and absolutely wonderful to listen to.

Another great answer

Here's another great answer to the question of whether we should always use the scientific method in our daily activities.

To me that shows why we CAN NOT use the scientific method in our personal relations. Suppose I have a friend at work who's usually polite and helpful. Then one day I notice that she's being rude, ignoring her duties, and so forth. If I insist on judging the situation based only on observation and logical deduction, I would have to conclude that she's somehow turned into a bad person. However, I also have another option: I can have faith in this person. And that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Her change in behavior may be resulting from something I don't know about, such as an illness, a family crisis, or something else. It may be something that I never know about. Nobody can ever observe another person thoroughly enough to completely understand all of that person's motivations, emotions, reasons, and thoughts. Hence, forming judgments about people solely by observation and logical deduction cannot truly be enough.

Again, slightly paraphrased. He's right. Human beings are too complex to be treated to a facile application of the scientific method.

Riptide!

This page reminded me of something... I so want to watch the second and third seasons of [em]Riptide[/em] on DVD. This was a great detective show from the 80s that was pretty darned funny at times. The humor was sometimes quite painful to watch, but it had a lot of genuinely amusing moments.

Unfortunately, Netflix is only carrying the first season on DVD. I'd love to watch the remaining seasons, but I don't want to spend money on the DVD sets.

Assay principles

More about the ELISA Spot assay:

The ELISPOT assay can be done with freshly isolated PBMC or with PBMC frozen by certain specifications. Specifically designed 96-well plates are coated with a cytokine-specific monoclonal antibody (e.g., IFN-). PBMC (or purified T cell subsets) are pipetted into the coated wells, and are cultured with the test antigen(s). Control wells contain either irrelevant antigen, or media alone. T cells that are specific for the test antigen when activated secrete molecules that are captured by the membrane-bound antibody (Figure 3).

Induction of maximal cytokine production typically requires 24 h (IFN-, IL-2 and IL-3, IL-10 and TNF or 48 h for IL-4 and IL-5). After the activation culture, the cells are discarded (or transferred for further characterization/propagation), and a labeled cytokine-specific secondary antibody is added. Subsequently the plate bound secondary antibody is visualized via an enzymatic reaction. When ELISPOT assays are optimized (as is the case for ImmunoSpot® assays) each color precipitation (“spot”) represents the footprint of a single cell’s cytokine secretion. Spot number denotes the accurate frequency of the antigen specific T cells among the plated cells, spot size and morphology providing additional information on the magnitude and kinetics of the cells’ secretory activity.

Bravo to this guy

I love what this guy said regarding the profanity debate.

The reason you can't begin to understand is that you're misreading what I wrote. I said "swearing is a habit that lazy people *CAN* fall back on...".

This does not mean "lazy people ALWAYS swear."

This does not mean "all swearing is done by lazy people."

There is no prejudice, except in your mind. It's a very simple statement. If one doesn't want to take the time and effort to think of the right word (e.g., one is linguistically lazy), then swearing is an easy way out. Do you *really* disagree with that?

And, by the way, you said "People who swear do it because that's the way they've always done it; that's just how they talk." How is that not the definition of "habit"? How is that not "remotely similar" to my point?

Again, read the argument. Swearing *IS NOT* equal to lazy. Swearing is a tool for lazy people. It's also a tool for intelligent, erudite people who know just the right time and place for a good profanity, and they can make it really effective.

And some people use it as filler, like um, er, ah, and like. When someone says, "I f*ckin' went to the latest fuckin' Jean-Claude Van-f*ckin'-Damme movie at the f*ckin' theater night before f*ckin' last, but I was so f*cked up I can't f*ckin' remember the f*ckin' plot," the profanity adds nothing to the sentence (not even emphasis, because it's so overused). When such a sentence is uttered loudly in a public place I consider it rude, thoughtless, and obnoxious.

Mind you, I'm not trying to justify the use of profanity. I don't think we should use it. From a purely literary perspective though, I think this guy is exactly right.

Even more profanity stupidity

Here is one of the most idiotic things that I read in this discussion on swearing.

How can swearing be less accurate or whatever than the words they are replacing. How is "there was a lot of sh*t in his garage" any different from "there was a lot of stuff in his garage."? It's the same thing!

Does this guy really think that profanity cannot make a statement less accurate? This sounds like a knee-jerk rationalization to me. It's pretty obvious that using a more generic word does make the statement less accurate -- or more precisely, less specific. The two rephrasings certainly are NOT the same thing insofar as the precise meaning of the former is not as readily discerned.

As one guy responded,

You're assuming that the listener knows that "sht*=stuff" in the speaker's mind. Nothing in this phrasing automatically sugggests that, though. None of the verbiage tells you if the speaker is talking about stuff that's mildly annoying, stuff that utterly reprehensible, or just plain "stuff."

Again, I'm not arguing against the use of profanity. That's a whole nuther debate. I just think it's foolish to think that swear words are just as precise or accurate as the words they are intended to replace. They aren't, especially since the same bits of profanity are used in casual contexts, at times of mild annoyance, and in the depths of fury and hellfire.

Yet another excuse for using profanity

The following ridiculous claim was uttered in defense of using profanity.

If I don't understand what a Frenchman says to me, that means that I don't understand French, not that the Frenchman isn't being clear and effective.

One guy responded by saying,

Speaking French or a strong dialect isn't analogous to swearing in English. It's the use to which the language is put, not the language itself that counts here. Some confusion can arise when using swear words (and, indeed to many other imprecise iterations) because they often are used as 'blanket' words. 'Fuck you' is a imprecise blast, used with strong feeling to express distaste of a particular action. It would be more accurate to specify what caused that reaction. The precise response may be not as satisfying or be able to put across the strength of feeling, though.

Yet another person said,

That's a false analogy and you know it. We're not talking about situations wherein people are using unfamiliar words or grammar. Rather, we're talking about situations wherein words are used indiscriminately, thereby robbing them of their impact and the ability to accurately communicate shades of meaning and emotion.

The problem lies in the indiscriminate use of this language. If you routinely use the word "sh*t" to mean excrement, something detestable, and just plain stuff, then the word loses its impact. Far from enhancing accurate communication, it simply serves as a barrier.

This problem isn't merely limited to profanity, BTW. The problem exists even within polite language. For example, I knew a graduate student who routinely described software designs as "good." His use of the word may have been accurate, but it was imprecise. A more effective communicator would be more specific, describing the designs as elegant, or efficient, or perhaps highly maintainable. The descriptor "good" lacked those nuances of meaning, and its indiscriminate use only aggravated that problem.

That's why it's a cop-oput to say that profanity is an excellent means of communication. It's only advantageous if used sparingly. When used indiscriminately, it blurs the distinction between truly aggravating circumstances and minor annoyances -- or worse, the humdrum routines of life.

Obama coins? Commemorative plates?

They're shilling commemorative Barack Obama coins and plates on TV now. That's just insane.

Look, I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, liberal or conservative. It's a colossally stupid move to engage in such wide-eyed adulation before the man even steps into office. Why not wait and see how well he performs before showering him with these types of accolades? That would just be prudent.

I'd say the same thing about anyone who gets elected to the Presidency. This is why I've always said that we should not erect public monuments or commemorative symbols to living politicians -- or at the very least, politicians who have not yet put in decently long terms.

Excusing profanity

I'm amazed at the lengths that some people would go to do defend profanity. I will heartily agree that profanity can be useful in communicating anger or disgust (though I don't condone its use). However, when people insist that profanity is the most effective way to communicate the depths of one's anger, or even the only way to do so, then that's just absurd. It indicates a complete lack of imagination on their part.

Consider the following exchange I saw in which this topic was debated:

Alright. So you come back from the garage upset about all the stuff in it. How would you express your anger about the situation?

One could launch a litany of insults against whoever caused the mess, or whoever created the stuff. One could wish the longest and most painful of torments on these people, their parents, and their progeny. One could describe the way one wants these people to be hung by their entrails, run through with fiery hot pokers, and forced to consume their own vomit. The list goes on.

I daresay that would be a more effective -- and far less ambiguous -- way of communicating anger than to say "This is all a bunch of sh*t!"

In discussing the use of profanity to convey anger, you said, "What else can convey that meaning?" With all due respect, I daresay that if a person cannot thinks there is no other way to convey the depths of his anger, then this is a reflection of that person's limited imagination and linguistic skill rather than any fundamental limitation of the language itself.

Preach it!

More on profanity

How about the following exchange regarding the use of profanity?

Really nothing conveys anger better than swearing.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on those points. Since when did swearing become the ultimate means of expressing anger? If anything, I think it's the easiest way to do so -- not necessarily the most effective way. In fact, since a lot of people toss around the f-word and s-word at the drop of a hat, regardless of their emotional state, I'd say that makes profanity a decidedly less effective way of expressing anger.

Is profanity a good way to express anger? Certainly. Is it the best, the ultimate, the most effective way? Only for people who lack imagination.

Swearing gets really old

I like what somebody said about swearing and how tedious it gets to hear someone use profanity all the time:

My husband swears a lot and it's really getting old. S*t, d**n, *ss and an emphatic f**k (she dreamed!) don't bother me at all. But he CONSTANTLY uses f**ker, c**ks**ker and m*th*rf**ker. If you say c**ks**ker or m*th*rf**ker when you drop a piece of bread or burn your finger, you're tapped out. There really isn't much worse that you can say. What if you get hit by a car, or your house burns down, or someone shoots your dog? You've already used up the worst words. Believe me, I can swear like a trucker IF PROVOKED, but overusing curses just makes one sound unintelligent, like you can't think of a smart thing to say. It's like getting into a physical fight (unless you are in danger, someone is attacking you or a loved one, etc.) Gee, I really have nothing intelligent to say, I think I'll just punch this guy or say f**king c*cks**ker because my pills fell on the floor. When you swear a lot, you rob the words of their impact and you just sound like an impatient, short-fused ass. When you hear it every day, it gets old really fast.

This is my Christmas post

This is my blog entry for Christmas Day. I'm actually entering it late, but I'm dating it to December 25th anyway. Merry Christmas!

Christmas Eve

I got to spend Christmas Eve with a delightful family. Sadly, some of the men in that family tend to be way too foul-mouthed. On top of that, I have really serious reservations about the guy that one of these ladies is dating. He's friendly enough, but he just doesn't seem like a quality guy. She could do much better if she really chose to.

Mythbusters

I liked the following comment that somebody made regarding the Discovery Channel's show, [em]Mythbusters[/em].

As far as I'm concerned, the show is good because it's one of the few where what they do is more important than how they look, what their personalities are, how smooth their dialogue is, whether they sexually desirable, whether they are cool, whether the production is slick etc. At it's peak, the show was near unique in that they showed the backroom stuff. They showed not just the slickly performed payoff at the end, but how they built their rig, the scale rigs they built to try out ideas, the fuckups, the deadends, the rigs that didn't work.

It broke out of the mould in which every show must be based slick showiness, to the exclusion of substance.

It is slowly falling back into the boring standard mould, and is getting less and less to my taste because of it.

I learned a new term

I learned a new scientific term recently: HPBMC. I was familiar with the PBMC acronym, which stands for "peripheral blood mononuclear cells." Well then, "human PBMC" is naturally abbreviated as HPBMC.

Some things should be pretty obvious. Heh.

Okay, okay. In the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty minor rant.

Lousy website design

I saw this website which had a small "search" function box in its upper right-hand corner. In the same corner, it had the following message:

Use the site's "Search Engine" located on the upper right corner, to list all content by keywords.

The designers of this site clearly had no sense of style or function. Not a lot of common sense, either. Oh, and they could use a good proofreader.

HBD, M.

Happy Birthday, Mother. Happy Birthday.

I don't want to write

I should be writing manuals tonight. I don't want to, though. I am so sick of writing.

Lousy customer service

I once ordered a pizza from this pizza joint, requesting light cheese (half as much cheese as usual). The cashier told me that it would be ready within 20 minutes, but 20 minutes later, they had not even put it into the oven yet. And when it was finally ready, the cashier tells me, "Okay, here is your pizza with EXTRA cheese. That'll be..."

I said, "Wait a minute. I asked for LESS cheese, not extra cheese. You're giving me the exact opposite of what I asked for."

"Well, will you pay for it anyway?" he asked. "We won't charge you anything extra."

I complained rather irately to the manager.

Stuff I want to do.

I'm trying to educate myself on a variety of things. This includes ancient Greek philosophy -- specifically, the work of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. I also want to brush up on my microelectronics. I would also like to learn more about the chemistry of cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

What else? I need to brush up on politics and current events. I've never been good at that. I also want to read a bunch of classical novels -- or at the very least, abridged versions thereof. I like making literary references, after all.

Would love to read "Don Quixote" someday.

There just isn't enough time though, and I need my sleep.

I heard it through the Crepevine

While on a business trip, I was scouting around for a good place to eat. Normally, I would check out an inexpensive pizza place or some manner of healthy eating (e.g. Boston Market). This crepe place caught my eye though, so I checked it out.

The dining there was wonderful! Loved the potatoes, and the crepe that I ordered was very flavorful. I forget what was in it, but it had some chicken and two types of cheeses.

Hopefully, it wasn't TOO fattening. I've love to try that place again someday.

Annoying people on a plane

I’m not terribly fond of travelling, and I especially hate flying for long distances.

Today, I took a long, long flight from North Carolina to California. The woman seated to my right brought her own meal on board, and it had a pretty strong odor. Sitting beside her was rather unpleasant at the time. I suspect that she was conscious of the odor though, because she seemed to be rushing to finish her meal.

Then there was the fella seated behind me. He was snoring very loudly, and several people kept looking his way. After a while, I discreetly tried tapping his knee in order to wake him up, but that didn’t work. He did wake up eventually, but would then promptly doze back off and start snoring immediately.

He also had a kid who kept kicking the armrest on my left-hand side. I had to keep turning to him and saying "Please stop doing that."

Good grief.

US Airways charges for drinks now?!??! And snacks, too?!?!?

I discovered that US Airways now charges for meals, snacks, and drinks that they serve on their flights. They must really be trying to cut back on their expenses. I can’t really complain, since I know that the airline industry is going through some pretty severe hardships right now.

I can’t help but think about Andre, a commercial pilot that I knew. It’s a safe bet that he doesn’t earn the same kind of salary that he used to command seven years ago. What a shame.

As an aside, I could use a raise myself.

Hailing a cab

I felt annoyed and then chagrined as I tried to hail a cab recently.

While on a business trip, I called this one cab to take me to the airport for my flight back home. The dispatcher said that it would take ten minutes. Well, 15 minutes elapsed, then 20. I called the dispatcher repeatedly, but got no reply. I have a feeling that he decided to take a break, and I was pretty annoyed.

I then saw a red cab park at a nearby coffeeshop, so I noted the telephone number on the cab and called it. Their dispatcher muddled around, talking to some co-workers and trying to figure out if they had any cabs in my area. As it turned out, the cab that I saw was available, so they told me that he'd be at my spot in 30 seconds.

Just then, I got a call from the driver from the original cab company that I called. He told me that he was right there, and that he could see me standing by this tree. At that point, I was tempted to blow him off; after all, he had kept me waiting for 25+ minutes, and I had just arranged for another ride. I decided to just take this opportunity though; after all, I needed the ride.

The driver fella turned out to be this very friendly guy from Yemen. He explained that he drove by my spot earlier, but was flagged down by this woman standing nearby. He naturally assumed that she was the one who called for the cab, which explained why he was so late.

So I went from being annoyed to chagrined. I also felt bad for that other cab company that I called. It was frustrating; I finally got ahold of a dispatcher and arranged for a ride, only to find out that it wasn't necessary anymore.

I'm trying to tell you!

I was kinda short with this one taxi dispatcher recently. I don't think that my reaction was unreasonable, but perhaps I could have been more patient.

I called this cab company, telling them that I was at a Starbucks and needed a ride to the airport. For whatever reason, the dispatcher didn't get what I meant (background noise, maybe?) and asked if I needed a ride to or from the airport. I explained the situation once again.

So he asked where I was. I told him, "I'm at the Starbucks at..." at which point he interrupted, "Yes. Where??!" At that point, I was getting pretty annoyed, and so I shot back, "I'm telling you!!!" and then, in a pique of frustration, hung up on the guy.

Maybe I could have been more patient with him. I do think that he should have at least let me finish instead of interrupting me in mid-sentence, though.

I hate to travel... or rather, to fly.

I hate flying, whether for business or pleasure. I'm not afraid of flying, but I do find it annoying.

Oh, there are perks to business travel. I like getting free meals, for example. I also like being able to rack up some perks on my credit cards. And sometimes, it's nice to see new places. Still, I'd prefer to stay home.

Besides, I never really get enough time to do any sight-seeing on these trips. I blew such an opportunity a few weeks ago, when I returned my rental car way too early. Oh, well.

It would help if I had company on these trips. Going sight-seeing alone just isn't very much fun.

A strange guy at the gym

There's this very strange guy at the gym. He's ambulatory and not obviously crippled in any way. He's overweight but not morbidly obese. Still, even though he looks like he's about my age, he moves like a 75-year-old whenever he sits in on our cardio classes.

I don't know what to make of him. The instructor tells us to march forward, and he just stays in place. We're told to pump our arms into the air, and he raises his hands to the height of his shoulders. He looks like he can move normally, but when it comes to basic exercise, he acts like an old man.

Now, I don't know the whole story here, and I want to be charitable. Still, he does seem like one of those guys who just moves lazily. You know, the kind of guy who's out of shape because he always uses the smallest, least strenuous motions that he can.

It's kinda hard to escape this conclusion. There are a good number of badly overweight people who attend these classes, but even though they're in pretty bad shape, most of them still move with more energy and alacrity. Ditto for most of the elderly people who attend these classes.

In a later post, I'll talk about some of the truly inspiring people who take these cardio classes. Boy, are they impressive!

Want to try these utilities

I need to try a couple of free third-party Windows utilities sometime. I'm talking about PrimoPDF and FastStone Capture. I currently use CutePDF for PDF printing and Paint Shop Pro for advanced screen captures, but these other utilities come highly recommended by PC World.

Speaking of which, I really miss Byte magazine. Too bad it was canned years ago.

Productive time

I like what this human resources person said on his or her blog. I think that the wisdom of what she wrote is lost on so many, especially when they manage people who work in technical or creative fields.

I especially like the following comment:

"I'm also thinking that I had hoped that as an economy we were moving away from measuring performance by face time and hours worked and measuring the value of our employees by the results they produce."

More on "colored"

In the previously mentioned discussion on the use of the term "colored person," one person offered the following mindnumbingly stupid response:

"If mere humans can name the president, a fact that changes far more rapidly, then mere humans can follow what terms are preferred by a substantial portion of the US population--terms that haven't changed in years. The "you can't complain because it all changes all the tiiiiime" excuse is ridiculous.... "

This person was owned by the following reply:

" #44 Yesterday, 11:36 PM
JThunder
Charter Member Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,624

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess
If mere humans can name the president, a fact that changes far more rapidly, then mere humans can follow what terms are preferred by a substantial portion of the US population--terms that haven't changed in years.

You can't be serious.

"First of all, the name of the President is an objective fact, easily looked up. The same cannot be said about preferred terminology. Just ask the Trekkers and the Trekkies.

Second, this isn't merely a question about which term is 'preferred.' Even if a term is not 'preferred,' that doesn't automatically make it offensive, outdated, or otherwise inappropriate.

And third, this very thread demonstrates that there is disagreement about the degree of propriety in using the term 'colored.' Heck, as I've pointed out, the majority of the respondents in this thread apparently disagree with you. What does that say about the ease of following whichever terms are preferred?

Again, I've known people to take offense at the term black, preferring the term 'African American.' I've known people who expressed the opposite preference instead. Which one of these groups is more worthy of your criticism?"

The word "colored"

I've been following an Internet discussion aobout how Lindsey Lohan described Obama as "colored." Most of the respondents considered this to be a non-issue, and one guy said that he can't muster up any outrage, given how much the "correct" term for blacks has changed through the years -- black, colored person, African American, person of color, and so forth.

To this, one twit responded by saying,

"So many times, huh? Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that someone who can't keep up with this sort of thing could be conversant with the internet or function in society.

I was born in 1971. There have been two terms taught to me in my lifetime as polite, both of which are still extant and both of which I use: Black and African-American. Two terms. This isn't something that changes every five seconds."

This person did not get much support from the others. They pointed out that the term "colored" was used well into the seventies, and that it was never considered impolite. I think that the following responses were pretty darned good.

"And if my complaint had been that I couldn't keep up with the terms, then your criticism would have some merit. Thankfully, that's not what I said, and I think you know it. I'm fully aware that the term "colored" is outdated.

My point is that it's foolish to express outrage at the use of this term, given that American society can't seem to settle on a suitably non-offensive term. Heck, on more than one occasion, I've seen people take offense at the term "black," even though most people don't seem to have trouble with it. This is just one of those situations where it's best to let it go."

"Would you care to tell the NAACP that they "can't keep up with this sort of thing" or that it's hard to believe they "could be conversant with the internet or function in society"? I'm sure that they'd appreciate your candid feedback."

"It seems silly to argue that there's no possible problem trying to keep track of what terms for minorities are considered non-offensive in a thread in which people seem to be having trouble deciding if a particular term is in fact non-offensive."

Sometimes it stinks to be needed.

Today, I had to make a business trip to Hershey, PA, the magical land where chocolate grows on trees. I had planned on leaving at noon. Unfortunately, my co-workers kept needing me for this, that, and the other thing. Argh

I had really planned on getting to my hotel room in the early evening so that I could kick back a little bit, get some exercise, get some reading done, and be well rested for my trip to the customer. That just didn't happen, though. It stinks.

Messing up the shim sham

During our monthly first Friday swing dance, we regularly do this shim sham routine. It's a lot of fun, and I look forward to it each month.

Tonight though, it was messed up by this small group of young people who had no idea what they were doing. They stood right at the front of the room, even though they had no idea what they were doing. Instead of doing the dance properly, they were just flailing around.

Now, I don't mind that; after all, everyone has to start somewhere. However, if you don't know how to do a particular dance, you probably shouldn't be standing at the front of the class. Go to the back where you won't be bothering anyone. Or if it's clear that you can't follow, drop out and stay on the sidelines. That's just common sense.

They meant well, and they were trying to have fun. Still, they obviously didn't realize that by flailing around in front of everyone else, they were distracting the dancers behind them and causing them to mess up. It was a disaster.

Don't get me wrong. I know that this is a small thing in the grand scheme of events. Still, it's an unfortunate incident that could have been easily avoided if these people had shown a little bit more common sense.

That creepy swing dancing guy again

In an earlier post, I mentioned Perry, this weirdo guy who keeps attending our local swing dance events. Tonight, a friend of mine told him off. Good for him.

Perry asked my friend to dance. She said, "No, I'd rather not. I think you were very inappropriate with a friend of mine. You don't take a woman that you've met for the very first time and start lifting her into the air...." and so forth, and so on. I didn't see everything that Perry was doing with the woman in question, but I did know that he just doesn't grasp the concept of swing dance propriety.

You go, girl. Hopefully, this guy will tone things down. Now, if we could just get him to stop pressing his face so close to his partner with this look of orgasmic ecstacy on it.

And heck, it wouldn't break my heart if he were to stop attending altogether.

Palin acquittal

So an investigative panel acquitted Sarah Palin of wrongdoing in the TrooperGate scandal. One scoffer replied by saying,

"Palin appoints the members of the Personnel Board. I would assume the Alaska state legislature is elected. Both hired (different) independent investigators.

I'm sure everyone will forgive me if I'm not very surprised that the board Palin herself appoints has cleared her of any wrongdoing."

However, a saner head replied by saying,

"The personnel board is indeed appointed by the governor. That said most were appointed by her predescessor, only one reappointed by her, and Alaska law allegedly protects them from dismissal without cause."

Work

I am feeling so exhausted. Business trips, church work, household chores, Christmas stuff, and lots of extra hours at work. In fact, I have to put in a few hours tonight. (Argh.) I'm not willing to give up my exercise time though, which makes my time even shorter. Rats.

Hate hate hate hate spam

I really hate all this weirdo spam that I'm getting. Are people really stupid enough to fall for this stuff? Sheesh.

I really appreciate her

I really appreciate this certain friend of mine. She's so much fun to be with, and she's sweet as well.

Obama's tax plan

I really don't like Obama's taxation plan. Oh sure, it sounds good. It sounds good to say that we should distribute some of the wealth to the poor.

The thing is, it's foolish. Money is not a zero sum game. Any economist knows that society should be creating wealth. When the economy is sluggish, the government should attempt to encourage the spread of businesses and the creation of new jobs. When business owners are taxed too heavily, that can't happen. You've got to reduce the risk and increase the potential rewards.

And Obama's tax plan will do the opposite.

Creepy swing dancer guy

There's this guy who attends the swing dancing events that I frequent. He obviously loves to dance, but he's way over the top in his appreciation. As a friend of mine said, this guy is a real weirdo.

Fella, you don't have to make orgasmic faces when you're dancing. And you certainly don't have to press your face up close to your partner's face, grinning as though in sheer ecstasy. It's creepy and weird. It's also extremely inappropriate.

Oh, and don't lift women into the air when you're dancing with them for the very first time, especially if they are novice dancers. It's stupid.

Go away, fella.

Quantum of Solace

"Quantum of Solace." That's an interesting name for a James Bond film. I rather doubt that Ian Fleming would have come up with something like that. I like it.

Oh, and I think that Daniel Craig has the right look for Bond. This is not the sort of role that should go to a prettyboy.

Darn it!

Darn it! Darn it! Darn it!

It's my day off, and yet once again, I have to show up and put in a few hours. Oh, and I can't get a whole lot done at home, thanks to being interrupted. Darn it.

Cardio compliment

I've been taking a cardio bootcamp class at my gym, and I received a compliment this week... or at least, I interpret it as a compliment.

The instructor wanted us to partner up for some coordinated punching and some kicking exercises wherein we balance ourselves off against the other person. As I was looking for a partner, she motioned me to join her up on the stage and demonstrate the moves to the class. I guess she was confident that I would do the moves correctly. That was kinda nice.

Had to work on my day off

I was kinda bummed today. I was supposed to take the day off, but then I got a call asking me if I could come in to work for a while. I wound up staying there for three hours.

So much for a day off. I really wanted to use more of that time working on some home projects. I'm talking about home maintenance and some little techie projects that I have going on the side.

Rats.

Old Filmation cartoons

I've been watching some old Filmation superhero cartoons -- Hawkman, Green Lantern, the Teen Titans, the Atom, the Flash, and the Justice League. I got to watch these through some Netflix DVDs.

These cartoons were really, really cheesy. One of the Teen Titans cartoons was actually kind of amusing, but you can tell that they were all made in a woebegone time.

Oh, well.

The Lovely Bones

I've been listening to the audiobook adapation of the bestselling novel, The Lovely Bones.

As it turns out, it wasn't about DeForest Kelley at all. What a ripoff.

Cute smart Jeopardy lady

This post reminded me about Larissa Kelly, the demure young dynamo who created a minor sensation on Jeopardy a few months ago. Ms. Kelly was one of the winningest contestants that Jeopardy has had in a while, though she didn't come close to Ken Jenning's record.

Unfortunately, she wasn't able to make it to the Tournament of Champions. Too bad.

Dawkins and Science

I was reading some comments by this one fella on the net -- a die-hard Richard Dawkins fan. This fella had become unhinged upon hearing that a good number of philosophers and other scholars -- including various atheists -- complained about the logic employed by Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion. These scholars said that Dawkins employed poor philosophy and engaged in revisionist thinking on matters of history.

As I said, this fella became positively unglued. He hollered (as best he could over the 'net), "If you don't agree with Dawkins, then you must reject all of science! And if you do that, then you had better walk away from your computer right now, since you have no business using the fruits of science!"

Boy. Talk about extreme.

Why won't any economist defend McCain's economic policies in a northern California debate?

I came across this question in a discussion thread on the net. The OP clearly implied that this means that no economist would want to defend McCain's economic policies. Of course, that's a naive view.

One knowledgeable economist posted the following reply, which I really liked. In this posting, MR means "marginal returns" and AVC means "average variable cost."

When marginal revenue is below average variable cost, a competitive firm will produce no output in the short run. Here, output is debating De Long.

Suppose you're a McCain-supporting economist. Why would you debate De Long? You would if doing so would get you something - like increase your candidate's chances in the election or your influence in the Republican party - and it wouldn't cost you much.

But whilst a McCain-supporting economist might well continue to support McCain and perhaps bag Obama on his shortcomings, it would be foolish to debate De Long, because:

You stand to gain little or nothing because even if the election is winnable, it's not being fought on economic policy issues as debated amongst economists in California.

You stand to gain little or nothing by defending McCain's policies, because either McCain's going to lose or you're going to want him to change them after the election. Either way, you don't want to be tied to them. And you certainly can't go into a debate conceding that whilst you support the candidate you don't support his policies.*

An example: McCain's call for expenditure cuts. If you're a conservative economist, you think one of three things about this:

1. It's a bad idea at the moment when the economy is about to go or has gone into recession (you're a conventional economist).
2. It's a good idea even now, but totally inconsistent with the mortgage bailout stuff (you're a neo-Mellonite).
3. It's good as far as it goes, but irrelevant because there is no crisis anyway (you're a real business cycle type).

So the conservative economist will want to avoid supporting McCain's positions and look to have influence in the unlikely event of a McCain administration or try to build something from the wreckage if he loses. Some, of course, have decided their fixed costs are well and truly sunk and have bailed entirely.

So, like I said, MR<\lt>avc.

Review of Christi Taylor: Totally Cool Step DVD

So I borrowed a copy of this DVD, Christi Taylor: Totally Cool Step from the library. It's a step aerobics video, and I don't recommend it unless you're an advanced stepper and are already familiar with the moves.

Kathy Smith is great because she breaks her moves down, allowing the viewer to see what she does. Christi Taylor's workout looks interesting, but it's not at all easy to digest.

It's that day

It's the anniversary of that day. Of that tragic, tragic day.

I remember that when this happened, I had just started working for a company that was already suffering from the collapse of the Internet and Y2K bubbles. We had just laid off about a third of the staff. Then this happened.

Boy.

The Giving Tree

Do you remember Shel Silverstein's children's book, "The Giving Tree"? I was surprised to read some very negative reactions to the book recently. "Why does this tree keep giving and giving to this little boy, taking nothing in return?" They thought it was a horrible story.

I disagree. In fact, I agree with one Internet poster's remarks, in which he says,

You definitely get a different spin on the book after you have kids.

There's a reason the story's called The Giving Tree and not The Taking Boy. The tree, not the boy, is what the story is about. I think some folks lose sight of that because we're used to humans being the central characters in our stories. The boy is just a necessary element to tell the story of the tree. Focusing on him too much makes you lose sight of what the book is really about.

When I was younger, I remember feeling that the kid was just a greedy bastard and the tree was a total doormat and an idiot. Now, I have a kid, and I think I understand: the tree (metaphorical parent) is willing to give every bit of itself for the boy (metaphorical child). What makes the tree happy is being with the child, and there's nothing the boy can take from the tree that will decrease that happiness.

Before I became a dad, I always heard about parents who didn't have enough money to feed the whole family, so they'd go hungry and give everything they had to their child so she could eat. I never understood that. Now, I think I know why people would gladly suffer for their kids. She really does mean the world to me, and I would give every part of myself for her. And I'd be happy.

Francis Y

Speaking of despicable people, Francis Y had a nasty habit of starting rumors about people. He loved it. Even an innocent conversation between a boy and a girl was grist for his rumor mill.

Why do some people take such a perverse delight in inventing rumors?

Rodney, you were despicable

I try to focus on the positive; I really do. I think that's important when you're in a high-stress job. However, there are still times when I find myself flashing back to some unpleasant memories.

For example, today I wound up thinking of Rodney, this incredible jackass that I knew from high school. To give you an idea of how despicable he was, he once snuck up behind me during a class study session when the teacher was away. He clamped his hands around my neck and squeezed... hard. The blood was cut off from my brain, and my vision started to fade. I nearly blacked out. We were in the back of the room, so the other students didn't see us, or if they did, they must have thought he was just playing around.

He eventually did loosen up, before I could pass out. When I complained, he said, "Come on! It's just fun!"

Yes, Rodney. I trust that you'd also find it fun if someone were to squeeze your neck to within an inch of your life. If I were a more mean-spirited person, I would actually wish such a fate on you, but I won't. I do hope that you've grown up and changed your ways; after all, we all do stupid things when we are young. If you haven't though, then more's the pity.

Dang, Buck Owens is good

I just watched an old episode of Tony Orlando and Dawn in which some of the old Hee Haw gang cast members were the guest stars. Hee Haw was pretty dumb and their jokes were extremely lame, but on Tony Orlando's show, they were much funnier.

Grandpa Jones is always pretty darned good. He's fun. However, Buck Owens really caught my attention. Man, that guy is talented!

I'm not a big country music fan; however, his rendition of Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the Old Oak Tree was absolutely amazing.

Sarah Palin, Bristol, and taking the high road

I read the following comments from one self-avowed liberal regarding this whole Bristol Palin kerfluffle. I think that his words are worth heeding.

I'm a liberal, and an unabashed Obama supporter.

That said, this is how they'll beat us.... Judging this woman's quality as a mother based on a few datapoints, gleefully repeating idle internet gossip, eventually forcing the disclosure of a family matter that was none of our f***ing business.

This is how they'll win. Drag us down to their level and beat us with experience. Stick to policy, McCain's judgment and age. Leave Palin alone. Any attack on her--however well-founded--will be seen as picking on a defenseless hockey mom.

She's the bait, and we're taking it.

Sarah Palin, Bristol, and sex education

Earlier, I talked about how some people unfairly criticize Sarah Palin, laying the blame for Bristol's pregnancy firmly at her feet. Without defending (or even evaluating) Governor Palin's suitability as a candidate, I opined that such criticisms are patently unfair. I'd even argue that these are kinda cheap shots. Obama himself appears to agree, which is why he has asked his supporters to lay off.

Nevertheless, I've seen a great many critics jump on Sarah Palin's case over this issue. Apart from questioning her parenting skills, they also say, "Aha! This demonstrates that her abstinence-only beliefs on sex education simply don't work." Now, I'm not going to attack or defend the use of abstinence-based (or even abstinence-only) sex education, as that would merit a whole 'nuther long discussion. Rather, I want to emphasize that this line of reasoning is unwarranted, and here's why.

First, nobody should rationally expect that any approach to sex education will be foolproof. That's simply naive. If somebody gets pregnant despite extensive instruction on the use of condoms and IUDs, would people be so quick to conclude that this method of teaching is a disaster? Probably not.

Besides which, even if we were to pretend that a single failure constitutes proof that a particular approach doesn't work, we still can't use Bristol Palin as a valid datapoint. Why? Because we don't know that she was educated using "abstinence only" as a guiding principle. All we know is that this is what her mother advocates. We don't know if this is what Bristol was taught in the schools, for example. We don't even know if this is what her father advocates. Heck, we don't even know when Sarah Palin herself adopted this stance (which, for all we know, could have been well into Bristol's teen years).

Now, this is the point at which various peopl exclaim, "But abstinence teaching doesn't work! Those programs are stupid!" Maybe that's true, and maybe not... but that's not the issue at hand. The question is whether the blame for Bristol's unfortunate situation should be placed on Sarah Palin's views on sexuality or her parenting skills. Such accusations are simply unwarranted, and they implicitly assume that anything less than 100% effectivenesss is equivalent to abject failure.

Sarah Palin, Bristol, and parenthood

So VP candidate Sarah Palin has a daughter who recently god pregnant out of wedlock. Her name is Bristol, and she is now in the public eye. Poor gal.

Some critics have been jumping on Sarah Palin's case, saying "See? She's not a very good mother, is she?" Now, I'm not going to attack or defend her parenting skills, as I don't think that would be appropriate. Rather, I want to emphasize that this criticism of Governor Palin is patently unfair.

Does her daughter's pregnancy make her an inattentive or otherwise incapable mother? I don't think so. You can't necessarily place the blame for this child's failing firmly at the feet of her mother. Children can always make their own mistakes, even with the best of parental guidance.

Heck, how many times have we heard people say "You can't stop teenagers from having sex" (a statement which is technically true, but which oversimplifies the duties of parenthood). Now that Palin's daughter is pregnant though, all of a sudden it's "Omigawsh, she's pregnant! This proves that Palin is a neglectful mother!"

As for accusations that Bristol was "sexually active"... again, that's technically true, insofar as she has clearly had sex. However, this says nothing about whether this was a continuing habit, an occasional failing, or even a one-time mistake. To lay this blame firmly at the mother's feet is both unduly harsh and unwarranted.

Mind you, I'm not saying that she was some lily white virgin who simply made a single mistake. (I hasten to emphasize this, since one person did challenge me on that point.) Rather, I'm saying that we don't know if she was sexually loose, or if she gave in during a moment of weakness, or if the truth lies somewhere in between. It seems to me that we should avoid making too many assumptions about what's going on behind the scenes.

Obscure Peanuts characters

A friend of mine is a big fan of Snoopy, Charlie Brown, and the whole Peanuts gang. I'd love to get her some figurines of some of the more obscure Peanuts characters -- Five, Shermy, Charlotte Braun, Tapioca Pudding, Patty and Violet, etc. Those have been very hard to find, though.

How I spent my Labor Day weekend

So what did I do during the Labor Day weekend?

I spent a lot of time resealing my driveway. This is time-consuming work, since my driveway is in very bad shape. It's coarse and has a good number of depressions, which means that it's not as simple as just spreading the sealant around. I have to trowel some filler into various spots if I want the sealant to spread evenly... and even then, I need to be selective. I can't afford to use this stuff in all the rough spots, nor do I have the time to do so.

I also have spots that are very difficult to clean, being right close to my landscaping. I had to spread some of this filler onto those spots as well, just to cover up the dust and give the sealant something onto which it can adhere.

Oh, and I always need to hose the driveway down for best results. With all the pine needles, bits of mulch, and bits of grass blowing around, that gets to be annoying. It would be best if I had a pressure washer to use, but I don't want to spend money on one. Maybe if I were to buy a cheap one...

Another Windows annoyance

Okay, here's another thing that I hate about Windows. It happens way too often that windows pop up and won't disappear. For example, if you click on the Start button at the start, you may find that it will pop up and remain there, refusing to go away unless you actually select one of its options. It also happens when you click on various taskbar buttons.

This stinks. It also seems to happen a lot more under Vista, but that may just be my misperception.

What I want to do

I want to spend several weeks in intensive reading and exercise.

I want to take time off from work to build a whole bunch of gadgets.

I want to spend some quality time with a beautiful woman... if I can find one.

I want to take some more dance lessons.

I want to learn how to skydive.

I want to finish digging my swale.

I want to eradicate the weeds from my yard.

I want to finish caulking my new garage side entry door.

Ugh.

Feeling kinda irritable

I'm feeling kinda irritable right now. Actually, I've been feeling irritable for several days now. This is due to the following:

• The complete idiocy of Windows Vista. Being forced to use it is very aggravating. Its performance is absolutely atrocious.
  
• Some of the software I've been forced to use is absolutely horrible.
  
• I already complained about the jittery touchpad, right?
  
• Some people in my life are completely aggravating as well. It's like they have no common sense.
  

Having a jittery touchpad

This is really annoying.

My laptop's power adapter is on the fritz. It started getting flaky a few days ago, but I put off buying a new one.

What can I say? I'm trying to watch my expenses.

Unfortunately, it's very nearly dead right now. Its connector is flaky, and due to the molded cable, I don't think that simply fixing the connector will be entirely feasible.

I did have a universal laptop power supply lying around from a previous project. It lets the user select an output voltage and one of several barrel-type connectors. Unfortunately, it has this odd effect on my touchpad. It makes the touchpad kinda jittery.

I suspect that the power supply doesn't regulate its output very well. That's darned annoying.

Jury nullification, part six

And the chess game continues.

Some contend that objections to jury nullification are predicated on a "slippery slope" argument, thus making them invalid. I had to think about my hypothetical resposne to that, but KoS offered an excellent rebuttal.

[N]ine times out of ten, slippery slope is a really stupid argument, and you're right to be leery of it. But the actuality, not the possibility, of jury nullification is what makes headlines, and it's rare and even then the meaning (compared to what I'll call genuine civil disobedience) is often a mystery: did the jury violate its oath because the law is unjust, or because the defendent was very like them, or because too much information was withheld, or because they were stupid, or because they were tricked, or because they wish to protest some other law, or all laws, or, just maybe, did the facts and law actually support the verdict? Let's think about this last possibility: the whole point of jury nullification is thwarted if most people assume the panel is stupid or corrupt. That alone should make you pause, shouldn't it? If they assume that it is, what's the breakdown on how many will assume that a dozen stupid and corrupt people are screwing up a trial for a noble and worthwhile purpose? You may as well try to convince them that you would have given the purse you were caught stealing to the United Way if you hadn't been caught. That in a nutshell is why civil disobedience belongs to the public at large, willing to break the law and go to prison, because only personal sacrifice stirs the conscience. Renegade jurors with uncertain motives aren't rebels, they're just (word not appropriate for Great Debates)s. And their example leads people to distrust jurors, not legislators.

So I still say that jury nullification not only blunts the impact of genuine civil disobedience, it undermines institutions that make any dissent possible.

Jury nullification, part five

I thought I'd be done quoting this guy, but I was wrong. He's very articulate in what he says and very precise in the way he argues.

The power and the glory of the jury system is not license to ignore the facts and the law, it's the power and responsibility to see that both the state and defendants adhere to them as well. Rejecting unjust laws is an important responsibility, but it belongs to all of us, and it has to be done correctly: it's not a job within the scope of a jury, and the jury can't attempt it without rejecting everything they are supposed to accomplish. If nullification were to become widespread, we'd have a race to see which, anarchy or tyranny or bloodletting, we'd get to first.

It's not a matter of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's about accepting the imperfect to avoid the horrible extremes. If you feel a law is unjust, go protest it. Hell, go break it. And tell everybody you're willing to accept the consequences because your cause is right, and watch a movement grow. But don't destroy the jury system (which usually serves us well even if sometimes the cool people have to go to jail) because you'd rather take loud credit for personally setting one person free than anonymously do your part to preserve the oldest and most important democratic institution there is.

Jury nullification, part four

Okay, I just have to keep quoting this guy. The arguments he makes against jury nullification are excellent.

An act of civil disobedience against an unjust law involves (a) intentionally breaking the unjust law, preferably in such a way as to make it clear that one derives no personal benefit from it; and (b) accepting punishment, so everyone knows that the lawbreakers are not opposed to the idea of civil society bound by rules and governed by Constitutional institutions, but are merely addressing by the strongest nonviolent means the aberration of a single unjust law.

Jury nullification necessarily revolves around individual cases, making personalities rather than law the issue, and it is always an act aimed not against any unjust law but against the judiciary itself, attacking and undermining the whole idea of jury trials, proving that individual citizens can't be trusted to dispassionately evaluate facts and law in judgment of their peers. Jury nullification can't prove that a law is bad, it can only prove that trial by jury is bad -- because if you can't trust people to understand facts and abide by the law, the rest is just politics and prejudice.

Jury nullification can save individual defendants (usually, I think, to society's detriment), but it can't kill any law or institution except for trial by jury itself. Trial by jury has been the cornerstone of freedom for almost a thousand years. It should not be jeopardized because a really nice guy decided getting high was more important than the stupid drug laws.

Malthus has posited a hypothetical in which an unpopular, archaic and rarely-enforced law is used by a corrupt government to target an otherwise blameless individual. S/he (probably he, I guess, huh?) agrees that such a hypothetical has nothing to do with the case we're discussing (which is refreshing), but suggests that it is an appropriate situation for jury nullification.

I don't know (I'll pause while archivists bookmark those three words). But I still lean toward the idea that a society which permits trial by jury is better for it, and that the only way to maintain the system is for juries to be honest and uphold their end of the bargain to hear the evidence and apply the law to the case before them. Any other course would only hasten such a corrupt society's slide down the slope toward authoritarianism.

Here is still more wisdom from King of Soup.

A fella named Diogenes (who habitually overrates his own knowledge and intellect, FTR), argued that jury nullification would be helpful in fighting anti-miscegenation laws, for example. To this, King of Soup replied,

Okay, let's imagine a world in which your point of view is the only thing that can prevent the death of a morally blameless black man under an inherently discriminatory law rooted in wrong and racist thinking. Can we also make him a virtuoso violinist and Nobel Prize-winning neurosurgeon who recently saved the governor's niece from an erupting volcano? And can we imagine that instead of being merely killed, he and his whole family and Santa Claus and a bunny rabbit are tortured to death on Christmas Eve? Now we're winning, right?

Wrong. Sorry. You are describing an unjust law and prescribing a "remedy" that destroys the only force around capable of successfully opposing unjust legislation without violence, without ever specifically addressing the law you hate. Your attempt at nullification might be defended as a single isolated humanitarian gesture, but as civil disobedience, it's bunk. It's probably worth remembering (it wasn't that long ago) that legal expressions of racism in the U.S. were mostly fought with the kind of civil disobedience that respected the judiciary and its authority and the constraints under which it works, even as it deplored and disobeyed the laws that branch is expected to enforce. This wasn't collaboration, it was equal parts courage and wisdom: the courts (eventually) led the fight against institutionalized racism, and they could never have done so had well-meaning protestors undermined their authority before the country. Essentially, your artificial (and grossly unrealistic: miscegenation laws were rarely enforced and were never punishable by death) scenario is about the same as constructing hypothetical circumstances under which each single soldier's life might be saved during the course of a war: the hypothesis collapses when subjected to a tiny fraction of the weight of reality, and does nothing to either win or lose or end the war.

Even in a society with some unjust laws, most laws work to protect the orderly functioning of a civil society. People who will never set foot in a courtroom have reason to be grateful for the branch of government created as a brake on executive and legislative authority, and would be wise to direct their protests against certain curtailments of their liberty at the offensive laws themselves, rather than at the institutions guaranteeing their right to do so.

Now it's my turn. Let's say a well-known and respected, white, outright owner of a quarter-million-dollar property who knows all the right people is on trial for an offense that is a slam-dunk conviction with prison time for thousands every year, but he has every reason to expect an acquittal because everybody knows he is just not one of those people whom everybody knows the law was designed to punish. When not dressed up on Halloween as a knight tilting at racism and the obstuction of true love, when nullification is merely another word for "enforce this law against someone else, please, we're middle-class," and when it is crystal clear that nobody is interested in bucking the system, just gaming it, in short, when the scenario resembles reality, is "saving this guy right now" nearly as attractive a choice?

Great answer. I like it.

More on jury nullification

Here is more wisdom from King of Soup regarding the folly of jury nullification. I like the way this guy thinks.

Jury nullification may be a form of civil disobedience. But I think it's almost always the wrong one.

Consider: the purpose of civil disobedience is to remove in the public mind the justification for a law by showing that ordinary decent people will violate it, not for personal gain or satisfaction, but simply because it is an unjust law. As WhyNot pointed out, the only moral force it has comes from the willing acceptance of punishment for the transgression -- a reassurance that they believe in the rule of law, and a testament to the seriousness of their intent. It's about forcing abuse of authority into the open by making it apply, publicly, to "people like us," no matter which "us" is yours.

Jury nullification, on the other hand, is an expression of contempt not for any unjust law, but for the rule of law itself. The only thing broken is the faith that a jury can be trusted to find, without fear nor favor, according to the facts and the letter of the law. However much one deplores a particular law or loves a particular defendant or hates the way a prosecutor wears her hair, this faith is not the part of the system that needs to be undermined. In fact, it's the part that needs to be preserved, at all costs, if you care about a free society.

Here's a guy who broke the law in furtherance of his own personal satisfaction, if not profit. Jury nullification in his case would not be a repudiation of the law, just of the idea that we're all equal under it, and it would decrease the chances that the law will ever be changed. The pleading on his behalf is hypocritical and shameful.

Arguing against jury nullification

Jury nullification is the process in which the jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her. It's what jurors sometimes do when they disagree with a law. For example, if they disagree with anti-drug laws, they may decide to acquit a defendant who's charge with possession of cocaine, even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against that person.

Some people applaud this as a way to stand up for what they consider to be right. Personally, I think it's misguided.

For one thing, jurors often don't have the background or training necessary to understand why certain laws are in place. Now, I'm not saying that there are no dumb laws out there. There certainly are. However, it's all to easy for a juror to dismiss a law as being dumb without understanding its rationale.

Additionally, I'm also concerned that jurors will effectively nullify a law, not because it's unjust, but because of emotional appeals or self-interest. Again, consider the anti-drug laws. One could "protest" these laws through jury nullification out of some principled argument. However, I'd wager that such protests typically occur due to sheer distaste toward the laws rather than out of principled objections.

Finally, is this really an effective way to protest? I think not; quite the contrary; it undermines the entire legal system. I like the way a fella by the name of "King of Soup" put it on one discussion board. In a thread on a marijuana possession case, he said,

Actually, I was thinking of this case as an almost perfect argument against jury nullification, especially if you think the law is unjust. People will not act to change unwise or unjust laws that are enforced only or mostly against others whom they don't know. Letting all the "right kind" of people off the hook doesn't make for a just outcome, it makes everything worse, because now you're applying the same bad law selectively, piling discrimination on top of everything else.

I'll say more about that later.

Dwelling on the positive

I was going to post something about how my jerkish cousins used to torment my brother and me when we were kids... and how the adults in our extended family pretty much stood by and did nothing. I also wanted to talk about how some of the adults would poke fun at us, make up stories, and otherwise act in an inconsiderate manner.

Yeah, I don't consider my childhood to be particularly happy.

I decided against discussing this at length, though. I want to dwell on the positive right now and avoid thinking too much about past hurts.

BTW, please don't get me wrong. I realize that in many ways, I was fortunate as a child. My family was intact, for one thing, and we weren't living in abject poverty. I do have a lot of unpleasant memories though, and there's a lot of hurt bubbling underneath. I'm just choosing not to dwell on such matters right now. I think that's just prudent.

Tony Orlando and Dawn

I picked up a deeply discounted DVD set of old "Tony Orlando and Dawn" variety show episodes at Best Buy. I had faint memories of the early episodes from my childhood, and so I decided to check it out.

Boy, those people are talented! They had a lot more hits than I realized, and they were darned good all-around performers. Okay, dancing wasn't part of their retinue, but they were excellent vocalists and they were great at hosting a show. They also had real comedic chops, and Tony was great at interacting with the audience.

Yeah, that was quality stuff.

Birds of Prey

I decided to borrow the Birds of Prey DVD series from Netflix. I heard that a lot of geeks liked it, so I decided to see what the buzz was all about.

I've only caught the pilot so far, plus a bit of the next episode. So far, I don't see what the big deal is. Don't get me wrong; it's okay, and the concept is certainly interesting. It just doesn't grab me, though.

Yeah, yeah. I know. I know that I need to give it more time.

Perhaps part of my problems is that two of the main characters have these superpowers. I think it kinda violates the original Birds of Prey comic book concept, and in my judgment, it makes the whole premise less interesting. That's just my view, though.

I'm feeling very irritable lately

I hate this. I feel like I've really been on edge as of late. Little things that shouldn't annoy me too much have been making me grit my teeth and (privately) yell out in irritation.

I've got way too much stress in my life. Too many urgent projects, too many annoying people, too little chance for diversion. Even some of the diversions that I am pursuing, such as some dance lessons, have a way of adding to the stress in their own way. Ugh.

I have got to unlax a little bit. Gotta kick back. I think I'll try to do that this weekend.

Blogger responds so slowly

Darn it. Blogger has been really sluggish today. I've had problems with its sluggishness in times past, but it appears to be particularly bad right now.

I clicked on the "new post" button, and what happened? Nothing. At least, not for about 20 seconds or so. I found myself clicking and clicking, over and over. It was darned irritating.

To make matters worse, my post was junked. Blogger gave me some bogus message about how more that one browser was editing the post. This was a serious bug, obviously. Darn it.

By itself, this shouldn't be a huge aggravation. I have a lot of stress in my life right now though, so it's darned annoying.

Have to rant against Windows yet again

Okay, I know that I've talked about this repeated, but... I HATE MICROSOFT WINDOWS!!!! I especially hate Vista.

It is SO infuriating to start Windows up and have to wait a minute or so before you can start up Outlook or some other vital program. This isn't just a matter of having an older computer, mind you. The problem exists even on newer models.

And heck, even when you do start a program up, you might see it freezing repeatedly before it can do anything useful. I hate having to start Outlook, starting to compose a message, and then finding that the software keeps freezing while you're in the middle of typing a word.

And why does this happen? Because Windows is bloatware. It contains so much gee-whiz fluff that vital performance is slowed down dramatically. And why? Because Windows designers put way too much performance on kewlness, that's why.

Darn it.

My right ankle hurts

My right ankle hurts a little today. I sprained it many years ago, back in my high school days. Ever since then, I've never had complete flexibility in this joint.

I think this also makes it difficult for me to maintain my balance during stretching exercise and certain kickboxing moves. I wish things were different, as I'd really like to get better at this sort of thing. Darn it.

So what's the deal? Did the ligaments somehow grow too bulky?

More on electrical work

I have some more electrical work that needs to get done around the house. In particular, I need to get some additional electrical outlets installed in my three second-floor bedrooms. Unfortunately, this friend of mine says that this will take about five to six days to complete.

Ouch. I really don't like the idea of having to pay for that kind of labor. I wish that the previous owner had done a better job of maintaining the place. He was a realtor, for pity's sake, yet he displayed an appalling lack of foresight when it came to basic home maintenance. For pity's sake, he didn't even bother to get gutters installed on the garage, even though this would not have cost much. Nor did he get a cap installed on the chimney. Both of these were low-cost projects that could have vastly improved the property.

No foresight whatsoever.

What a bizarre interpretation

I swear that some people have abominable reading comprehension skills.

On one discussion board, I complained about people posting their disguised e-mail addresses on singles sites. They do this in an attempt to circumvent the system by avoiding having to pay a membership fee. I felt that this was wrong, and I said so.

One guy responded by saying, "Are you suggesting that we should all post our e-mail addresses publicly for all the world to see? That's not safe!" How in the world did he arrive at that bizarre interpretation?

That's the problem with people who post without exercising some basic reading comprehension skills. I hate to condescend, but really... it's appalling.

Electrical work

I just got an electrician friend of mine to take a look at the electrical wiring in my basement. The previous owner did a lot of "do-it-yourself" work, and he did a sloppy job. That's what happens when you have homeowners who decide to save a few bucks by doing things themselves. It's fine when they know what they're doing, but some of them simply don't.

This friend of mine is cutting me a deal, doing the work for me at an affordable price. In return, I'm giving him some tax-free income. Believe me, I'm thankful.

Hating Microsoft Windows

Have I talked about how badly designed Microsoft Windows is lately?

It stinks. It has all the earmarks of an OS wherein the designers decided to introduce all sorts of kewl features with insufficient regard for how these would impact performance. After all, why bother? What really matters is that the software should be kewl, right?

Consider this. It is common for Windows Explorer to freeze up for several seconds -- or even a minute or two -- when you open it up. Why? Apparently because it feels that it must navigate through its directory structure and see what's there. Why? Just open up whichever folder the user wants to see and ignore the rest, darnit! Don't look them up unless it's necessary!

Ah, but maybe some user would like to see a preview of whatever photos exist somewhere in the directory tree. Fine. That's a legitimate concern... but darnit, don't bother digesting and thumbnailing the photos unless it's necessary! In other words, wait until he actually chooses to look at the folder. That's just common sense.

Hercules

I've been watching DVDS of the old Hercules: The Legendary Journeys show. Boy that show was clever. Xena, Warrior Princess was also very good, and it had better acting; however, I think that Hercules was just more enjoyable.

I love the humor and the plot twists. The stories sometimes strained one's suspension of disbelief, but it was generally just good fun.

I passed on that opportunity

Five years ago, a guy named Jas tried to recruit me to his company. He knew that I needed a job, and he wanted to farm me out to this semiconductor automation company for a certain project. He assured me that they would find additional projects for me afterwards, but didn't provide any specifics.

When I asked him about the company's finances, he said, "Under my leadership, we always turn a profit." However, he offered me a salary that was about half of the going rate, which made me doubt that he was telling the truth. As a former supervisor said when I related this story, the figure he gave was an insult. Even during the economic slowdown, it was still a pathetically low figure. He sure sounded like he was lying, and not for the first time.

The worst part? He even asked me to lie to this other company about my employment status. I was on H-1B status, and it would have taken a few days to file the work authorizatio for me to work for his company. Without any hesitation though, he told me to tell this other company that I was already working for him. He was a very dishonest man, and he obviously expected that I would approve.

I don't regret turning his job offer down. It's a safe bet that when the project was over, I would have been out of work. He obviously wanted to hire me just so that he could land this project, and once it was over, I would have been out on the street. Oh, he told me that there'd be work for me afterwards, but why should I have trusted him to be honest with me? After all, he had no compunctions about telling me to lie on his behalf.

After I turned him down, he mentioned that he had another person to take my place. I know that he was still lying though, since I saw that he had reposted his job advertisement on the web. Jas, you were a liar.