2009 in review

Well, I've at this blogging thing for a year now.

Actually, a little more than a year. Anway, I thought it would interesting to see what topics/labels my posts most commonly fell into. Admittedly, not all my posts had/have labels, and this is certainly self selected. And I posted like 7 times in 2008 that I'm just going to lump into 2009. Sue me.

But I thought it might be a neat introspection into what was on my mind and who I was in 2009 and for a very short period in very late 2008. Here goes.

Top 9 Labels Used in 2009 @ 1000 & 1 Things:

1 Writing - 16
2 Fitness - 13
3 Politics - 11
3 Books - 11
5 Interesting tidbits - 9
6 Happiness - 5
7 Interesting thoughts - 5
7 Push up Challenge - 5
9 Video Games -4

Reinventing the wheel

Another delayed post.

This from an analysis of the great Aristotle on a Stanford website:

The good of a human being must have something to do with being human; and what sets humanity off from other species, giving us the potential to live a better life, is our capacity to guide ourselves by using reason. If we use reason well, we live well as human beings; or, to be more precise, using reason well over the course of a full life is what happiness consists in. Doing anything well requires virtue or excellence, and therefore living well consists in activities caused by the rational soul in accordance with virtue or excellence.

And this from Gretchen Rubin's Happiness Project on Slate.com:

Act with energy. We think we ACT because of the way we FEEL, but often we FEEL because of the way we ACT. Trick yourself into feeling energetic by moving more quickly, pacing while you talk on the phone, and putting more energy into your voice.

Similar, me thinks.

How we learned to hate the Nuke and ruined (?) our own environment along the way

This is a bit late, but I didn't want to step on the feet of my UnChristmas Story, nor Christmas itself.

The answer to the titular question is: 1970s environmentalism. At one point in the 1970s, it was hoped that 200 "breeder" reactors would be online by 2000, which would have reduced our carbon output by 1/3.

Sadly, President Carter, aided no doubt by a 1973 lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Scientists Institute for Public Information, killed the plan.

Of course, back then nuclear was the Devil, the environment was the Endangered One. Now, carbon is the Devil, and the environment is the Even More Endangered One. Sadly, if we had only chosen the proper course 30 years ago, we might have been able to knock a prefix and suffix off of endangered (that's a beginning and an ending; for those of you who might not get it - that means we'd be left with simply Danger.)

Choices choices. And of course their consquences, people.

Here's the reason link from pre-Christmas week.

Merry Christmas

Hope every one has a very Merry Christmas Eve/Christmas.

Hope you stay healthy and happy on two of my favorite days of the year.

Merry Christmas.

A UnChristmas Story Part II: Scrooge, The Destroyer of Christmas

Awesome post by Peter Foster at the Washington Post. Its regarding the new animated movie "A Christmas Carol," but the point stands and it lets me build on something I was thinking about while watching the 1984 version of A Christmas Carol starring George C. Scott.

Indeed, does nobody notice the irony that capitalism has unleashed the consumerist cornucopia and charitable sentiments that were A Christmas Carol’s
ideal?

Poverty is portrayed as rampant, or at least very present, in A Christmas Carol. And certainly poverty is bad. But saving and being pennywise is portrayed as bad as bad as well. In fact, lavish spending and consumerism is exactly what Scrooge is encouraged to do. Its the "ideal" that Scrooges nephew represents. Its exactly that type of spending - the debt that Scrooge complains about - that drove us into our current economic struggles.

And hey, one wonders how much Scrooges' nephew might have been able to help the poor had he not had to pay a servant to open the door for him. Was opening doors much harder back in the day? I know Scrooge's office had a door that required both he and Bob to duck to enter. Maybe most were also so poorly hung that you needed special servant powers to open them?

Anyway, now, people complain that Christmas is all about spending and buying gifts. There is a whole song about how that isn't the true meaning of Christmas. And while Scrooges' redemption isn't entirley based on his new found spending and commercialism, its at least a part of it.

Further:

"Would the world have been better without Scrooge? Did he force people to do business with him? Was Bob Cratchit not free to find better employment elsewhere? And if no such employment was available, was that Scrooge’s fault?"

In reality, without having amassed that wealth, Scrooge could never have purchased the prized turkey for the Cratchits. In fact, its unlikely he could have afforded to pay Bob Cratchit if he lived life prior to that night as he did after it.

I'm not saying Scrooge was perfect. Surely, he was a surly individual. Unfriendly and miserable. And his redemption from these qualities is a great accomplishment. But its hardly the political indictment it has become.

An UnChristmas Story Part I: Scrooge: The original environmentalist?

Ebeneezer Scrooge:

"Coal burns. Coal is momentary and coal is costly. There will be no more coal burned in this office today, is that quite clear, Mr. Cratchit?"

It could be ripped out of a news story from today. Or from the President's most recent speech. I'm certainly not the first to note it, but Scrooge shared environmentalists' hatred of coal's use, saying

"These are garments, Mr. Cratchit. Garments were invented by the human race as a protection against the cold. Once purchased, they may be used indefinitely for the purpose for which they are intended."

Scrooge: The original environmentalist? Environmentalists would probably sympathize with old Ebeneezer, that's for sure. Wearing warmer clothing in the winter and using less heat, and using a lot less air conditioning, would be right down both their alleys. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

So was Scrooge the first environmentalist? I'm not saying he was; I'm just saying.

We are all as dumb, and smart, as the next guy & gal

From Zogby, via Reason: 72% of the country thinks the American public is not politically engaged and doesn't follow political news closely. Only 15% think the public is informed about national politics.

Ok, we're going good so far.

Here's where it gets a little weird. A full 85% report that they personally follow the news closely. So, 85% closely follow the news, something that would be news to the other 72% .

This is exactly why I'm Libertarian. We all think the other guy is an idiot barely capable of caring for himself. The answer for some is to provide that care - that care being our set of values or restrictions, regardless of whether they want it or like it. Its for the idiots own best interest, after all.

We'd all do well to remember that that idiot is us.

The true meaning of Christmas

From the song Christmas Shoes, which I'm sure you've heard (and R. hates):

Sir, I want to buy these shoes
for my Mama, please
It's Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size
Could you hurry, sir, Daddy says there's not much time
You see she's been sick for quite a while
And I know these shoes would make her smile
And I want her to look beautiful if Mama meets Jesus tonight
Bridge:
I knew I'd caught a glimpse of heaven's love
As he thanked me and ran out
I knew that God had sent that little boy
To remind me just what Christmas is all about

Soooooo.... extending this all the way out... God gave a little boy's mom a fatal, horrible disease so that he could teach this poor schlub "what Christmas is all about?" Here's an idea: How about, occasionally, you do a little self reflection and figure it out on your own so that no one needs get cancer for you to "remember" what Christmas is all about.

Now, I know the retort will be that either A) I'm overthinking this, or B) the kid's mom had cancer anyway, and God merely sent the boy to remind the guy, no one was the worse off, so no harm no foul.

As to A: I think its pretty hard to overthink the important metaphysical questions of life and our existance, their impact on our lives and actions, and what that means for our future conduct and morals. If thinking too long and hard about morals and how to live life is wrong, well, count me as guilty, I guess. I've done worse, and probably will in the future, and its a guilt I'll willingly take. And recommend to others.

As to B: I guess its possible the boy's mom was sick anyway and not made sick specifically to teach this guy a lesson. As I said, the result is really "no harm, no foul," under that formulation. As to the lesson, the shopkeeper surely seems to have missed the point since he didn't put in his own money or just put the item on "sale." So, we have to assume I guess that God was spending his time specifically lining up these events to teach this solitary man a lesson. I think its more likely the guy did a bit of self-searching in those moments, but whatever. It seems pretty selfish to think God directed this disease-striken mom's kid to the mall to teach this guy a lesson. I have no problem with Objective selfishness, but for a group of people repulsed by the idea of selfishness, its an odd formulation.

I'm just saying.

More News of the Odd coming later this week.

Lift the rock, watch the bugs scurry

Someone lifted the rock I was under. So now here I am. A small, hard-shelled bug, scurrying along on my twelve furiously moving legs to escape the sun and once again find shelter in the dark, dank, wetness of the shaded mud under some rock.

I know I haven't written in ages. I spent a significant amount of time on a project for this blog, and then the whole thing just went dark.

My schedule is really being rewritten right now. Duke is up to two 15 minutes walks per day plus 15 figure 8s three times per day. I've kinda combined the two for the sake of my own sanity. And by kinda I mean I sure as hell combined the two and dropped one of the figure 8s. That is not only a time suck. Its a reordering of my entire day that can cause the other items to spiral madly out of control and collide into each other, if not careful. (Ok, ok, my life is neither so filled nor so important or busy that its items spiral out of control or have any chance of colliding - or at least of the collisions having any real effect - but I wanted to write that line).

Duke loves it. He's outside exploring and walking around for significant amounts of time for the first time in a month. And he's finally excited to walk and not constantly looking to go back inside. Who can blame him? He's probably feeling better walking around than he has in a year. Still a little limp - maybe arthritis, maybe lingering surgery pain, might just be phantom pain; who knows?

Only ... 3 more months until he can walk "off leash."

Duke rehab. Christmas prep. Life. That's pretty much the extent of what I'm doing. Oh, and I've been sick since the Saturday after Thanksgiving. That too. I slept for like 12 hours the Monday after Thanksgiving. Seriously. I took two naps in one day.

I'm back to reading. I really like Compulsion. I've had the book on hold for months, but every time I read it I really, really like. Its a style I aspire too and a good story. I just find that I don't read it. I usually have good intentions and anticipate joyfully reading it at night before bed, and then I find that I just don't read it.

Whatever. I'll be finished it, and Falsley Accused, by Christmas. I'm not promising Christmas 2009, mind you, but Christmas in general.

Caffeine-Free Days: 10

So, yesterday was 10 days without a drop of an "as advertised" caffeinated beverage. 10!

I had 4 cups of decaf tea, 1 decaf iced coffee from DD. I wasn't really counting solid foods in the abstinence program, but I also had a box of junior mints and, last night, a 2 Buck Choc./Peanut butter bar, if you must know. And after that, I guess you must.

I type this as I'm preparing to make a cup of tea for the first time in 11 days. Probably my longest non-vacation time away from hot tea since I started drinking loose leaf.

If its a life-altering experience, I'll post something.

As for the results of the caffeinelessathon: I was sleepy last Friday, as I noted, but thought I was getting better. Saturday was fine. Sunday included a 12-mile bike ride, so it was hard to tell. But I wasn't sleepy at all at work so far this week. So its probably out of my system. I'm sleeping well. Working well.

And I would say the "new normal" is a lot like the "old normal." I'm the same. With one exception that I'll get too. I chalk the "sameness" to my body having adjusted to the caffeine. And now it's "reset."

Now, about that exception. I feel a little less frayed at the edges, I suppose. That could just be psycosymatic. But I feel a little more focused at work. A little more hard working. A little less distracted.

Other updates - NaNo - A big no. I've done nothing. I have a story percolating, but I've written nothing.

Which is kind of fine. Duke is back from ACL surgery and needs quite a bit of care. Three days of 3x daily ice packs (you ever tried to ice pack a dog where it is hurting from a knee reconstruction/5 inch scar?). Followed by 3x daily heat wraps for three days. No walking for a week except for potty breaks. Then there is a rehab program of gradually increasing walks, starting at less than 10 minutes, 2x day. No off-lease walking for 4 (four) months. And because he pulled out 3 sutures, he's wearing a cone nearly the size of a kitchen sink. For 10 days. Fun.

He's getting over the grogginess of the anethsia, but he's in pain and saddened/confused by the cone, which he rams into most everything, leaving alone only those items in which he plans to entrap himself on. And since we are largely ignoring him so won't do anything but lay down, he is somewhat confused by the lack of attention.

Oh, and he's not allowed to jump onto his second favorite sleeping area: the couch. Nor is he going to be making the 3-foot jump into his favorite sleeping area: the bed.

So, how about that!?

So, how about that.

Just before the great caffeine reduction of 2009 I was having trouble sleeping. More specifically, I wasn't sleeping through the night. Instead, I was waking up several times. And when I did sleep through the night, I wasn't feeling very rested as a result.

And I usually sleep like a rock. Deep and sound and thorough.

So, it couldn't have been the caffeine, right?

But today is Friday. It's Day 5 and I feel like I'm largely beyond the withdrawal symptoms. I feel reinvigorated instead of hung over. And for the last 2 or 3 days I've slept deeply and very well. So, maybe it was the caffeine. Its 9:30 a.m. So, not to make too big a deal about it before the afternoon crash zone, but I feel pretty good.

Damn good.

Maybe "new" normal good.

And once this little test is over, I'll report back comparing "old" normal and "new" normal before I go and screw it up by reintroducing caffeine.

So, I have a story for you

Sat., Oct 31
For some reason today I imagine that I'm consuming to much caffeine. Entirely too much. Now, I'm not one of those anti-caffeine types. Quite the contrary. But I did feel like I was perhaps having too much of the stuff. It might have been the third in four days iced coffee. It might have been the half a pot that morning. Who knows? And it wasn't a health thing as much as it was a test. A test and a challenge. A test, challenge and sorta cleanse. All designed to once against bestow on caffeine the zoom it once had. Anyway, I decide that Monday is just the day to start this project. New week. New month. New thingy.

Sun., Nov. 1
Today's the last day with caffeine, and I'm not planning on going soft or easing into this at all. Coffee in the morning to start my day. Then an iced coffee prior to dinner. For the final flourish, I limited myself to a single cup of coffee with dessert. Time to start the redux.

Mon., Nov. 2
Morning. Ah morning. No problemo here. None at all. Renee has convinced me that full on stop isn't necassary, so I have a cup of Lipton tea when I get into work. But around noon I start to feel a headache. I've done this before, so I'm expecting the headache. Then then headache is joined by sluggish. If sluggish means nearly falling asleep at my desk. Literally, can't keep my eyes open. Monday night rolls around and its a struggle to even stay awake from about 8 p.m. on. I skip working out. I fall asleep even though there is a Phils game and a Monday night football game to keep my attention.

Tue., Nov. 3
This morning I go with decaf bags. I don't know if this upset the energy gods, or the caffeine gods, or the tea gods, or what, but the sluggishness really hits. Again, it sneakily waits till after noon. From about 12 to 2 its bad. But from 2 to 4 its nearly unbearable. I'm functional on a minimum basis only. For the second day, pain relievers do little to stem the broad, expansive, dull pain in my brain. Websites helpfully point out that caffeine is a great pain reliever, and when taken with NSAIDs can up their effectiveness by 40%. Thanks for nothing. The dull headache, achy feelings, tiredness - its like having a hangover. Except without any of the fun the night before as a partial reward. Plus, I'm a touch irratible. I guess its the withdrawel. Though it could be because I'm having such a wonderful day. I revolted even at the thought of playing my video game.

Wed., Nov. 4
I wake up feeling great. Absolutely invigorated. And its a good thing: today's deadline today. Unfortunatley, its at 2 p.m. I work the morning, and again my afternoon sucks. A softer, but still there, headache. Now I'm more achey than before. I do my usual lifting. Its not much, and I'm feeling a little better after dinner, though I still feel somewhat hungover. I fall asleep during the Phils game - again - and head to bed after I wake up.

Today, Nov. 5
I wake up rested once again, but again, it doesn't last. By noon I'm getting tired again, though not nearly as bad, and by 2 I'm barely awake. But I fight through it and by 3 I'm starting to feel better. By 4 I'm feeling fine. Maybe a tinge of tiredness remains, but its hard to tell. What's the new normal and what is the withdrawel? No fewer than twice today I walked past the coffee maker and thought about how nice a cup would be. Ditto my tea cupboard.

The future
Thanks to the results of a google search, I know that all my symptoms (headache, tiredness/exhaustion, hang-over-like symptoms, agitability, achiness), are pretty normal for caffeine withdrawel. I also know the symptoms set in after 12 to 24 hours (about right), and that caffeine is entirely out of your system after 9 days.

I'm not planning on quiting caffeine entirely. But what was supposed to run through the weekend will now run through mid next week to hit that 9 day line.

I can already taste that first cup of coffee or tea.

Is it bad that the idea of reading books makes me sick?

Cause right now, it does.

News - OK.
Periodicals - OK
Books - gag.

Quick updates

I wrote last night for the first time in a while in anticipation of having to have my work completed by month's end. Not much. But it was a start. And I think I got over the block that was preventing me from going forward. We'll see.

Also, I'm thinking of ginning up either a Week of Double Daily Quotes. I would post one that I like and one that I don't or that is challenging and leave them for discussion. Or maybe I'd do this as like Quotation Monday or something.

I'm also kinda considering taking quotes from Rand and Jefferson and working up a dinner conversation between the three of us exploring various issues, where they stand on them, where I stand on them, and where, perhaps, you stand on them. Kinda my tribute homage to them. Plus, I thought it would make a neat (if tedious and labor intensive) project. I'd have to find the damn things, sort them, then make the entire thing light (as light as Rand gets, in any case) airy (ditto), fun and readable.

Also, I'd have to mediate and resolve the fist fight I keep envisioning as the result.

You call it derivitive parroting of others' works; go ahead and say I'm standing on the shoulders of giants. I call it an adult and creative exploration of my beliefs and heroes.

So neener neener.

Today Ain't As Bad As Seems, Take II

You'll hear (if you listen) a great many people complain about how sexualized today's culture is. About how teens are dressing sluttier. About how they are wilder than they used to be. Primarily this comes from the older generation of "I walked to school up hill both ways" types, but sometimes from younger activist doomsayers as well.

Well, a CDC study vai reason.com comes along with this tidbit...

... teen pregnancy and abortion rates are both at historic lows. The pregnancy rate for teenagers fell 40 percent during the 1990–2005 period, to 70.6 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19 years. This rate was the lowest reported since 1976.

More good news from the same source:

The overall decline for teenagers is reflected in significant declines in rates for live births and induced abortions, with much steeper declines for abortions (down 53 percent) compared with live births (down 32 percent). The pregnancy rate declined much more rapidly from 1990 to 2005 for younger teenagers 15–17 years (48 percent) than for older teenagers 18–19 years (30 percent). Pregnancy rates declined by 47–49 percent each for black and white non-Hispanic teenagers and by 23 percent for Hispanic teenagers.

You might expect a hypersexualized culture of elder ignoring, morality evading, rude ignoramouses slouching toward idleness to get pregnant, and then to abort it. So, hyper sexualized culture or not, that isn't happening. That means either A) the hypersexualized culture is pretty smart (about pregnancy and sex, anyway) or B) maybe the 'hyper' in sypersexualized is either overrated or overplayed.

Just remember when ever an elder tries to tell you how life is going to hell in handbasket (or any time you might think some such) that "the good days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Write fast or suffer the consquences

If you're like me, you probably have a problem not only sitting down to write, but once you're in your space, you also have a problem actually doing some writing.

Dr. Wicked's lab's Write or Die has a cure for that last one.

You can set the parameters, which is kind of cheating, but here's the basics: You set a word/time limit, and give the good doctor a personality of sorts (either forgiving, strict or evil [bwaaaahahahahaha]). Once that's done, you set the Doctor's persuasive method for Gentle, Normal, Kamikaze or Electric Shock.

Gentle mode prompts you if you stop writing. In Normal an unpleasant sound is played. In Kamikaze, well, the program "unwrites" your work, so you better get to it. It doesn't say what consquence Electric Shock mode provides, and I don't care to think about it, frankly. *

You can't save text from this program, forcing you to copy and paste what you've done, but thankfully, the newest version prompts you if you try to wander away, saving you from quickly checking a word's definition at dictionary.com and losing all your work.

The site promotes it as a great way to get to the 1667 words for NaNoWriMo or for writing on lunch breaks.

Which got me thinking. Has any author of any note, or even any published author at all, ever relied on a gimmick like NaNoWriMo? I'm curious about both NaNoWriMo itself, and whether it has ever spawned anything of any actual worth.

I'm just about in a place where I can start a second novel, and I've already shown that I'm better when I have someone else's expectations to meet, so I'm thinking maybe this year I'll take up the challenge of NaNoWriMo.

* CORRECTION: For close readers, it is noted that the site does indicate what occurs in Kamikaze mode: The program increases difficulty by decreasing your actual word count.

So what's the truth, why don't you tell me?

"Giving parenting advice is a lot like giving writing advice. You can say a lot of things that sound very intelligent and thoughtful, but when it comes down to the actual act, it's mostly intuition and the inescapable fact of who you are." - Michael Agger

I'm both 100% sure this is dead-on correct, and at the same time 100% sure its wrong.

It seems to me you have a "voice" that is yours and that is hard to jump out of or alter without sounding affected. Sure, in a chapter or character, you may be able to ignore that style or voice you write in. But generally, itsn't that voice the sum of your years of writing and reading and learning and accumulating.? Plus, its probably somewhat inborn. Don't we arrive at our voice or style by adopting the voice or style that happens to coincide with that which we find pleasing and like ourselves? Even if don't conciously realize it?

If you have a talent for writing biographies, or crime thrillers, for fantasy fiction, you'll probably like those things because you'll succeed at them. Perhaps that isn't exactly on point, but I think it speaks to the "innateness" of the voice.

OTOH, there is a certain amount of work that goes into writing. By by "certain amount," I mean giant, brown, steaming, heaping piles of the stuff. Its not exactly like walking, is it? No. Walking, well, just about anyone can do it and there really isn't a "proper" way to do it. Its innate in us. We don't have to watch film of ourselves walking or study to learn to do it better. But only the most select of authors can write good, clean copy straight through without the need for revision. But is that because the author's innate voice fails, or because enough effort hadn't been put in? Certainly, the written word, even after self editing, can be improved by the "very intelligent and thoughtful" comments of others. Then again, I've seen editors change a perfectly fine story to conform to some entirely arbitrary "standard" that amounts to not liking the "voice" it was in. Both stories were fine - the first just didn't have the "voice" the editor expected/liked.

I really do think that sometimes editors go overboard. Sometimes their style becomes the style. Its not bad, per se. But I think it does limit creativity and deprives readers of another voice. Maybe not a familiar voice, but a voice. Not everyone has to write the same way, and forcing them to do so to comply with an arbitrary standard insults the reader. But that's another story for another time.

So which is it? Is there an innateness to writing; or is the intuition bit just a lazy cop out? Is it a choice between "you've got it or you don't" and "with enough work, anyone could do this?"

- Incidently, the quote is from a story written by a Slate writer who has traded places with his writer wife. She's going into the office, he's staying home and writing. Its interesting, and almost worth a read, even if its not really related to this post.

Clinging to Clingstone

Ah, Clingstone.

Bought for a mere $3,600. That's cheap in our area. Its cheap in the depths of poverty in Mississippi. Heck, its cheap in Mexico. It's probably even cheap in the parts of Iraq where Americans would disappear.

103 years old. 65 windows. 23 rooms. For those who might think that a bit too conspicuous... solar panels for heating the 3,000 galllon cistern of rain water. Wind turbine for electricity. Composting toilets.

How much do I love Clingstone? I've wondered if maybe, just maybe, a greenhouse on the roof would be doable and make it more livable.

Oh, and its replaced Portland, Ore., as the place I'd most like to live in addition to claiming top spot on the "Favorite Residence That I'm Not Currently Residing In."

I guess its not a big surprise that I would fall in love with this place, based on this post about my interest in seasteading and all. Or my 1.5 year fascination with houseboats as a mode of living. Oh, houseboats, welcome to #3 on the "place I'd most like to live" list.

So, about that $3,600 price tag. The house was for sale after decades of uninhabited neglect following some damage caused by a hurricane. It was a pretty good deal for a house with no roof or glass in its windows, considering it was for sale for $5,000.

As to what attracks me to it. I love the engineering and ingenuity of man overcoming nature. To me, its very Fountainheadesque in its architecture. Owning something like that - something that is such a design & engineering accomplishment, such a force of man bending the will of nature - that attracts me. It's got great views, as one can imagine.

There is an individualistic calling to it for me, as well Along the lines of the suggested "Going Galt" movement ala Atlas Shrugged that has some zones of the InterGoogle Tubes atwitter.
Plus it would be cool.

And just think: If the horror movie scenerio of zombification of the world ever plays out, Clingstone would make a pretty easily defended fort. Forget Will Smith's mansion in Washington, D.C. I'd take a cliff-surrounded island with 23 rooms any day. Good fruits and veggies would be in short supply, but that would happen anyway, wouldn't it? And fishing strikes me as easier than hunting, given the need for ammo and probably gasoline to fuel your salvage vehicle. Fishing requires a pole, line, and a hook. None of which are too hard to come by, and are much more easily rigged than a gun and ammo. Gas oxidizes and would useless in a month or four. No such problem with a sailboat.

On the other side of the ledger, even ignoring the zombie invasion scenerio, its probably not easy to reach for those of us who don't have well-upkept boating skills. Its probably an absolute pain to get groceries in. Not to mention supplies of other kinds. And it makes going out for a night on the town a bit of a trick. But honestly, with 23 rooms, I can probably have most of the people I want to see over on a pretty frequent basis. Who is going to turn down a chance to stay there?

In the even of Zombification, winter would be a small problem.

Other than that, the near constant upkeep required to prevent it from being reclaimed by the ocean (you have to secure the doors open or closed lest the wind - relatively quickly - bash them to pieces) and the realities of such isolation, I think I'd love it.

Anyway, that's what I think is beautiful and cool at this time.

What I find cool RIGHT NOW - Clingstone

There's a story here from the NY Times. But screw it, I'm just going to provide you a picture of the house called Clingstone.

This replaces my previous "Favorite House I'm Not Currently Residing In." Though to be fair, the previous house's interior was a big bust. My love for it was entirely based on the unique blue-grey exterior color, to which the link does no justice.

Back to Clingstone - That's right, its on a freakin island of rock all by its lonesome in Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay. I'll have an additional post on this place, its interesting history, why I think it appeals to me, and how I'd probably actually feel about living there in a future post.

Look for that later this week.

Secrets II

Since I got taken to task recently for posting a not very satisfying post on secrets, and since I really do feel like I might have something to say somewhere deep in the mysts of my brain, I'm going to try to again.

First off, I really do think most secrets arise from attempts to hide either our true selves, or something society deems improper. I'm excluding of course secrets like "Don slept with that stewardess while his pregnant wife was home alone" secrets.*

A person who is perfectly comfortable with himself/herself wouldn't need secrets, I would imagine. Am I wrong on this?

My thinking is that if you are perfectly, 100% comfortable with yourself, you won't have anything that is a secret. Because what would be the point of keeping the secret? If you're comfortable with all your actions, if they are based on your morals and derived from conscious thought, what would there be to hide? Maybe a bad outcome. But then again, I'm not sure covering a bad outcome is exactly a "secret." If you suggest a course of action at work and it fails, not bringing up the fact that it was your idea isn't a secret so much as good PR work. If my book never gets published, I'm not going to advertise that fact. That doesn't make the book a secret.

No, secrets are usually related to actions that DON'T portray you as you "think" you should be. Either because they don't fit with your conscious thoughts, or because they do, but society finds them reprehensible and you aren't willing to take on that battle.

For instance, I'm fairly reserved about my Libertarian status with people. Libertarians (both rightfully and wrongfully) have somewhat of a bad reputation as nut jobs and a fringe element. Announcing your a Libertarian seems to often fall somewhere between announcing you believe whole-hardily in aliens having visited earth and announcing you support the Nazi party. Refuting that error takes too damn long, so its just easier to not say anything, let people slowly become accustomed to what I believe, and then one day when it comes up surprise them with it.
This especially fun since I pull the economic part of the Republican party and the social part of the Democratic party, leading followers of both to think I'm with them; until I'm not.

But that's not really a secret. Its more like the "work" scenario above. Still, that's a pretty thin line, because lets face it, child molesters, nudists, partner swappers and those guys who participate in very, very odd animal-love videos online aren't merely participating in a "failure to disclose the truth," they are quite literally, holding a secret. Its a thin line, and its thin enough that I don't know that I see it all the time.

Now, if I were an honestly an anarchist, might I be keeping a secret by not declaring it? I mean, - sorta like being a nudist - the looks you'd get and the explanations needed would be quite tiring. So you'd probably not tell everyone. Is that a secret, or a lack of disclosure? I tend toward secret on that one.

Both (three if you include my Libertarianism - but I generally don't for various reasons that will remain secret for neither reason 1 nor 2) are socially unacceptable on a level that keeps them secret. However, a person who was truly self-secure, and unhampered by public opinion, would probably have no problem disclosing them.

One last thought: The post that got this going (see my last post for the link, as I'm too lazy too) mentioned that a peer suggested she had no secrets. That is just the kind of thing someone with secrets would say in a group. The nature of secrets prevents their reveal to all but the best trusted, let alone to large groups at once.

It sounds like a case of "thou dost protest too much" to me. Someone who truly had no secrets wouldn't seem like the type that would have to announce it, even in a discussion. They are open and secure and it probably doesn't occur to them. By announcing they have no secrets, it seems more likely to me that either A) they do or B) they do and just don't realize it.

Sorta along the same lines of "always be suspicious of those who tell you how moral they are, because those who are truly moral don't feel the need to constantly be blabbing about it."

* Bonus points if you get the reference; which you can spend in the Points store. Good luck with that.

Me got the spank-ed as little

Me is now too not smart.

So says this study.

Secrets

Someone recently got me thinking about secrets and why we keep them.

I thought I might have some really good post, but I'm afraid all I have is regurgitated knowledge: We keep secrets because the secret in question is either A) socially unacceptable or B) provides a window into ourself that we don't want others to see.

B is probably sometimes a corrallary of A, but sometimes it a stand alone reason.

Sorry, that's all I've got. Kinda anticlimatic, I know.

Something glowing to think about

... if global warming (now restyled global 'climate change' to account for largely stagnant global temps over the last 10 years) is a disaster for both the human population and earth (a point I'm not willing to concede except for the purposes of this argument) why isn't nuclear energy the easy, obvious, most discussed answer?

Wind farms need vast stretches of open, relatively flat space. Don't know if you've noticed this, but there isn't a huge abundance of that just lying around twiddling its thumbs. The one area where the preceding is true is often met with horrific antipathy. That area is off shore.

Solar is kinda reliant on a sun that, especially on days like today, tends to be missing from time to time. Like at night. And winter in the Northeast. And Seattle. Oh, and its expensive.

Nuclear, however, is relatively inexpensive. Plants are already designed and the technology is already "mature" and thus viable. The space needed is significantly smaller than a wind or solar farm for similar output. And its pretty darn safe. The last incident I know of if TMI, and it resulted in (disputedly) zero population deaths and (again, disputedly) few or no injuries.

I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have drawbacks. Disposal of the waste presents big issues, certainly. But if we are truly on the edge of an ever deepening chasm called global warming/climate change, isn't it a small price to pay? If we are, I think its disingenuious and suspect NOT to discuss the one thing that could save us. I'm not saying we have to forgoe all advancements in solar and wind. I'm not saying solar and wind can't be the future.

But the reality is:

Burning coal accounts for 36 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, natural gas 20 percent, and oil (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil) 44 percent. Since 90 percent of the coal burned in the U.S. is used to produce electricity, replacing all coal-fired generating plants with zero-carbon electricity generation plants would just about cut emissions by 2 billion tons.

Currently, 1,400 coal-fired electricity generation plants supply about 45 percent of the country's electricity while 104 nuclear power plants produce roughly 20 percent. So to replace all coal plants with nuclear plants would mean building 250 new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants over the next 10 years, or about 25 new plants per year. That could be done for about $1 trillion.

Look at the comparison: According to the Electric Power Research Institute and using standardized wind generation costs you would need 500,000 windmills costing $1.4 trillion or $4.5 trillion in solar panels to replace all the coal-fired plants in the country. Windmills would cost 40% more and we'd require a lot of them. Solar would just cost a lot.

We are either ignoring the obvious, easy answer to a looming "disaster," or something else is going on entirely in the climate change/global warming movement.

Disclosure: The FDA regulates apples & cigarettes. Also, before I'm smeared as a smog lover: I compost and consider every earth-friendly innovation I can.

On TJ, Deism, and writing

I'm going to handle these in reverse order. Why? Because its my blog and I can.

Writing on the blog has fallen off. But its fallen off across the board, i.e. - on everything. Neither is a good thing. I took August off to reward myself for my hard work, knowing that I had a piece or two or three yet to complete. I've now made two stabs at the first of those pieces without any kind of success. I need to really buckle down. I have two pieces I really need to get done, and probably 100 more. Plus, I'd like to start Book II at some point.

I've recently become enamored with the idea of, and would probably describe myself as, a deist. A follower of deism. Long story short: You believe in a god who set the world's natural laws in motion and has stayed out since then. Its very Jefferson Biblish. And Jefferson, and lots of other Founding Fathers, were or probably were, deists. Deism allows you to believe in all sorts of science and to be skeptical of all the holy "books" and miracles and supersitition. My take on it is that maybe god was there at the "big bang," maybe he made it go "bang." But he hasn't had a hand in it since, and he doesn't appear, nor make Mary appear, in potato chips. Jesus was a great moral leader, but not the son of God. Holy books are fine, human takes on religion, but they are just that, human works with all the accompanying frailty, fault and agendas that comes with it.

(Now, that wasn't so short, was it?)

I hate people who try to romanticise about the "good old days." I'll paraphrase Billy Joel ... "the good old days weren't always good. And tomorrow [doesn't have to be] as bad as it seems."

I have some conflicted feelings on Thomas Jefferson. He did some stuff that I really wish he hadn't, especially in light of his well-stated beliefs. But I really respect the hell out of the guy. By far my favorite founding father and the person (living or dead) I'd most like to invite to a dinner. The more I learn, the more I like.

I'm going hunting for a good TJ biography.

That's a pretty big thing, because I never, but never, read biographies.

I'm fascinated by this Moliclue

Guess of what the above picture is a photo*? (Hint: The hede is a hint that gives it away)

Its a picture of a single molecule of pentacene, according to the Daily Mail (via Volokh). Pentacene consists of 22 carbon atoms and 14 hydrogen atoms.

The five "rings" you can identify in this picture are five carbon atoms. The source says the hydrogen atoms around the carbon rings "can be seen;" I fail at that, unless its a reference to the dark circles above and below the rings.

Anyway, pretty neat. I wasn't aware that they could do anything like this. Of course, having said that, I will now find out that it happens all the time, probably since something like the 1800s.

*And yes, I did a single-armed hand stand-based summersault to avoid the dangling participle.

S-C-A-R-Y

From reason.com...

The British government plans to put 20,000 families in "sin bins," where they will be under 24-hour video surveillance. The cameras will make sure parents make their children go to bed on time, eat proper meals, and go to school. The government will also send out agents to check up on the families. Some 2,000 families are already in the program.

I don't know what else to add, except that thank goodness this isn't happening in the U.S.; yet.

Media - Double Standards

Going to see comedian Joe Rogan at a club in Philly tonight. This will be short so I can get work done.

First, a NY Times reporter was held hostage in Afghanistan, secretly, for 7 months. Here. The NY Times withheld the story in the interest of the reporter's safety. I wonder if the NY Times is so thoughtful when the hostage isn't a member of its family.

The Washington Post has had a feature called Mouthpiece Theater. I'll admit I didn't watch it, and I'm not sure what it was all about. But from reports I'd guess it was supposed to be edgy commentary. Which apparently worked fine until one segment suggested Hillary Clinton would be served Mad Bitch beer. That was apparently enough to get the entire thing yanked. Now, I hate people who cry First Amendment when referring to businesses or individuals. The good old First bars government from passing laws restricting speech and says nothing about business. But this is slightly asinine

Its noted that, first off, the Post, and papers in general, are in business to irritate, secondly, while the publisher blamed the poor state of internet watchdogs at the paper it has been online for 14 years and has been CUTTING copy editors and that it regularly includes and allows offending pieces. A sampling of those pieces ... Readers complained to Ombudsman Deborah Howell about this dig at the late Jerry Falwell by Berkeley Breathed and this "Mother Goose and Grimm" jab at Jews. When Tom Toles drew a hospital bed attended by a "Dr. Rumsfeld" to make a point about the state of the U.S. military, livid vets and the Pentagon brass gave Howell an earful.

The law of unintended consquences

This is a perfect example involving health care incentives established by law. Unintended; not necassarily unforeseen..

Still, it feels to me like the article is leaving a big, pink elephant of a solution unnamed. Maybe that is just selection bias on my part.

Ignore the pink elephant that may or may not be there. Even then the article ends on a very unsatisfactory note, in my mind. Read the article (or don't) and then (if you did) let me know if you found the ending as unsatisfying as I did.

Wake me up, when August ends

Its really just there for the heat & humidity. And one birthday of note.

Of course, if we just went ahead and banned August, that might help with the heat an humidity. The birthday could be moved. Its not like September is anything to sneeze at. And besides, its a pretty sparsely used month, in my mind. One major holiday. The unofficial end of summer. But other than September 11, and a handful of birthdays, what happens in September? You hardly ever run into someone with a September birthday. So its wide open.

And August? Its just a wreck. Some evidence:

• Hiroshima & Nagasaki occured in August
• Its when Anne Frank was arrested
• its when the first income tax was collected
• Elvis & Marilyn Monroe both died
• WWI - started in August

and the kicker:

• Publishers (apparently) don't release books in August *GASP*

Here's an article arguing for, well, not exactly banishing August, but making it more bareable. Its the third or so year they've run it, I've wanted to post it in the past, so here it is. Pretty funny stuff.

The quote

Drum roll please... Here it is..

"The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands... with tools... with horse sense and science and engineering.

Most of these long-haired belittlers can't drive a nail or use a slide rule, I'd like to invite them [...] back to the twelfth century - then let them enjoy it."

Now, in full disclosure, I can't use a slide rule either.

Heinlein here was talking (through character) about time traveling related to his book's plot. But I find people of all stripes constantly romantisize the past as if children all behaved and respected their elders, teens never had sex, no one did drugs, or at least not in a detrimental way, all things worked and worked well and people got along just fine by loving their neighbors and being friendly.

And for a the old person recounting it and the young person hearing it, it probably sounds pretty grand. Except that I don't think there is much of a lick of truth to it. One only has to watch movies like "Grease" to know that booze and sex and to some degree disrespect for property and elders were part of the culture even then.

You don't even have to watch a bad musical. Bonnie Parker & Clyde Barrow (of Bonnie & Clyde fame) died at ages 23 and 25, respectively. They died as young adults just having only recently crossed the precipice between childhood and adulthood.

Something tells me that the leaders of a gang of outlaws, robbers and criminals who killed "at least nine police officers" weren't all that respectful or in awe of their elders or the law.

Don't even get me started on whether certain customs require respect or whether the people responsible for our current situation should expect it.

I've got a "

I've got a quote from Heinlein I want to post - have wanted to post since Saturday, and really even further back than that. Probably since Wednesday or Thursday last week.

But you see, its upstairs, where people are sleeping. Its in a room with no air conditioning. I'm sitting downstairs, which is air conditioned. And I'm writing.

What's that? Too bad? Suck it up and slip quietly upstairs for a second or two because you are anxiously awaiting this quote? Then I guess I should give you the best reason of all:

Its my damn blog and I'll post it when I want, which will be when I'm good and ready. Probably tomorrow.

100

Know what was neat about my last post? Yeah, yeah, yeah, the "green" and "blue" swirls are both really the same color. You are soooo early July 14.

No, well, yes, that was pretty neat. But what I was referring to was the fact that it my 100th post.

Happy 100th post, 1000 & 1 Things!

Having gotten to 100, and now 101, I think this is a good place to stop blogging. Really, after 100 posts, I've got nothing left to say.

j/k. As if I could have nothing left to say! I am flirting with quitting at 1001, though. So keep your calenders in say mid-2013 open.

Guess what is neat about this picture

Keep looking. I'll post the answer below, in the same color as the background, so you'll have to highlight it to see it. Hint: It has to do with the swirls you see.














Answer: The "blue" and "green" swirls are actually the same color. Yep, it's true. If you use your fingers to kind of isolate them, you can tell, but download the pic and check it in PS.

Via Volokh conspiracy via someplace else.

Uh, Power 'em up, if you got 'em?

Continuing the cigarette smoking theme...

Electronic cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes, you ask?

Yes, Electronic cigarettes.

These little buggers use battery power to warm liquid nicotine, vaporizing it in the cylinder, which the user then inhales. They even product "puffs" of, its not smoke, but a smoke-esque product.

Since no actual combustion occurs, and there are no additives such as tar, there aren't any known carcinogens created by the use of these products. And since smoke isn't a by-product, there is no second hand smoke to worry about.

So what does the FDA/Congress do? It starts blocking their importation as nicotene delivery devices, of course.

No one is going to argue that their aren't downsides. Nicotene is still addictive. But certainly, Smoker X would be much, much better choosing an electronic cigarette over a burny-type cigaratte. Is there a chance that someone might try to use these products to induce more actual, burny-type cigarette smoking? I suppose. Though I find it hard to believe that if given the option - and I hear E-Cigs are cheaper - they would choose what is almost universally recognized as a disgusting habit over the E-Cigs.

A CNN headline notes that the FDA is "hazy" on e-cigarettes' safety. Hazy?

Hazy?

This from an organization that already allows, condones and regulates (even if in secret) cigarettes. ALLOWS a product known to be addictive. ALLOWS a product known to contribute to cancer. ALLOWS a product that could harm bystanders.

But yeah, E-Cigs without any known carcinogens in them are much, much too experimental and dangerous. We wouldn't want any products that could have damaging side-effects in the market.

Why, they could end up being (almost) as deadly as burny-type cigarettes!

----------------------------------

(Semi) PERMANENT DISCLAIMER: NOW REGULATED BY THE FDA!

Tobacco and cigarettes are now regulated by the FDA (Food & Drug Admin). The legislation allowing this expressly prohibits the companies from advertising, in any way, that they are infact regulated by the FDA.

I am in no way advertising, on a paid or any other basis, cigarettes. Marlboro is here. R.J. Reynolds. Phillip Morris. NOW REGULATED BY THE FDA!

What I'm excited about RIGHT NOW.

Other than Taco Bell, which is a constant source of excitement.

I was asked recently, and I'm paraphrasing here, how I can stand to follow politics as closely as I do without letting the craziness drive me crazy.

Without sounding too much like a crazy mofo: Seasteading. (Might be evidence that I've actually just gone crazy.)

Granted, the idea of a new nation, even on (or under) the seas, has been tried, and tried, and tried, and failed. Hell, it's even been one the topic of one of my fav video games.

The case for optimism for this particular project (and a pretty good read) from reason.com.

Its complicated and consequently a long way off. And the one time I was on a big boat in the ocean, I absolutely hated it. That was a combination of sea sickness and cramped quarters. Some of the seasteading projects would seemingly eliminate the first. The second I'm probably stuck with.

Does it seem like this came out of nowhere? It really didn't. I've been trying to convince the wife that a houseboat would be a romantic, cheap, rising-ocean protected way to live for more than a year now. Though since temperatures haven't risen in a decade I'm not sure how much rising is arising.

I could write while we floated up and down the coast. Float down to Florida in teh winter, back up North in the summer. Since you just park in the ocean, there's no rent, except for maybe a dock fee at a "home base." Perpetual ocean front property. Ever changing scenery. All the fishing and swimming and sunning you like. And I'm sure family and friends would just hate having someone with a vacation home they could visit.

Anyway, I was proudly early member of the Free State Project. So there.

(Semi) PERMANENT DISCLAIMER: Tobacco and cigarettes are now regulated by the FDA (Food & Drug Admin). The legislation allowing this expressly prohibits the companies from advertising, in any way, that they are infact regulated by the FDA. I have a problem with the whole "we will regulate you, but you can't tell any one we are" thing, so I'll be posting this disclaimer with every post (when/if I remember) to make a point.

People, it is 0-2, bottom of the ninth in a tie game. The checkered flag is out.

I haven't posted a ton lately until this double. I'll blame that slide on the following:

My self imposed deadline for the rough, editing draft of my novel is on deck. I've been writing quite a bit, upping my average. That's the good news.

I've mentioned it before, but as I write I find that what I had hoped I would finish in one lap is taking (Mixed metaphor warning!) two, sometimes three swings to complete. That means I had more writing to do than anticipated. Damn it.

*spits sunflower seed shell*

How much more, you ask? Well, I'm behind in the count, let's put it that way. How far is a difficult call, since sometimes 1 = 1, and sometimes 1 = 3. So, let's see, week and a half to go ... carry the 1, divide the number into itself, multiply by 1.23, combine OB% and SLG, and ... I'm somewhere between "every-day player" and "can't hit above the Mendoza line."

Have no fear (OK, have fear, but have faith, too) - I'm writing, writing a lot. Writing hard. Writing focused. I'm no longer taking pitches anymore; I'm defending the plate and taking swings, even if its just to foul off balls and keep my at bat alive.

Whew! Thank goodness I have an editor and a deadline, because I plan on writing every night if I have too to get this finished. If it weren't for that, I'd probably put off my self-imposed deadline until later, get away for a while, come back unhappy with my work, take more time off, and suddenly, I have ANOTHER unfinished suck of a novel. At least this way the suck will be finished.

(Semi) PERMANENT DISCLAIMER: Tobacco and cigarettes are now regulated by the FDA (Food & Drug Admin). The legislation allowing this expressly prohibits the companies from advertising, in any way, that they are infact regulated by the FDA.

I have a problem with the whole "we will regulate you, but you can't tell any one we are" thing, so I'll be posting this disclaimer with every post (when/if I remember) to make a point.

Bingo - smoke'em if you got 'em; they are FDA regulated, you know.

Here's the link to the newspaper profit story I mentioned in the previous post. Here is Reason.com's take.

As you might imagine, its NOT all good news, and I won't completely pretend to understand how a 100.1% drop in profits over five years can result in a 12% profit margin. Well, OK, I kinda can: If profits drop, but expenses drop more, the margin can stay the same on reduced income... right?

(Semi) PERMANENT DISCLAIMER: Tobacco and cigarettes are now regulated by the FDA (Food & Drug Admin). The legislation allowing this expressly prohibits the companies from advertising, in any way, that they are infact regulated by the FDA. Why? The government (and presumably the FDA) fears it might give the tobacco companies some credibility.

First off, given the number of drugs the FDA regulates that end up killing or injuring loads of people, I'm not sure the FDA has any credibility to begin with. But if your worried that advertising FDA regulation would lend the product credibility as being "safe" (and assuming that is bad because the product in fact isn't safe), doesn't that call into the question the credibility of the FDA anyway?

Put another way:
1) If the FDA is designed to make sure F&Ds are safe, and
2) if hypothetically it does its job well enough to create that reputation so that advertising FDA regulation would create the inference of a safe product,
3) doesn't allowing/regulating a knowingly hazardous product call into question #1??

Anyway, I have a problem with the whole "we will regulate you, but you can't tell any we are" thing. So I'll be posting (an abbreviated) version of the disclaimer with every post (when/if I remember), just to make a point.

Pretty funny, if it weren't so serious

Here is a pretty funny "How to save Newspapers" video clip done in the "feed the children" motif.

I read another interesting piece on how, while becoming increasingly irrelevant, the major newspapers in the U.S. still turn double digit profits. That's right, higher than retail juggernaut Wal-Mart and just below the oil drillers.

And if I can ever find it agian, I'll post it.

BONUS POST: Awesome TJ tribute

I just had to.

This is one woman wrote, well, its not really an essay, but its not a pictorial, either.

What it is is a clever, unique, creative and prettty powerful and interesting look at one of my fav of fav historical figures (that would TJ, Thomas Jefferson).

Please take a minute or five and just read through it. I don't know the author, but it really is great.

http://kalman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/time-wastes-too-fast/

Just something fun

Yesterday was very busy at work with breaking news. I was exhausted afterwards. Tried but failed to write. I was just too tired. So today I'm taking it easy and posting a little comic...

Hey, look, just another reason BMI sucks

This webmd story says...

Rather, the studies generally suggest that people with a BMI of 25 to 29.9
-- which is considered overweight but not obese -- have a survival advantage
over people with higher or lower BMIs.

BMI, which is a measure of body fat based on a person's height and weight, is used to classify people into weight categories -- underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese.

That's pretty much OK for yours truly, with a BMI of 28.6. But if the BMIs between 25 to 29.9 live the longest, is <25 really "normal?"

More...

Compared to people who fell into the normal-weight category:

Those classified as underweight were 73% more likely to die.

Those classified as extremely obese with BMI of 35 or greater were 36% more likely to die.

Those classified as obese with BMI 30-34.9 had about the same risk of death.

Those classified as overweight with BMI 25-29.9 were 17% less likely to die.

The study appears online this week in the journal Obesity.

Good news from SCOTUS

The court said a school's strip searching of 13-year-old Savanah Redding violated the Fourth Amendment. Maybe there is hope yet. More at my other blog, as well as here & here.

So much going on

Renee is back in the state & in house! Yeah.

I tried writing last night, but got nothing done. Well, I added like 8 words to a past piece. I had an ending all planned, but now I'm thinking that a similar ending earlier in the story might be more relevant. I'm going to end it that way, and maybe write an addendum that I can always add later. Now, its occuring to me that the original ending is redundant to the new ending.

Our new furniture (coach, chair) came today! Yeah.

I'm in the middle of my work outs. Week 4 of 8, I believe. Or 3. Not sure. It doesn't really matter much. This time around the workouts don't change weekly.

Finished my video game, clearing the way for more writing time.

Plan on reading more.

Work today has been crazy busy.

Whew.

Green with envy

More BMI fun from the pages of comics...

The Hulk's BMI (7 foot, 1040 pounds): 103.6. 103.6!

Bruce Banner's BMI (5.9, 128): 18.9. Nearly underweight, which is 18.5. Guess all that metamorphosis is taxing on the body. Plus, its hard to eat at restaurants when a simple slip up by the waitress or some slight bit of undercooked potato could have such disasterious results.

A thought on books

I recently did some research on agents and what not for my soon to be finished book, so I'm in a book mind anyway. But then I read a post about audio books.

How did audio "books" get the distinction of being a book? OK, ok, they are the exact words written in the book. Fair enough.

But isn't it sorta like calling movies "visual books?"

I mean, neither are really books at all. Not in any way, shape, or form. Sure, audio "books" follow the exact narrative of the book, word for word. But in a lot of ways, so do movies. Should these visual "books" be condemned just becuase their medium allows for different presentation? And if so, how come audio "books" aren't held to the same standard?

Just some light thoughts for a Friday.

34.5!

That's Wolverine's BMI, based on info from superherouniverse.com, in case you were wondering, as a commentor did in response to my BMI concern.

5'3", 195 pounds. So I weigh 30ish pounds more and I'm one foot taller.

Then again, Wolverine has had admantium spliced into his bones by the military and is a freak of nature. Oh, and he obviously either works out something fierce or has a natural muscle-building protein mutation.

Now, Hugh Jackman, who plays Wolverine in the movies, is 6'1", based on a rough average of a bunch of internet sources, and 210 pounds, based on one somewhat sketchy source. So, 27.7 BMI. So my BMI (28.6) is lower than the real Wolverine, but higher than the guy they got to represent him. A guy who is, by all accounts, pretty friggin ripped.

Meanwhile, I'm broad.

28.6

That's my BMI. 28.6. And I was generous, giving my honestly 6-foot 2-inch/2.5 inch height an additional inch or half inch of height. I used this morning's 229 weight. Even assuming that was high, 225 pounds at 6'3 gets me 28.1.

I'm not the first to rail against BMI, nor is this even my first time. But let's put that in perspective...

BMI Categories:
Underweight = less than 18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

To get to 24.9 I have to get down to 199 pounds. Now, I'm not particularly athletic. I keep in shape and workout. Yes, I lift some weights and do pushups, and I follow a program designed to get me lean. What I don't do is extreme weight lifting. I do push ups and just recently started using weights in one or two of my exercised. And I don't participate in any type of sport. So I'm not sure I fall into this site's "overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build." I wouldn't ordinarily describe myself as muscular. Frankly, if I'm muscular, I'd hate to think what the alternative is. Though, based on convos with siblings, I guess maybe I have a distorted view. Now, luckily, the site also includes a helpful "waist measurement" component. So let's look there, shall we? Athletes and "the muscular" should have thin waists and thus offset this whole problem, right?

Hmmm.... a waist greater than 40 inches with the same BMI is at a "high" risk.

Good thing: I've been keeping my waist measurements over the last year.

Bad thing:
- 41.5 in August '08,
- 39.75 in December '08
- 41.25 in April '09
- 40.75 in May '09

So, in the last year, AT BEST, I've been at an "increased" risk for diease, and then only by a quarter inch, easily within the margin of measuring error or happenstance of having been slightly dehyrdated. The rest of the time I've been in the "high" risk category. WTF?

And let's look at weight during that same period....
- 223.5 lbs on August 1, 2008
- 216.5 on Dec. 31 (exact date of the waist measurement)
- ? in April 09
- 226-229 in May/June '09.

So. My weight is up 6 or so pounds from August, 15 from December. My waist is currently right in the middle of the measurements from those two months (though lower than August and higher than December).

So, since August 2008 I've gained 6 pounds, lost .75 inches off my waist, and stayed pretty solidly in the "overweight" BMI category. A mere 10 pounds (240 total lbs) and I'm "obese." That's not an "overestimate," that's ridiculous.

I gorge too much at times. Guilty.
I carry the tiniest bit of weight in my belly. Guilty.

But frankly, to get down to 199, the very max I can weigh, or even to eliminate that belly, I'd have to have a six pack or be anorexically thin. To get to a perfectly respectible 20.6 BMI I'd have to weigh 165 pounds.

It's just not feasible. So I guess I'm athletic or muscular. I guess I have to be. Not sure what that means for real weight lifters or guys who are actually athletes. But it seems to me that if an average, in shape guy can throw the system that badly, its probably not much of a system.

BMI Prime, which tries to calculate for the overally tall, since they skew the scale (since when has 6'2 been abnormally tall? Tall, yes. But, abnormally?) puts my upper acceptable weight at .... 199.25. The same as BMI.

*Sigh* Its like walking in quicksand

Not too long ago, I was pretty optimistic about meeting my deadline for my book.

But it seems every time I sit down now I write something slightly different that what I have in mind. I have Event X in my head, but I always seem to write about Event Y leading up to it. Yes, next time I sit down, I inevitably get to Event X, but that means I have twice as much to write as I thought. So my 3 writes a week are really only 1.5.

To make matters worse, this week I added onto and finessed something I had already written. That's progress, but the wrong kind at the wrong time.

Also writing related: I'm curious if anyone knows if an author as ever "rewritten" the Bible into present times? Sorta Dom DeLillo's Libra meets the Bible. But I'm not talking about keeping the names or locations, just using the basic stories as a framework for a new, updated, present day story. It wouldn't even recognizable as the Bible, except in a "hey, these stories are similiar" sorta way. Oh, and probably just the new stuff, not the creation stuff, and oh, probably without the miracles, or at least the overt, magical miracles. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magical miracles anyway.

I'm posting this because I need help understanding it

This is from Volokh.com, which while titled "The Volokh Conspiracy" isn't nearly as cloak-and-dagger as it sounds. Its just a great website for legal & some legal-related political news that I follow for work. Oh, and its conveniently Libertarian leaning, which means I can do "fun" reading/research while under the guise of "work."

Political scientists Neil Malhotra and Yotam Margalit have an article describing survey data showing that some 25% of [non-Jewish] Americans believe that "the Jews" deserve at least "a moderate amount" or "a great deal" of blame for the current economic crisis. Some 32% of self-identified Democrats and 18% of Republicans take that view. Similar results were obtained in a recent survey of opinion in several European nations.

The 25% figure is perplexing enough. Though I know enough people who are convinced of one conspiracy (oil, 9/11, et al.) or another to believe it. The author's "rational political ignorance" explains some of it, I guess. Though you would think the more likely target would be bankers or Wall Street. I guess some could have the religion and the career tied together.

What REALLY perplexes me is the 32% number from democrats. I realize this isn't only the leaders of the party; it probably includes many of the "rational ignorance" group, but still. This is the Democrats. I mean, I expect this kind of thing from the gay-hating Republicans. But Democrats?

I've always had an inkling that maybe the Dems lacked some fundamental understanding about how the economy worked and that their policies often arose from that. Chalk it up to the "Road to Hell ..." thing. This kind of confirms it.

Relatedly: Good news on the gay marriage front.

On an unrelated note: I've written 3 times this week. Hope to extend it to 4 tonight. Outside chance at 5. I'm hoping for similar output next week, then a slow down. Four or five more next week should really push me very close to my goal and it gives me time to add pieces if need be.

Differing opinions; but please, make it factual

I don't want to get into this too much or too deeply. There are certainly two viewpoints as to which direction the United States and more specifically U.S. industrial might is headed.

This guy takes one more aligned with my outlook. Its that things aren't as bad as they are sometimes portrayed. And while he makes some good points, he misses the obvious: If we make 15% more than 20 years ago, but are 50% more productive, we need less workers in manufacturing. As the economy grows and adds new kinds of jobs, workers in manufacturing jobs make up less and less of the workers around us.

I'm not going to rant. I'm just pointing that out as my stance. Trying to give a reasoned outlook for why I believe what I do. As I said, you can certainly have a differing opinion, and I'm sure there are stats to back you up.

There is no way to link to the comments to taht article, but you can scroll to the bottom and see the first group. Its worth scrolling through the 5 or so pages of virtrol and spittle-flying anger. Maybe the commentators (well, 95% of them) are right. Maybe the U.S. is doomed.

But their arguments whining isn't convincing me in the least. My guess is that they don't even see the holes in their arguments. Meanwhile, at least one of commenters, while supposedly arguing against him, makes the author's point from the second and eight paragraph.

A couple health links/stories of notes

Part 3 of the consecutive posts/days with a health-related story. I'll soon have rename the damn site & 1 Thing.

A new review shows that while obesity is the cause of heart disease, obese heart patients live longer than lean patients and respond better to treatment. And lest you object with "one study does not a fact make," take note: It's a phenom that has its own name: it's called the obesity paradox and "study after study has shown that obese heart patients have better survival and have fewer strokes and heart attacks than normal-weight or underweight heart patients with the same severity of disease." This is all relevant to yesterday's post and resulting comment. It might be the case that lean people who get heart disease have some deeper, more troubling heart problem than self-imposed "obese" heart disease and that's why they don't react to treatment as well. Or it could be something else. Either way, I think it demonstrates the folly of trying to micromanage such things. Throw out the microscale - individualized issues/choices - even on the macro scale "common sense" doesn't always rule.

Good news for green tea, though not so much for drinkers as for growers... EGCG may be the missing ingredient for an anti-HIV gel. Me thinks this will somehow end up in green tea advertising, probably not on the tea itself, but on some cream containing it. Though the "green tea in every product imaginable" phase has seemingly past us now.

HFCS v. Sugar - Steel Cage Match BATTLE ROYALE!!!!!!

I read a book last year about the dangers of HFCS and how it might be contributing to the obesity epidemic. (This is two food/obesity posts in a row; I have my own little epidemic going on).

Anywhosit, this guy chronicles the rise and fall of HFCS as a sweetener. And while he acknowledges the worriers, and even that HFCS might be worse pound for pound, than other sweeteners, he points out that HFCS is 55 percent fructose, while "sugar" is 50 percent fructose.

And while many are American-bashing for obesity rates (American bashing, is, IMHO, a favorite pasttime of some, for deep, dark reasons they'd probably prefer not come to light and in which I don't feel like blogging about right now), its interesting to note Australia has simliar numbers with a sugar based industry.

I love the "natural is healthy" falacy, so I especially loved this...

The unwholesome reputation of HFCS has no doubt been exacerbated by the general
view that it's less "natural" than other forms of sugar. The notion that
anything natural is healthy—and anything artificial is not—seems especially
silly when it comes to added sweeteners. If fructose is indeed the problem, we'd
do well to avoid the all-natural sweeteners in health-food products and fruit
drinks, which often include concentrated apple or pear juices. These are almost two-thirds fructose—and might be significantly worse for your
health than HFCS. (Organic, raw agave nectar could be even more dangerous,
containing 90 percent fructose.)

What we have here is, a failure to, well, not so much communicate as research or think broadly. So many go astray on this failure. And not only on the "natural is healthy" argument, but that's another post for another time.

CDC's Frieden to fry fast food?

I'm not a huge purchaser of fast food. But I like me some Arby's Roast Burger.

Meanwhile, Slate.com reports that the new CDC, despite his introduction as a swine flu expert*, actually is the man behind trans fat bans and the attack on salt. Look, trans fats and salt in large quantities probably aren't good for you. But trans fat was industries reaction to the horrors of sat fats. And salt is just yummy.

I know there is some question about food, obesity and epidemics, but I think the links are weak. What's more, I'm not sure the links mean we should attack fast food establishments. Lazy overeaters who are overweight aren't suddenly going to be thin and munching celery just because Frieden flunked Friendly, or 'Bama bans BK .

I'm a big boy and can pick my food for myself; thank you very much.

Whole thing here.

* Unless this sickness I seem to be coming down with is swine flu, has there ever been a more overblown epidemic? Oh, right. Avian flu.

Artists & happiness

Are artists naturally unhappy people? Does unhappiness in some way make you a better artist? And if I'm happy, what does that say about me and my chances of being a published artist?

I vote for no, no, nothing.

Not a very deep post, I grant you. But let me explain. I might or might not be getting sick. My back is certainly killing me for no apparent reason. I'm trying to write; alot (Update: and not all that successfully).

So, no, not very deep. But the source material is good, so you should check it out.

This just didn't seem like the place ...

... so I'm going to start posting my more political rants on the Optimistic Libertarian. It'll mostly be a link site, with some venting thrown in.

Here's the first of many to come.

Friday Fun Links

Some nice light reading for a sunny Friday and hopefully what will be a nice weekend...

A neat story on why Google won't kill book authors ...

The Personality Forge: An interesting artificial intelligence chat bot site where you can create your own chatting 'bot or chat with bots created by others (the ones I tried out don't pass the Turin test) ...

A story that could help with breaking a writer's block, if only you could/would put it use: Walking backwards ...

Cisco sees the light at the end of the economic dark tunnel...

... but some warn that it might just be a firefly and that the mess could continue for a while

I'm shaming myself; Also, I owe my book to a worm

That's what this post amounts too. I'm hoping that this post maybe shames me into encouraging myself to write tonight.

I usually write Sunday night - that gives me a head start on the week and I only have to write once more during the week. It gives me plenty of chances at a third session. Only I didn't.

Monday/Tuesday are other good days for writing, in that they aren't Friday or Saturday night. Which are traditionally busy evenings. They also aren't Saturday, a housework day, or Wednesday, the night Lost is on. Lost is the only show I drop everything for and I don't plan on ending that scenerio.

So here I sit, facing Wednesday night wihtout having written anything. Now, lost is an hour starting at 9 p.m. I usually write from 10 to whenever anyway, so its not entirely out of the question. Still, given my late start, I'm half thinking of taking the week off.

The hold up: My workout routine ends next week, and then I'm taking a week off from that. I was kind of hoping to clear all the heavy lifting off my plate that week and use it as a general "recharge" week. Or.... I could take off this week, and really, really do some heavy lifting writing during that week.

So what have I been doing? Ninja Gaiden mostly. This brings me to the second part of my headline. For weeks I was stuck on this one sub boss - a worm - in the game. It was discouraging, frankly, and led me to play less. I would either choose not to play, or play through once, die, lose interest and write. Now I'm flying through the game and enjoying it again. Its been a bummer as far a writing goes.

A final link of interest: Kindle 2.1 has been released, with a larger screen that better supports newspaper & magazine reading. A last, great hope for newspapers? Maybe.

The power of roots

I guess it turns out ...

... you can do strikes in blogger.

... and you can do half powers, too. A number to a half power is actually the equivilent of the square root of the number. For instance, 25 to the half power would be 5.

So in my little hypothetical, 2 to the power of 4.5 would, I guess, be (2 x 2 x 2 x 2) x 4 (root of the resulting 16) = 64. Not the answer I was looking to arrive at, but it works. *

Or I guess it could be (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 1.41421 35623 73095 04880 16887 24209 69807 85696 71875 37694 80731 76679 73799.... = 22.627. *

* Disclaimer - I'm not a math genuis, or really even a math... above normal? Not even a math slightly above average. I'm pretty much a math adequate. Therefore, I disclaim any liability or contention that the above numbers, formulas, theories or ideas are presented logically, accurately, intelligently or coherently. They could be spot on. They could be off by a factor of 1,000. I have no real idea. I have presented them to the best of my abilities, that is all.

It's a lovely begining start

I like love the strike function. You'll see why.

I'm also OK with fond of the occasionall crazy post.

I wrote something, well, took notes on something that I think is a pretty great opening couple of sentences or paragraphs to a future book. Hopefully interesting writing. Promisingly unique premise. I'll probably be posting it here, or google doc'ing it for some thoughts.

Meanwhile, as I approach the end of the current book, I'm thinking more and more about openings. I feel like the opening sentence has to have a real hook. Both to attact the eye of editors and readers. Its, outside of the headline, the first chance to bait the reader. It sets the whole mood from there on out. Ok, maybe that's a bit overselling it, maybe not the entire mood. But the reality is that I'm not sure its overselling it too much. An interesting first sentence sets the table, so to speak.

Since this book was written kind of from the middle plot point and expanded outward in both directions, I don't have a opening line in mind.

I'm sure its a battle that will be well documented.

Out of the mouth, into the ... belly of the beast?

... into its pancrease? Frying pan? Wouldn't the last one be absolutely backwards, I mean, who spits into frying pans? Wait, don't Italian spit on people for luck; or at them; or something? Something to do with the devil? You can't tell, but I'm squinting my eyes right now trying to work this out. Like this, or this. NOT like this. Insensitive bast@ard.

I'm desperately trying to tie this post's headline to the last one. Unfortunately, the analogy doesn't work very well. Maybe you could tell. Maybe you couldn't. I hid it pretty well, I thought. Keep that in mind while you're scratching your head wondering what the hell this rambling means: don't hold me to a strict interpretation.

Writing last night started off slowly, but by the time I was done had gone very nicely. I even had to write ideas down on paper after I quit because they just kept flowing. That's twice this week. My new goal is three times a week. The problem now is that I sit down to write one of the 14 pieces I have left, and I end up writing something leading up to said piece. Then my next "sit down" is writing the original idea. So while I'm writing frequently, and not really adding to my list of stuff to write, I'm not really making as much progress as you might expect. Thus the increased writing sched.

I FINALLY beat the boss I was fighting. I'm not exaggerating at all to say I probably died 40 times fighting this guy. Plus a couple times on the way to him. Although this guy claims, in a hilariously snarky walkthrough, that the boss is "quite easy" even though it might take a "couple tries" to get the timing right. Yeah, F that. I have choice words for him. A couple tries times, oh I don't know, 20, maybe. Maybe to the power of 4.5. Can you even do half powers? Did I even do the powering thing correctly? Who knows. Probably a math specialist, I guess. Then again, I'm probably better at Ninja Gaiden than a math specialist. Though, those math people can be pretty geeky, so maybe they are pretty good at it too.

Anyway, relieved to have written well. Relieved to be past the infuriating boss fight. SUPER relieved that its Friday. WEEKEND! I need it. Almost took off today with a touch of spring fever. Had the sun been scheduled for an appearance, I just might have done it.

Random wishes/thoughts:

- I wish Blogger had a strike command so I could strike out words. Or at the very least that I could find it. I could have some fun with that, I think.

- I also wish Blogger had one of those post-category box search thingies where the lables you post in frequently are bigger than the shitty little ones you never post too. Those are just cool. You know what I'm talking about. Or maybe you don't.