Some thoughts on 2012

I would ordinarily do a "Better Bryan 2012", but I'm thinking about doing something just a little bit different than that tired trope.


Instead, I'm considering two actions:


1: email every one of my Facebook friends and say some kindness about them or some good memory I have of them.


2: For every "non-necassary" item I purchase, either purchase the same for donation, or donate some percentage of the cost of the item. On second thought, I would just donate the money.

Hop on Mom and Pop

You hear a lot about buying local these days. Buy local food. Avoid Wal-Mart and shop at local Mom & Pop stores. In the later instance, I guess you spend a day going to 15 different stores, but whatever.

Meanwhile, over at PointofLaw.com, the site notes a story involving a guy complaining about Amazon's new push to have people post price information. The guy complains on Facebook about the policy and and says he will boycott Amazon. One assumes the guy is upset that the prices at most local stores won't beat Amazon, thus hurting those businesses.

PointofLaw notes that Facebook itself has put a couple businesses out of business (Friendster, anyone?), and couples with Gawker to put the squeeze on local newspapers.

Further, many of the localavores (at least on my Facebook) use Netflix, which essentially killed local Blockbusters, listen to music on iPods that helped kill local record stores, etc. etc. etc.

The road to hell is paved with canned goods

I'm a bit of a contrarian at heart, and I love when "common wisdom" is wrong; when doing action "A" has a perverse, unintended affect. In fact, I love unintended consequences altogether. Not that I love when they happen, only when I spot them.

Meanwhile, at this time of year, plenty of offices and groups are doing canned food drives. And plenty of people are feeling good about dropping off that can of tuna or soup.

Turns out your good deed might be done better a different way, and might actually do some harm.

All that food can overwhelm food banks. Not to mention that they now have 700,000 cans of high-sodium food to distribute to people who may have high-blood pressure, or jars of peanuts that can't be given to people with allergies. Or some godawful can of creamed something or other that no one knows what to do with.

Not to mention, apparently the food banks can buy the food cheaper than you ever could. Like $0.10 on the dollar cheaper, so it makes much more sense to simply send them a check that they can use to buy food they actually need for their clients. As the article says, eat the can of tuna and donate half its value to a food bank and you've done a much better deed.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

UPDATE: The original title of this post was "In a canned pickle". Like either one better?

Week 2

Week 2 without a Nanny, that is, if you count the week she was out "sick." We had a phone interview today, and face-to-face Thursday, and a couple other potential phone interviews this week, so I'm feeling better about our place.

It is amazing the number of people who will respond to an ad for a Nanny for newborn triplets who aren't comfortable caring for more than 2 kids. Are you not reading the ad? It's triplets. Are you now comfortable but haven't updated your online profile? What?

It also happens to be week 2 of the Push-Up Challenge. Day 1 went pretty well, considering I did the push ups at 10:30 p.m. It's a ladder like set up, where you do a small number, rest, do a larger number, rest, then do two more sets of a middling number, rest, and do a max. I couldn't do the max all the way, but still.

And somehow, I'm actually getting stuff done at work. Luckily we are slow during this time.

Because I don't have anything else going on

Honestly. Not like triplets are much or anything. Oh, or like our Nanny quit. Which she totally did. Or that I have Christmas shopping to do. Or 100 things to do around the house.

Anyway, because I don't have anything to do, I'm learning how to code in Javascript at Codecadamy. It is a free online site that supposedly teaches you the Javascript langauge. Here is to hoping. I think it would be neat to learn another langauge, one that would be more useful than say, Mandarin, which everyone seems to want to learn.

Also, I've restarted my 100 Pushup Challenge. Friday (tomorrow) is Day 3 of Week 2, which I started this week. I started on week 2 because I'm that freakin strong and awesome.

Back to the salt's mine

After NY and other places went on a tear and tried to ban salt, or at least reduce its use, and after years of government programs shouted from the rooftops regarding the hazards of the white crystal, it turns out that lowering your salt intake can be harmful. And these weren't crazy reductions to like 600 mg per day, these people were still eating - after the reduction - 3,800 mg, which is much much higher than the 2,000 mg the government recommends.

Meanwhile, out on the left coast Los Angeles is busy preventing new fast food chains from opening, on the premise that they locate in poor neighborhoods and make the poor fat. Ignoring the personal choice issue, it turns out that - OMG - middle class people eat more fast food and in fact, the richer you are, the more fast you eat, up to about $60,000 in income. The availability of healthy food in poor neighborhoods, and health and obesity in general in those areas, is an issue, but simplifying it down to "fast food = bad" is not the way to solve it. But it makes some people feel like they are helping, so who cares who it hurts.

Oh, and after needlessly worrying parents for the last 5 or so years, it turns out that your fat baby probably isn't going to grow up to be the blob.

I'm expected to raise my kids in this world?

Two Florida school children suspended after they were caught... doing drugs? No. Having sex? No. Vandalizing property? Again, no.

Hugging. Yes. Hugging. According to Reason.com the principle "admits it was an 'innocent' hug, but the school has zero tolerance for hugging."

Wait. "Zero tolerance for hugging"? What?

I'm generally an enthusiastic supporter and believer that the times we are living in now are better than any time in the past; and that my kids' future world will be an infinitely better place than today.

Sometimes though, I have to wonder. To the extent that things like this make our world worse, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

And be careful, next time your teen kid smiles at someone, they could end up married, pregnant and full of STDs.

Two other things, while I'm at it

1) do unto to others as you would have them do unto you. Its a seflish code, being as its focused on what you would want and all, but its a great way to live life...

2) Start with the man in the mirror. So many things in this world would be better if people took this advice.

A message to my sons, and daughter

There are two things that I've learned in life that I think are incredibly poignant and true and that I hope to impart on my kids. I wish I could claim to have arrived at them on my own, but the one I read in the Bible; and while I'm not sure where I picked the other up at, I know its origin isn't with me.

So here we go:

1) There is a difference between being frugal and being stingy. Know the difference. A frugal person eats Ramen at home and skips the dinner at the swanky Ramon's Restuarant. A stingy person orders the surf & turf at Ramon's and then wants to split the bill equally among all the diners

2) You should never be shy about what you like, but you should never under any circumstances be finicky. Find that drink, or meal or entertainment you like and make it your signature; but you should never put off if it isn't available. "Real men (and women) are discerning, but they're not disabled if things are not just so."

I hope you three realize them earlier in life than I did.

Over/Under: Day 10

If you took the over on Day 10, you would have won. The clock continues.

Word Cloud

The following link takes the last 3 days posts from any site with an RSS feed and turns it into one of those word cloud things. I did one on 1000 & 1 things, but because it only covers 3 days, it was mostly text from my editing. Which got me thinking... you can copy and paste random text into http://www.wordle.net/.

Might it be cool to post your book - or a chapter of your book - and see how it came out. The neatness of the result warrants a visit, in my opinion.

http://www.wordle.net/

Better, Worse, Needs More Work?

Some people think they flirted with quiting; not to mention procastination and avoidance. However, the thin edge of quit they think they faced - a mere illusion. True quit remained a good ways off. I've tiptoed that line; stared down the vacuum-like abyss on the other side. I know.

Anyway, I've kinda decided that even if I get Falsley Accused edited, my Alpha editor may never lay hands on the Beta copy. Maybe it was the disappointment in not getting it read the first go around that led me to my decision. Maybe it was reading her copy that led me to it. I'm not sure. I reserve the right to change my mind and give her a second shot.

All of that notwithstanding, below are a couple pre-edited paragraphs from my book. Below that is a version as I edited it tonight. What thinks you?

Michael pulled out of his spot, turned around, and drove to the stop sign. He sat their a second, watching Officer Faris in his rearview mirror. Officer Faris seemed distracted in his car, so Michael inched into the intersction and made a right. He eased his car along, checking to see if Officer Farish noticed or intended to follow him, until he was behind the row of houses on the Apple Orchard Lane, the street running parrallell to Vine. Michael made it all the way to the middle of the block without seeing Officer Faris in his rearview mirror, so he turned down the small alley that ran between the row of houses. He pulled in just enough to avoid having Officer Faris see him when he pulled out and killed the engine. "Now what?" He thought.

Michael sat in his car pondering his next move when a movement at the end of the street caught his eye. Someone had come out of 92 Vine. Even as Michael looked up he could see the screen door banging shut behind the man. Michael watched for a moment more as the man walked down the steps and began to cross the alley. Even though he had been sitting in his car for almost six hours Michael had no idea what to do. The man continued his casual stroll across the alley. There were no cars. It was obvious he was on foot and appeared headed between houses to the next street over. Michael debated what to do. He couldn't drive his car to the end of the street. If the man ran into the woods or the next street over Michael would lose him. But he didn't feel comfortable backing up and going into the next street either. Too likely to tip off his position and he was in the same position. Him in car, man on foot. So Michael made the decision to be on foot as well. He opened his car door, left it open so as to not make noise shutting it, and started walking down the alley toward the man.
____________________________

Michael pulled out of his spot. Turned swung his car around and drove to the stop sign. He sat their a second. In his rearview mirror Michael could see the policeman's smug face. Officer Faris fiddled with something inside his car. Michael eased into the intersction. He looked back, checking to see if Officer Farish noticed or intended to follow.

When it appeared he didn't, Michael made a right and eased his car along. He coasted along until he found himself behind a row of houses. He was now on Apple Orchard Lane, which ran parrallell to Vine. Michael made it all the way to the middle of the block without seeing anyone follow. Michael turned down the alley running between the houses. It was more of a breezeway than alley; the houses packed so tight his car barely fit. He pulled in just enough to hide his car. He turned the key in the ignition, killing the engine. "Now what?" He thought.

Michael's eyes unfocused; his attention stopped on a broken piece of blacktop at the end of the alley. A movement beyond the end of the street caught his eye. Someone had come out of 92 Vine. Even as Michael looked up he could see the screen door banging shut. Michael watched for a moment more as the man walked down the steps. Jittery strides carried the man across the alley entrance. The man continued his herk-jerk stroll across the alley opening. There were no cars on the street. The man must be on foot, Michael though. Michael debated what to do. He feared driving to the end of the street. If the man from 92 Vine spooked he could quickly run into the woods or slip down another alley. Backing up would likely tip off his position. Either to the man or Officer Faris. So Michael opened his door and slid out. Careful to leave it open so as to not make noise. He began walking down the alley toward the man from 92 Vine.

Two signs/bumper stickers I hate

The first is the seemingly ever more onmipresent "Watch for Motorcycles" sign. Really?

Someone voluntarily takes to a road dominated by metal-caged vehicles on a dangerous vehicle without any impact protection and I'm supposed to "watch" for them? I'm willing to swallow that as a person, I have a duty to protect other people. That much I can understand. I would never willingly or intentionally go out of my way to hit a motorcyclist and I try to give them a wide area in which to operate. I'm aware of what my hitting them would do to them, and to me. I imagine you never get that image out of your head.

Having said that, I will begin "watching" for motorcycles when they stop riding down the shoulder in stalled traffic, riding down the center line in stalled - or moving - traffic, pulling wheelies while in highway traffic, jumping in and out of traffic on highways in excess of what must be 120 mph* and other fun stuff that, because they can do it on a bike, I should apparently "watch" for.

Hey you, yeah you in the small, unprotected, hard to see vehicle riding along dangerously on a road dominated by vehicles 200x your size: You may want to put the oneous of "watching" on yourself. Not to mention maybe not drive down the street at 1 a.m. revving your engine to top RPMs.

You have a bike; it is loud; you think you are cool; I get it.

The second isn't nearly as offensive: the "Children on board" signs. These seem to have waned in recent years. But honestly, what is that supposed to tell me? If I'm careering toward you, am I supposed to turn away because I see that sign? And do what, hit the guy next to you instead? Is that sign a "kill the other guy not me because I have kids" permission slip?

I suppose the idea is that if you see the sign you may back off a bit. I honestly find it hard to believe. That idiot tailgating you isn't likely to stop and drive more conservatively simply because of that sign. This is true mostly because tailgaters fall into two categories, in my experience:

1) teens who don't know better, are oblivious, or doing what teens do and acting teenagery and;
2) douchebags.

The inherent nature of each group means neither is likely to alter their behavior soon or based on a simple sign. Teen behavior you can change by waiting it out. Teens grow up.

It's generally too late to do anything about D-bags .

* all things I've witnessed with my own two eyes in my almost 20 years of driving.

I wish I could write like this

This article by E.D. Kain pretty much nails how I feel about Libertariansim, including both its pros and cons. I highly recommend the article, which is very accessible, I think; even to those who aren't politically inclined. I wish I could write this well about my beliefs.

The whole thing is worth reading, but I liked the following:

Libertarianism, if we are to practice it honestly, requires as much self-denial as possible, as much abandonment of special interest as possible.

Only 37% of all people have a freezer; really?

Is that possible? According to this chart that I borrowed at the every fascinating Bleeding Heart Libertarians, it is:


That just jumped out at me as an odd stat.

The point of the post was that if you look at how the poor have fared since 1984, things aren't really so bad. Almost none of the poor had computers, cell phones, microwaves or clothes dryers and less than half had air conditioning. Not all of those are life changing. But computers almost certainly are. Computers - hand in hand with the internet - open a vast world of education and knowledge to the poor that they would have almost certainly been locked out of in the past.

Microwaves, clothes dryers, and cell phones, while not life changing in the same way, certainly are time savers, allowing the poor to work longer hours, or to have more leisure time while working the same hours. Air conditioning, although largely taken for granted, is a life-saving invention. And I'm not being dramatic. It literally saves lives.

The author of the post also notes that while many "experts" lament how wages have been largely stagnant over the last 20 or 30 years, that isn't the whole picture. As computers and cell phones and microwaves have become cheaper we now live better lives, even if we make the same money, than we did 30 years ago. Not only that, but thanks to microwaves, VCRs, the internet and things like dryers, we have more free time, and more entertainment options available to us.

So it's not really fair to simply lament that wages have largely remained the same over the last 30 or so years, because in the big picture, our lives are vastly easier than they were 30 years ago, and we have access to a much wider array of entertainment and educational options.

"The hardest job kids face..."

Fred Astair lived from May 10, 1899 to June 22, 1987. For the purposes of this post I'd like that 1987 to be a bit earlier (no offense Mr. Astair), but it will do.

At some point during his life, he said the following:

"The hardest job kids face today is learning good manners without seeing any."

It's important to realize that he died in 1987. So at the very latest, he must have been talking about "kids" in 1986 or 1987. Given this, the "kids" he was talking about would now be between 20 and 40 years old (roughly ages 0-20 in 1986). Again, this is assuming the latest possible date he could have made this comment.

Why is this important? Well, next time any one between those ages tries to tell you about the lack of "manners" kids have these days compared to their day, keep in mind that Fred Astair thought the same thing about them way back when they were kids. And any time some one over those ages tries to tell you how parents don't set good examples for their kids... well... guess who was "not setting" a good example for all those kids Astair is talking about.

Just another example of how things really aren't worse today than they were back then. The good old days weren't always good, and (today or tomorrow) ain't as bad as they seem.

SCOTUS (did not) Kill The Video Game Star

The SCOTUS gets it right. Video games, even violent ones, cannot be banned:

"This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. And California’s claim that "interactive" video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome, is unpersuasive."

It was an action no one would be fool-hardy enough to ever try to do with books. Becuase, well, books are old and fancy and respected and stuff. Old people remember when they used to read them, especially the paper kind. Way before anything fancy like "interactivity."

This ruling is the right one and I give hearty "boos" to Justices Thomas and Breyer for their dissent. There is no room, in my opinion, for dissent on this issue. It's cut and dried First Amendment stuff. "Congress shall make no law ..." No law. Not "sometimes might wanna make," or "could make" or "in special cases may make." No law. Period.

These types of cases provide plenty of potential for bad outcomes. A ruling against the video game industry pretty much forever relegates it as a second class citizen. At least until its so accepted as a medium that the point is moot and the court finally reverses path. Thankfully, that didn't happen here. Look, for instance, at TV, where swear words subject networks to fines, but not cable shows. All because networks are "free" to access. As if the First Amendment is phrased "Congress shall make no law limiting speech unless its readily available speech." Meanwhile, society picks away at the restriction bit by bit until its pointless, until "F" bombs are eventually allowed, so long as they don't reference the implied physical act.

But secondly, this is the type of ruling that, if it goes the other way, eventually ends up impacting all manner of things. If interactivity is the turning point, then "choose your own adventure" books eventually looped into the ruling. If not them - a childhood staple of mine, I realize they aren't tremendously popular now, then Dungeons and Dragons games. "The kids can create and commit violent acts against zombies, which in their imaginations look like people! Not to mention skeleton, which potentially WERE people, at one time!"

I'm not entirely against the idea of keeping kids from playing ultra violent video games. But I think the right way to go about it is to have parents police the games, and to a larger (and more important) extent to explain to kids that this is what you do in games, not in real life.

I won't be against my kids knowing or using curse words. I don't find it that corrupting. Most everyone I know is aware of curse words, and I can't find a correlation between the knowledge of them - or even their use - and the idiots I know. So I won't care if my kids use the words - so long as they use them in the right instances. You don't use them to your parents, or your grandparents, or in social settings, or especially in formal settings. But if you hit your thumb with a hammer, you have carte blanche just that one time to let one rip. I hope that level of permissiveness takes away the "shock" value of the word.

Help me, please!

So, after finishing Feed and posting a little about it, I read an article about how Oprah's television spot could be filled, but the real question was who would fill her spiritual leader role.

The article noted some reality chick - Bethany - with whom I'm passingly familiar. It noted that she has a self-help book that counsels that "big changes come from small choices." It's a mantra that I love. To often the really big problems in our lives seem overwhelming, but could be changed by some small change, if we'd only see the chain linking the two. This is especially true before all the consequences of a choice have played out. Does this make sense? So, choice A, while seemingly insignificant, ends up being a very bad outcome B.

A simple thing like complaining about your spouse to a coworker about a "male" behavior, while it seems small, dominoes. Since the conduct is "male," its not changeable, so you don't try. You end up complaining to others instead of working on it with the spouse. This builds resentment both ways, as the complainer hates more and more conduct and the complainee feels henpecked. This results in more unchangeable conduct. Soon, a marriage lays irretrievably damaged and both hate each other.

Anyway, this got me thinking: there are probably more self-help books than one could count. Most, or at least a large number, seem to offer good, if not always helpful, advice (or is it the other way around?). Yet people will tell you we are more dysfunctional, trend addicted, media led, status conscious sheep then ever.

So, are the books not working? Are the books working but only to slight affect, and if so, is that really "working"? Are we actually getting better (whatever that means)? Are we getting better, but not at a rate that compensates for the negatives in the society and culture around us?

Maybe the books are simply wrong about their advice, though I'm disinclined to believe this. I think it probably goes deeper than that.

Maybe I'll try to come up with an answer in a future post.

Almost had me fed

I finished Feed last night.

It's premise is kind of an antithesis to my whole "today is better than yesterday, tomorrow isn't as bad as it seems" philosophy. In fact, I think author MT Anderson was kind of poking fun at me, saying essentially that I was turning a blind eye to the problems. The book features a main characters and his friends who seem to think or believe that all is well in their world, but there are hints that things outside of that small world are not all that well and are actually falling apart.

It really had me thinking.

Then I read a short interview in the back of the book. Anderson talks about how the media doesn't encourage curiosity and is misleading all of us, but especially youth. Putting aside whether the media should do things like this, I think its a fairly ridiculous statement. First, there has always been alternative media. It wasn't mainstream, but then again, that is kind of the point. Had it been mainstream then, well, it would have been mainstream. Second, the internet, which is at the heart of most of the evils in the book, has only added to the plethora of choices as far as media goes. In the past, if you lived in a less populated area you had easy access to say one newspaper, and maybe mail order to others that you would really never find out about, plus magazines. In cities you probably had access to a handful of papers. Now you have access to literally thousands of "newspapers" and other sources of news and curiousities.

Curiousity, if it is indeed lacking, isn't caused by the lack of media or the media' lack of engagement in the process. I have ideas about what might be at the root of any such problem, to the extent that it exists, but that's for a different post, I suppose.

Toward the end of the interview Anderson says that he listened to really obscure music. He says kids listen to music to self-identify into groups and doing that isolated him. This all came in response to how kids who are aware they are being manipulated by the media can handle it.

Anderson said you should try to extend your knowledge into obscure and eccentric things, rather than trying to chase the new thing. But obscure isn't for everyone, and that is probably for the best. And frankly, if everyone went exploring obscure and eccentric, it would not be obscure or eccentric for long. Plus, I think just about everyone has some obscure and eccentric thing they like.

My FB post alone shows a person who loves 1980s rap. Another is a member of a jam band, yet another "friends" small local bands and my sister is into music that is probably accurately described as either obscure or eccentric. I love science shows, especially outer space based, but earth-based as well, and stuff about ancient civilizations.

Maybe I'm not the guy Anderson is talking about. However, I love Def Leppard and radio rock, I know its not the most deep music, but I like it for my own reasons. So what that its not obscure or eccentric. I don't always, or even often, want deep music. If every aspect of life is deep, it's tiresome. You need rest.

This is what always bothers me about these arguments. I often feel that they boil down to "this is what I like and so should you." The fact that you like something outside the mainstream doesn't denigrate the mainstream in any way, but I think those outside of it often think it does. That being outside that stream somehow makes them superior.

Stories like this

Ignore that this guy is getting his novel published. For these purposes, its nice, but not required.

First off, the story itself is nicely crafted. It's the type of writing and story that carries my interest even outside of the marriage and book publishing topics. I sometimes wish this is what I was writing. Or at the very least that I was writing like this.

But the point I really want to ram home is that this guy took four years to write his novel. Four years. I've long since forgotten how long I've been at mine. My guess would be 3 years. Four years is possible.

And his original drafts were, if he is to be believed, dreck as well. Of course, admitting your work was originally dreck is easier once you have published a book and have an agreement for a second. First off, its easier to take criticism when once you've succeeded. Secondly, its much more complimentary to you if you cleaned up this original mess you made into a sellable novel. "I worked slavishly to clean up this mess" is better than "the words pretty much fell onto the page as they are here."

This is all on my mind because The Oven and I were discussing my progress on my novel last night. Or lack thereof, anyway. And so I rededicated myself to editing.

I have a new novel fleshing itself out in my head that I'd like to eventually write. But I'm determined not to start it until the work in progress is finished. Finished finished.

The honest truth is I'd like to finish this damn thing and it be good. Almost to the exclusion of its publication.

Douchebaggery

Money Magazine runs a "write in and have your question answered" segment. They not only get experts, but regular joes and janes from the street to answer, as well. This month's question involves an adult man who is the executor of his parents' estate. The will apparently give each child $X free and clear. The question asker is worried because his brother is, in his opinion, bad with money, and he wonders whether its OK for him to parcel out the out the money slowly, you know, so his brother won't blow it all at once. What do you think is appropriate?

The answers varied widely. The worst, however, were the people who answered that yes, the executor should only give his brother money in drips and drabs. Honestly? So, the people who "owned" the money - the parents - legally give it to their son, and instead of doing what they legally established, people think its OK to meddle in those affairs because of some impression that the brother isn't good with money? This a true test of douchebaggery, if you ask me.

Some picked the correct answer: it is the parents' money, the executor is merely there to make sure the parents' wishes are fulfilled, and the money should be conveyed as they wished. Had the parents wanted it distributed in drips and drabs they could have seen to that. Also OK as an answer: offering to help the brother manage such a windfall.

The worst part of it is that the only evidence of the monetary immaturity of the brother is the writer's impression. Who knows what he takes as being irresonsible with money. Maybe his brother buys expensive cars, or antique guns that the writer thinks are a waste. To suggest that an executor should go against the wishes of an estate simply because of his interpretation of his brother's conduct is truly a sad statement about the internal workings of the individual.

That got followed up by this letter writer to a slate.com advice columnist:

I ride on public transportation to and from work everyday. My problem is that I have a very sensitive nose, and I am easily overwhelmed by smells. I am frequently in the uncomfortable position of sitting next to someone who is either wearing far too much cologne or who reeks of cigarettes and beer. I find it very difficult to breathe and end up unsubtly coughing as I inhale these noxious fumes. My commute is a little less than an hour, so I sit next to these people for quite a while. What is the protocol for asking someone to switch his or her seat? If I'm already sitting and there are other seats available, can I ask the olfactory offender to move? Or is it my obligation to move because I'm the one who can't stand the smell? How do I even approach the topic with fellow commuters?

He's just helping out

This article in The New York Times (via Reason) paints a "sympathetic, lighthearted" picture of a beloved person in the community. So beloved that the New York Times runs his story and picture on its front page. A Legal Aid lawyer notes that the man is the "goodwill ambassador of Eighth Avenue" and that everyone says hello to him at his court appearances.

Now, you may have caught on from the last part of that sentence that not everything is on the up and up. In fact, the man - Lonnie Loosie - sells cigarettes on the street. He'll sell you one at a time, with discounts for multiple cigarettes. And he sells packs for $8 (which seems expensive, until you realize they go for $12.50/pack in NY). All this is fine and good. It's a nice story. Except that, as Reason.com notes, you would never see such a story about a guy selling marijuana or, god forbid, something stronger.

Yet the difference between the guy selling Mary Jane and old Loosie is... what exactly? Neither Loosie nor our hypothetical Janer salesman is legally able to hawk his wares. Neither drug drives people to crazy danger looking for a high. Neither is probably very good for you when used in the traditional way. Yet Loosie gets a front page story about how good a community person he is and how he is beloved and merely filling a need created by government policy.

Which is easier: Hitting .250, or writing a half-way decent novel?

Bill James at Slate.com wonders "why are we so good at developing athletes and so lousy at developing writers?"

James makes some good points, but mixes in one truly aweful one and ignores another somewhat easy explanation.

The easy explanation is that writing, at all but its top-most performance, is very subjective, while baseball isn't.

Sure, Shakespeare is universally regarded (and maybe because of that gets undue regard). Outside of him and a handful of others, "good" writing is subjective. Romance, legal thrillers, etc etc etc. Is Grisham good, or a mere hack? He's certainly good at what he does, but does "what he does" constitute hackery? Stephen King sells millions, but is he merely rewriting the same 5 or so stories? Is he formuliac? Is he verbose? Does it matter? The Invisible Man by Ellison (the one about race, not Sci Fi) is considered a classic. It is one of probably one or two books I've ever started that I couldn't finish. It was like reading by rubbing my eye against broken glass.

On the other hand, a guy who hits .300 is pretty good hitter regadless. You can nick-pick whether he gets on base enough, or whether he has sufficient power for this position or that, but honestly, .300 is good. James wonders if some of it is because we already have Shakespeare and Dickens, but we "need" new baseball games every day. It sounds good on first inspection. But we also "need" new books every day. And despite James' contention that we would could and would fill any expansion of baseball teams with new talent of equal character (James suggests even 5,000 [5,000!] teams could be filled with quality talent!), I just don't think its true. In its formative days writing had Dickens and Shakespeare; baseball had Aaron and Ruth. Today, a watered-down and mass produced writing has King and Grisham, while a watered-down and mass produced baseball has all those .240 hitters and come-this-year, gone-the-next relief pitchers with whose names I won't bore you.

James cites baseball's payment-on-potential nature. In other words, baseball pays a young high schooler based on potential, but a writer must toil for years before finding any type of success. True. But a young hurler can have a big impact quickly, and that impact can be predicted with some measure of consistency. Absent injury, a guy consistently pitching 8 innings of 1.25 WHIP ball is likely to be a productive player. A person consistently writing a novel a year, even completely readable, well-written novels, isn't necassarily ever going to turn out a great novel, let alone a profitable one.

So I put it to you: Which is easier... hitting .250 (a mediocre average that would make you an iffy prospect) or writing a half-way decent novel?

The good old-times weren't always good ...

... and today ain't as bad as it seems.

Talk or read politics or current events long enough and you are sure to run into someone discussing the current crisis in incomes. That is, that incomes have stagnated. People make roughly what they made in the 1970s. It's a travesty, suppposedly. It's blamed on the decline in union power, the meany corporations, globalism, global trade. It's blamed on pretty much an boogey man that can reasonably be dug up.

But as this article points out, while wages may have stagnated, the purchasing power of those wages has increased.

Today, cars cost roughly what they did in 1970 ($20,000ish) but last twice as long. Cars in the 1970s would never have made it to 200,000 miles, which a reasonably cared for car can make these days. And this ignores the mandated safety devices that make these more valuable cars even safer.

Meanwhile, computers, televisions, refrigerators and music playback devices are all cheaper, more convenient and for the most part, built better than in 1970. Back then computers were unobtainable, televisions staticy, refrigerators needed defrosting, and record players and 8-track tapes offered poor quality and limited lifetimes. Meanwhile, computers are now sub-$300 playthings, televisions are low-powered, HD-bulging devices five times larger than their 1970s relatives, plenty of people have two refrigerators, none of which require taking all your frozen goods out of them to defrost them.

Progress.

The meltdown over nuclear power

It's started. I received the following in an email at work:

Friend,

We are at an energy crossroads. We could continue rushing blindly down a road strewn with nuclear meltdowns, oil spills, and toxic emissions until we realize too late that we have altered our world’s ability to nourish its inhabitants. Or we could step boldly onto a new road to a time and place where energy is abundant, affordable, and safe for people and our planet. The choice is clear. But as long as the government keeps propping up toxic energy with taxpayer dollars, the roadblocks to a clean energy future are insurmountable.

... help build grassroots momentum for a future free of nuclear emergencies: Forward this message to everyone you know who supports a transition to a clean and safe energy future.

I'm all for ending the government prop-up of energy creation. All it does is distort the price of certain, favored policies, over others. And I'm for cheap, clean power. But the reality is that this just doesn't exist in the way Public Citizen - the author of this letter - hopes. "Clean and safe" pretty much defines nuclear power. We've had what, two accidents, in the entire U.S. No injuries. Compare that to coal and oil, and for fun let's put aside the environmental problems from their burning. You still have oil rig explosions, mine collapses, resulting pollution from obtaining the materials, etc.

Public Citizen's letter is suspiciously quiet about which clean, safe and abundant power source it favors. My guess is wind or solar. But of the two of them, only wind produces a smaller carbon footprint than nuclear. Solar's carbon footprint is actually twice as large. Not to mention the best place for windfarms - which come with their own set of problems outside of having the actual, visible windmills - is in ecologically sensative deserts. And consider the amount of space wind requires to produce 1,000-megawatts over that of nuclear. Geothermal is nice, but requires enough space that it probably isn't an option for cities.

Could God have created a radioactive-free world?

Those who believe him omnipotent would certainly say so. And those who don't believe him to exist would certainly say that he had nothing to do with it. Regardless of my own personal stance, there is room for both beliefs, I think.

This article touches on religion and nuclear power (sorta) and so it touches on two topics of endless interest to me. As a disclaimer, I generally like Slate.com, question the existence of God in a Buddhist "we can't know" kind of way, and support nuclear power. I believe there there are certainly good questions about God. This is not one of them:

Those who believe that suffering and evil can be explained, even justified, by the fact that man has free will and thus the ability to choose evil (the "blame-it-on-the victim" school of theodicy) and argue that courage and goodness would not mean anything if mankind did not have that free choice, still have to answer the question: Is this really the best of all possible worlds? Couldn't God have made it a little better? A little less suffering, fewer of those earthquakes, say, a slightly smaller number of childhood cancers, a little less heartlessness, a little more humanity in human nature? Whenever I hear people echo Voltaire's mocking (in Candide) of Leibniz's assertion this is "the best of all possible worlds," I hear Leibniz with a different, sardonic, anti-Candide questioning tone: "This, THIS is the best of all possible worlds?" This is the
best you could do, God, Mr. Big Shot burning-bush guy?

Asking questions like "couldn't God have made it a little better" begs the question. And while we are at it, couldn't he have made it a little worse? It's a juvenile argument, as far as I'm concerned. It really adds nothing to the conversation. If you think God is silly (as the author appears to), you should consider how silly discussing whether or not he could have created a "little better" world is really dumb. Even allowing that the author concedes the existence of God for this discussion, the discussion itself is entirely myth-based and unknowable.

"Could God have created a "little better" world by not including radioactivity" strikes me as a smoke-filled dorm-room/freshman philosophy question.

At last: Atlas Shrugged The Movie!

I could not be more excited. It's a movie I've been waiting to see for at least 5 years. And it finally arrives April 15, 2011!


IMDB info:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

and the trailer:
http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-trailer/

Having loved the book and waited 5 years for the movie, I'll probably be disappointed. It has cheese potential coming out its arse for about 80 different reasons. And frankly, with a limited budget and the tortured way the movie came to be it might not even make it to a local theater. Still, I'm stoked.

Now if only we could get The Dark Tower series into production.

1000 & 1 Things - almost literally

That's what it feels like, anyway.

There is so much to do at this point. I won't bore you with the entire list, but here's a representative samep of the interesting stuff:

- I'm editing-reading my sister's novel,
- keeping in mind that mine has to be done, probably before the triplets
- gathering baby stuff for the triplets,
- caring for R. who is doing well but is exhausted and starting to get large and who needs to rest as much as possible,
- checking into day cares,
- investigating Nannies who might come to the house
- finishing the bedroom (it's essentially done, though not yet furnished)
- financial planning, which is always busy this time of year but more so with triplets
- playing 2 hours or so of Fallout: New Vegas per day
- walking the dog
- general house stuff
- reading about Buddhism, which I'm really enjoying and might have a post on shortly

All that said, I realize I haven't posted here in almost a month. I've considered creating a triplets website to document our journey. The reality is that once the triplets are here, I probably won't have time for both, so I'm not sure. I'd like to keep one alive to document what I'm doing, keep in touch with certain people and have a place where I can have a dialogue with myself, but who knows.

Better Bryan '11

A month late, but thankfully timeliness isn't one of the goals.

In fact, I'm not sure there are any solid goals at all. I had intended on having two (1 + 1 equating to 11 and not wanting to have 11 after last year's 10).

But now I have not one, not two, but three kids on the way. My entire childbearing activities done in one shot. So I have the usual child-prep work times 3, not to mention the financial planning and strain that will cause. Because frankly, we planned and worked and put ourselves in a place where we could easily handle one and could do two. Three at once is another whole game.

I'm stressed about one thing or three just about any minute of the day and any day of the week. It's draining my energy to make posts here, I know that.

So I think just getting through the next six or so months is goal enough.

I never assist slavers

Yesterday's post got me thinking about the way I play video games. I thought I had posted on this before, but I couldn't find anything on it, so here goes:

No matter my intentions going into a game, I always play the "good" guy.

I play a lot of games that permit choice - you can rob, kill, help out the bad guys, or run errands to help a town whose water supply is poisoned, a person held captive or cursed, what have you. Pretty much no matter the setting - outer space, post-apocalypse Washington, New Vegas, or mythical land - I choose to help out the good guys. Sometimes I do it with a gruff attitude and with little leeway for what my character will put up with and little remorse for negative consequences, but I almost always chose to try to help. Sometimes I'm what you might call a reluctant good guy, but I'm always what you would call - I think - a good guy.

- I never assist slavers. In fact I relish in wiping them out.
- I never provide comfort the the bad guys. I don't always actively wipe them out (until they turn actively hostile), but I don't help them.
- I usually donate money to the poor, and though I usually suspect there is some "in game" angle, I do so even when there isn't an obvious end game in the game.

This isn't to toot my own horn. I actually think the behavior cuts both ways - its a pro and a con, in other words. It shows both what is best and what is worst about me. And sometimes, it reflects the moral black and whiteness that composes the gray of my real life, as it did with Boone. Because although he had murdered woman and children, he regretted it now and I took him on as an ally. I helped him kill the person who sold his wife into slavery (the laws of good and bad are a little loose in post-apocalyptic worlds missing a court system, in my estimation). I genuinely wanted to help him wipe out the Legion who had taken his wife. And I was sorry to see him die.

And its not just companions in general - I got a second, a robot, and lost him in the first mission with little remorse. I'm now on my third companion, mostly because I know want a companion in tow. Partly for the company, partly for the help carrying stuff and partly because I'd like to replace Boone. But she's kind of annoying.

Another example: I freed some slaves from the first batch of Legion I happened upon. Boone was in tow, though I had stowed him away up on a cliff. This was both to prevent him from dying in a battle against unknown forces and also benefited his style. But as the family fled a soldier I missed started shooting at them. I killed him, but not before he took out the mother. That broke my heart and I kicked myself for it. I couldn't find the other two, so I assume they got away. But I honestly wished I could have protected her.

It's an interesting psychological study, I think. Or maybe I just don't get out enough.

Boone has died

... and with those words I had a very weird experience.

Boone, I should explain, was a companion in the game Fallout III: New Vegas. He had been with me for about half of the game at that point. He was quiet and personal and conflicted: not only had he participated in slaughter as a military man, his wife had been sold to slavers and he killed her to save her. His was a sad story of regret, loss and the resulting demons.

My affection for him was heightened because he had helped me out of several tight spots in the game and I gave him all the scavenged stuff to carry, effectively doubling my carrying capacity.

But then I made a bad decision and we ended up in the middle of a pack of wild dogs. Close combat where Boone's sniper rifle skills amounted to very little help. And then he was dead. And I was actually a little moved. Not to tears; I wasn't really sad. But I certainly felt a sense of loss. I felt enough that I ceremoniously dropped a hat he had given me with his corpse and placed his sniper rifle in an unused locker in the shack I use as home base. Then I took a moment and moved on. He had just gotten finished telling me that he felt bad things were due him because of the bad things he had done. I guess he was correct.

Miss Takes

Posting again about yesterday's error because my comment got a little long:

The misspelling is unacceptable (especially in today's world of spellcheck; unless "presindet" is a word). As an editor I'm sure that is what sticks in my commentor's craw the most.

For me, though, its the content. Spelling mistakes, regretablly, happen. But either we are getting enough calcium or we aren't. To say we aren't, and then quote a reputable source as saying we are, well, what should I believe - and is the article worth anything?

This error actually smells of writer bias to me: the "we don't get enough" line was probably written as the story idea/hook, then the author found out that, oops, we actually do get enough. Both lines stayed in the story. Its just sad that either the author and editor missed it, or left it in because the "shortage" line creates drama.

This happens in drug stories A LOT, too. Legit news outlets run stories about "Pill Parties" where kids just bring pills, put them in a bowl, and then pass the bowl around. None of the stories ever have a witness account by either the journalist or a student. And yet they publish them - mostly based on a "crazy drugged out kids" meme that isn't true and in the case of Pill Parties certainly has no evidence to back it up. But the author follows this bias, possibly without even knowing it exists, without thinking about the flaws in this story. And the flaws go way, WAY, beyond not having a real source outside of other news stories and third hand reports. Just think about what would have to occur for this type of conduct to exist. It just doesn't make sense if you think about it for more than two minutes.

Writing and editing failure

A WebMD story featured this as its second sentence:

Although Americans have improved their calcium intake in recent years, we're still not getting enough to maintain our bone health.

Ooooh. Scary. We should rush out and buy some calcium supplements straight off.

Or should we? This is from the fourth graph of the story:

The Institute of Medicine notes that most in the US get enough calcium except for girls 9 to 18 years old.

So which is it? Or is the "we're" in we're still not getting enough referring only to 9 to 17 year-old girls? The article is written by a woman, but since it is unlikely she's between those ages, and since its not a women's or girl's magazine, I'd assume the "we're" refers to the previous "Americans have improved" line.

I suppose you could argue that calcium is a bigger issue for women, especially at that age when bone is being grown and cemented for later on in life, and thus that the "we're" is referring to women in the group with the largest risk of calcium deficiency. But if that's the case, the "Americans have improved" should probably be "America women have improved."

Someone (the writer? the editor?) messed up here. And it wouldn't be such a big issue if plenty of health-scare/drug-scare stories didn't often have holes this big in them.

Something... religious

I'm talking about The Road. The trip through the book in two words: seriously good.

Short, sharp sentences create the perfect sense of setting for this post-apocolyptic novel. McCarthy adds to that setting by using archaic words for certain things to really slam home the idea that things are different in this world. It gives the setting a true sense of self: these things he is describing, you know them; you've probably heard the word, but maybe can't quite place it. It's spot on: this is a world you know, but can't quite place as the one you live in. I think this also adds to the feeling that things are breaking down. The current words are no longer "the" words.

McCarthy also forgoes several forms of puncuation mostly commas and parenthesis. And while he uses contractions such as can't and don't, he cant seem to fit in the apostrophe. This was, at first blush, troubling. But I eventually became accustomed to the style. And I think it makes sense: it once again lends itself to the breakdown in society, post-apocolyptic scene; one where contractions would exist but an apostrophe would mean little.

That's not to say that I found it all perfect. The smashing together of words was a littleoverdone. It seemed like a failed attempt to add to the scene, but not only was it seemingly random, I'm not sure what it was trying to say. In the post-apocolyptic future words are said together, faster? What?

I've seen complaints that the dialogue is overly simple and blocky. Whether you agree with the style or not, I think the it represents a purposeful choice. In a post-apocolyptic world devoid of almost any life and in which survival is goal A, B and C, conversation would be limited and simple, I imagine. The boy and father spend literally all their time together, and without neighbors, work, art or any of the other peripherals of life, there would be precious little to discuss.

And while some complained about the repetitive use of ash and grayness, I have news for you - in what appears to have been a post-nuclear winter world, ash and gray are probably not only paramount in your mind, but just about the only thing in your vision. You may not like the ascetic, but I don't think you can complain about the choice. It's like reading a Stephen King novel and complaining about the horrors explained within. Or reading Grisham and complaining about all the legal aspects.

I loved the immersion I got out of this book enough that I immediately searched On Demand to see if the movie was playing. Sadly, it was not, but I'm going to keep my eye out for it.

Boys will be Xs, but Y is that?

In this case, at least.

I'm foregoing the usual Religion/Buddhist Thursday post to comment on the linked article. Its about three people - two brothers and a paternal uncle. The brothers are married to women.

All three have all the traits of being male. As the article states:

Both brothers are married to women, and they and their uncle have the sexual anatomy, behavior, growth, and skeletal development of males. All have normal health and intelligence.

Except that all three lack the Y chromosome that makes a male a male. Instead, they have two X chromosomes, the genetic marker of women.

Holy Shirts and Teas

Because I'm too busy to post the post I should post (on 2011 resolutions) that everyone else has already posted, and too void of ideas to post anything else, I'll post these links, which are neat:

The (apparent) bible on how to make a proper cup of tea from Slate.com. Sad to know that my first steeping has apparently been wrong all this time. I'm torn about the article though: I understand it needs to have a wide, broad audience, and thus delving into the nuances of black and green is probably unwarranted. But at the same time, simply stating that tea should be brewed with boiling water without comment about those nuances makes me question the author. Not more than the fact that tea bags are actually discussed as a proper form of tea, but some.

Since lots of people probably got shirts this Christmas: An article on why men should untuck their shirts and leave them that way. Yes, Craig, I'm looking at you.