Sunday, October 30, 2011

Trick or Trick

Snow before Halloween (just a few inches, but a foot or two and 5 day power failures just a little north); don't like the looks of that, but contrary to public sentiment, we'll probably have a mild winter, which will make my oil bill slightly less painful but hurt all those winter-recreation businesses.  Funny how many people's lives are weather-dependent. Must be awful to be at the vagaries of climate, but then that's the way it's been for most of history.  Many great civilizations have been wiped out because of weather.  Though now ours may be destroyed by man-made causes, as it nearly was with disco.
image from steadfasthomeinventory.com

Labels:

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Because we've always done it this way

What is the answer you usually get when asking about a bad policy or procedure?

And about Jeopardy, it was pretty interesting that a computer beat the best humans.  I remember when a computer beat the world chess champion (having effectively "solved" the game, meaning that every possible move leading to the end of the game could be analyzed at any point).  Now if only a customer service computer menu could provide the least bit of customer service.

 image from mentalfloss.com

Labels: , ,

Sunday, October 16, 2011

NPR

A production meeting at NPR.

"Let's see, we've got a betting scandal on the World Series, the British Prime Minister announcing that Great Britain is pulling out of the European Union, or a debate on which irrigation system to build in a Bolivian village.  Let's go with a half hour on the Bolivian water story.  No, make it an hour, and make sure you get the most soporific speakers available who can blame global warming somehow."


Sorry, no picture with this entry.  Tried to find a photo depicting NPR humor. There don't seem to be any.

Labels:

Sunday, October 09, 2011

The lower crust

It annoys me when people think they are special.  And I'm not writing just about the conspicuously consuming spoiled narcissistic snobs whose coffee must be from a particular freshly ground bean or who must wear particular branded clothing or who are so "outer directed" that they are but hollow shells of humanity.  ("Oh, who cares if  those animals are slaughtered; I must have natural fur to properly warm my body."  Don't think you'll need to keep warm where you're going in the afterlife.)  No, I'm talking about that everyday lout who doesn't eat pizza crusts, takes the middle piece in the cake pan even though the edge piece is next, and in general doesn't adhere to rules or convention because it is not convenient to do so ("Why should I put this back on the shelf where I found it?  I'll just dump this item anywhere, and somebody else will but it away.  They have people for that."  They have people for that because there are selfish immoral people like you.)  Morality for the "special" goes beyond a specialized form of individual utilitarianism to be reduced to "helps me, good; doesn't help me, bad"  After all, they're "special."  Here's the thing:  everybody's special so nobody's special.  So eat the bleeping bread crusts, drink the flipping tap water, stop at the stinking stop sign, and stop being so insufferably prissy and self-indulgent.

image from mypersiankitchen.com

Labels: , ,

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Till death do us part? A license to nil.

This is an idea I've been spouting for many years, and finally somebody has listened.  I suppose it's possible that others actually had this idea as well, especially since there are so few truly novel thoughts (including this one), but I like to think that I started the ball rolling on this one. 

Mexico reportedly is considering a marriage license that is valid for two years:  "The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends," Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman from the Party of the Democratic Revolution who co-authored the bill, told Reuters. "You wouldn't have to go through the tortuous process of divorce.”  The marriage contracts would include detailed provisions on how children and property would be divided up if the marriage ended at the two-year mark, Reuters reports.

Of course a very legitimate argument is why get married at all, but the reality is that there is a significant  social stigma associated with cohabitation.  I actually have a fairly strong bias against cohabitation, but it has moderated a bit over the years to be strong only against those that are young, certainly under 21, and probably under 23-25 or so.  I've heard the argument from young people living together that they do so for economic reasons, but that's nonsense.  If that were the case, then platonic roommates offer a better solution with a very high probability of a less acrimonious break when each goes their separate way, which is the very likely conclusion.  Parenthetically, I've read that those who live together prior to marriage remarkably have a higher divorce  than those who do not live together first. Cohabitating  at a young age is at best just playing house, and at worst prostitution.  But once you're an adult, do what you want, though I think if you're going to have kids, you should be married, generally.

So while you might think that dating and engagements serve the purpose of this "probationary" period, the fact is that you never really know your spouse until after you've been married for a while, and besides that truism it often happens that people change, sometimes not in compatible ways.  (One of my all-time favorite cliches is that "A woman marries a man hoping that he will change, and a man marries a woman hoping that she never will.  Both are usually disappointed.")  Really what we're talking about here is immaturity and unrealistic expectations.  But maybe that will change somewhat now that people are getting married so much later.(I've read that 29 is now the average age for first marriages for both genders- kind of hard to believe, but perhaps a good sign)
I think I'd make the marriage license period longer, but regardless of the length, this has no chance of passing, of course, because it makes too much sense.  Besides, Mexico is predominantly Catholic, and think of all the money the lawyers would lose.

image from brideminders.com

Labels: