Beer is an interesting beverage. Why do people order just one? If you're just going to order one beer, you might as well just have a water. Or a more delicious root beer.
I was at happy hour today, and got a burger, and then I got a beer, without thinking. Very automatic response. HOWEVER. If I had thought about the fact that I didn't actually want a beer, I would have ordered a water. but i didnt. And if I hadn't thought about this just now, I would probably continue on in life, just sitting down and ordering beers every time I sat down at a drinking establishment.
Objectively, beer does not taste good. Beer is wonderful, and amazing, and some beers are way better than other beers. But if you had to compare a beer to a delicious iced tea, or lemonade, or hawaiian punch, beer would lose every time. Its just that delicious iced tea, lemonade, and hawaiian punch don't come packed with that feel-good wonderfulness that every beer is guaranteed to come with. And after years of drinking beer while searching for the feel good wonderfulness, one begins to associate the taste of beer with this feeling, and one fools themselves into thinking that beer tastes good. When in reality, it is being drunk that tastes good, not the beer, but we have lost sight of that along the way.
The point is. I am not going to waste my time drinking just one beer anymore. I'm not saying I don't love beers but - if you're not going to drink at least 2, why have any at all? Instead, I am going to make sure that I donate my part to the corn lobby -- dr pepper, here i come (back) !
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
dog dreams
I love watching Napoleon sleep. Sometimes his legs shake a little bit, when he dreams hes running, and his whiskers flutter a bit, when he dreams hes barking. But what could he be dreaming about?
Does he have nightmares? Whats a dog nightmare consist of? Is there a plump, juicy looking bird that is just constantly out of reach (this is actually more like real life for him)?
Does he maybe do the stumble-run ... where you dream you're running, either away from or to something very important, and you have to run fast, but your legs keep stumbling underneath you?
Or maybe theres the recurring nightmare where the laser pointer is on a counter that is just out of reach, and he has to just jump, and keep jumping, and he never gets it (this is real life too).
Whats a good dream consist of? Does he catch his birdie? He would have no real life experience to base this on. Maybe he humps barry in some of his dreams (also real life). Does he dream about Evan, when Evan is gone?
I wonder if dogs that have saved their owners have nightmares that their owners are drowning or suffering again, and they can't do anything to save them. I bet that happens.
But the thing I am most confused about, is how dogs distinguish reality from their dreams. When Napoleon wakes up, after a particularly awesome dream where he is allowed to eat five rare steaks without having to sit or do any tricks for any of them, does he think that experience actually happened? Does it affect the way he perceives the world when hes awake (i.e., thinking he doesn't have to sit for treats)? Or are their dream memories so fuzzy and vague that it can't affect anything when they're awake?
I wonder if the ability to recall dreams is uniquely human. Why do we dream anyway? whats the point? If we sleep without dreams, are we missing out on some crucial bodily function? or...maybe dreams are the necessary ingredient, and not sleep -- perhaps if it were possible to dream without sleeping, then we would fulfill the necessary requirement that we currently attribute to sleep (these would be memory consolidation, categorization, recharge, rest, etc). Not that this is possible. and if it were, nobody would think to separate the two, or even be able to separate the two, for a very long time.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
obesity in the poor
Too many fat people in the world, too many poor fat people in the USA. America is one of the prized few countries where childhood obesity is correlated with poverty. Or at least with not being rich.
(man, my dog is cute)
Sooo what to do, what to do.....
ooooh pick me! pick me!
okay, yes, you, go ahead.
Alter the food stamps program to encourage consumption of healthier, low fat foods. People on food stamps do not get all of their food from the grocery store; rather, they get free food from the grocery store so now they can spend that money on something else (like, perhaps...McDonalds). But what if you could make it so that they didn't buy a McDonald's cheeseburger, and instead, they bought one of those healthy options (i never go to Mickey d's anymore so i actually have no idea what i'm talking about). But, you may ask, why get the healthy option when the fat one is so much more delicious? Because....the healthy option was redeemable with your food stamp card!
So heres the idea. Local and state governments should partner with restaurants and other dining establishments, hold them to a "healthy dining option" standard, and for restaurant items that live up to that standard, allow food stamps consumers to use their food stamps to purchase that item. For example -- a whole foods salad would be redeemable on food stamps (kind of absurd, since whole foods salads are insanely expensive). Or the McDonalds' fresh fruits and yogurts would be redeemable, or their healthy sandwich options. Like Arby's fresh sandwiches.
Eating healthy is expensive. I've been there. I am quite aware of how expensive it is to eat a)organic and b) enough healthy food to fill me up. Essentially, one ends up eating beans every single day of their life, and who in their right mind wants to do that? We weren't on food stamps, because we were intentionally trying to be poor (and who in their right mind wants to do that? yeah. right. www.jesuitvolunteercorps.org, thats who.), but IF we DID have food stamps, it certainly would have been nice if we could have gotten some prepared, healthy food on those stamps. As it was, we couldn't afford anything except beans and rice.
Right now, states and local govts should take advantage of this opportunity to combat childhood obesity and bring some revenue to restaurants offering healthy food items. This not only benefits food stamps users, but the population as a whole; as more restaurants started offering more healthy options, consumers (non-food stamp users) would have more healthy options to choose from.
(man, my dog is cute)
Sooo what to do, what to do.....
ooooh pick me! pick me!
okay, yes, you, go ahead.
Alter the food stamps program to encourage consumption of healthier, low fat foods. People on food stamps do not get all of their food from the grocery store; rather, they get free food from the grocery store so now they can spend that money on something else (like, perhaps...McDonalds). But what if you could make it so that they didn't buy a McDonald's cheeseburger, and instead, they bought one of those healthy options (i never go to Mickey d's anymore so i actually have no idea what i'm talking about). But, you may ask, why get the healthy option when the fat one is so much more delicious? Because....the healthy option was redeemable with your food stamp card!
So heres the idea. Local and state governments should partner with restaurants and other dining establishments, hold them to a "healthy dining option" standard, and for restaurant items that live up to that standard, allow food stamps consumers to use their food stamps to purchase that item. For example -- a whole foods salad would be redeemable on food stamps (kind of absurd, since whole foods salads are insanely expensive). Or the McDonalds' fresh fruits and yogurts would be redeemable, or their healthy sandwich options. Like Arby's fresh sandwiches.
Eating healthy is expensive. I've been there. I am quite aware of how expensive it is to eat a)organic and b) enough healthy food to fill me up. Essentially, one ends up eating beans every single day of their life, and who in their right mind wants to do that? We weren't on food stamps, because we were intentionally trying to be poor (and who in their right mind wants to do that? yeah. right. www.jesuitvolunteercorps.org, thats who.), but IF we DID have food stamps, it certainly would have been nice if we could have gotten some prepared, healthy food on those stamps. As it was, we couldn't afford anything except beans and rice.
Right now, states and local govts should take advantage of this opportunity to combat childhood obesity and bring some revenue to restaurants offering healthy food items. This not only benefits food stamps users, but the population as a whole; as more restaurants started offering more healthy options, consumers (non-food stamp users) would have more healthy options to choose from.
Friday, September 26, 2008
einstein's quest
Tom Friedman came to Duke last week and talked about his answer to everything. Essentially, he believes, there are five or six major problems in the world, and energy independence (cheap, renewable, plentiful electrons, he calls them) is the solution that will make them all go away. Some problems that he labeled were petrodictatorship (the idea that oil enhances powerful dictatorships and reduces freedom), climate change (duh), overpopulation, ( see climate change), and biodiversity. He had many problems, and a single solution that would take care of all of them. Killing six birds with one stone, you might say.
Well, it seems to me that that this six birds one stone idea should apply in many different areas. And it seems that there should be an overarching solution to the many problems ... infinite problems, one solution. Free trade purists have latched on to free trade as the solution that will cure all of the worlds evils - unfortunately, they are wrong, as free trade has proven itself over and over again to be a tool for the rich and powerful, exploiting the poor. Religious zealots have proclaimed that if everyone would just recognize jesus/allah/buddha/whatever other deity, as their lord and savior, then we would have heaven on earth. This is probably true. If everyone was just like Jesus, we would live in a pretty sweet (although sometimes very confusing) world. Unfortunately, nobody is just like Jesus, because nobody is God. We're all human, and we're greedy, we have trouble valuing anothers life as much as we value our own, we're xenophobic, we want many things, etc. And, you know, a lot of people don't believe in Jesus. Its illogical, makes no sense, its unanalytical idealism, and its vaguely southern.
Okay, so whats the solution to the problems?
it appears that the biggest problem is the distribution of wealth, and inequality. We have six billion minds on this earth. but only about 20% of them are actively participating in solution finding, because the other 80% of them have crappy educations, are females in an oppressed world, have underdeveloped brains because of severe malnutrition as a child, or have to spend their time working to survive instead of working to help others survive. But redistributing wealth is silly because it would just get unequally distributed again in the future, or it would piss a lot of people off, or it wouldnt work the same way communism didnt work.
So, what if money just didnt exist? What if everything were free? What if...robots did all the labor, and all humans had to do was consume responsibly, be educated, and every once in a while go update the system?
I guess you would have the problem of overconsumption. But we could just discriminate against fat people, and people who had ginormous houses and lavish things -- bc if money didnt exist, it would mean you didn't earn it -- it would mean you'd taken it away from the common good. It would be socially valuable to live responsibly. People could spend most of their time having fun, or working out, or reading, or watching movies, or whatever. They could still produce, for the social value of fame, they just wouldn't get paid to do it.
this all sounds like an economist's worst nightmare, i'm sure, but eventually we'll get to the point where robots do most of the work, and the person who owns those robots reaps most of the benefits while the workers who were replaced by the robots gets nothing. Taxing the shit out of that capital and redistributing it the poor is one way of dealing with the issue, but that makes people feel worthless and pisses off the robot owners. Lets just eliminate money.
Einstein spent his life on a quest to find the answer to everything. Douglas Adams, in a Hitchikers Guide, said the answer to everything was 42. Adams is one of the only people who has proposed a real solution. I say we take 42, we run with it, and we call it the elimination of money (only after, of course, we can automatize everything, and robots could legitimately produce and make everything we needed sustainably).
Well, it seems to me that that this six birds one stone idea should apply in many different areas. And it seems that there should be an overarching solution to the many problems ... infinite problems, one solution. Free trade purists have latched on to free trade as the solution that will cure all of the worlds evils - unfortunately, they are wrong, as free trade has proven itself over and over again to be a tool for the rich and powerful, exploiting the poor. Religious zealots have proclaimed that if everyone would just recognize jesus/allah/buddha/whatever other deity, as their lord and savior, then we would have heaven on earth. This is probably true. If everyone was just like Jesus, we would live in a pretty sweet (although sometimes very confusing) world. Unfortunately, nobody is just like Jesus, because nobody is God. We're all human, and we're greedy, we have trouble valuing anothers life as much as we value our own, we're xenophobic, we want many things, etc. And, you know, a lot of people don't believe in Jesus. Its illogical, makes no sense, its unanalytical idealism, and its vaguely southern.
Okay, so whats the solution to the problems?
it appears that the biggest problem is the distribution of wealth, and inequality. We have six billion minds on this earth. but only about 20% of them are actively participating in solution finding, because the other 80% of them have crappy educations, are females in an oppressed world, have underdeveloped brains because of severe malnutrition as a child, or have to spend their time working to survive instead of working to help others survive. But redistributing wealth is silly because it would just get unequally distributed again in the future, or it would piss a lot of people off, or it wouldnt work the same way communism didnt work.
So, what if money just didnt exist? What if everything were free? What if...robots did all the labor, and all humans had to do was consume responsibly, be educated, and every once in a while go update the system?
I guess you would have the problem of overconsumption. But we could just discriminate against fat people, and people who had ginormous houses and lavish things -- bc if money didnt exist, it would mean you didn't earn it -- it would mean you'd taken it away from the common good. It would be socially valuable to live responsibly. People could spend most of their time having fun, or working out, or reading, or watching movies, or whatever. They could still produce, for the social value of fame, they just wouldn't get paid to do it.
this all sounds like an economist's worst nightmare, i'm sure, but eventually we'll get to the point where robots do most of the work, and the person who owns those robots reaps most of the benefits while the workers who were replaced by the robots gets nothing. Taxing the shit out of that capital and redistributing it the poor is one way of dealing with the issue, but that makes people feel worthless and pisses off the robot owners. Lets just eliminate money.
Einstein spent his life on a quest to find the answer to everything. Douglas Adams, in a Hitchikers Guide, said the answer to everything was 42. Adams is one of the only people who has proposed a real solution. I say we take 42, we run with it, and we call it the elimination of money (only after, of course, we can automatize everything, and robots could legitimately produce and make everything we needed sustainably).
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
globalization and other worldly matters
I have this awful feeling that i'm going to find the next two years wordier and less number-based than I am accustomed to. I've realized over the last few years that I need data to function. It's like oxygen, or a good plot line. Even though we took a somewhat stupid personality test and it told me I was more convinced with words and verbiage, its totally not true. I am totally down with some good hard number-based facts. I think I'm really going to enjoy econ and stats, and hopefully I'll take a lot more econ as I progress through the years.
Right now we're reading Stiglitz's Making Globalization Work and Bhagwati's In Defense of Globalization in my Globalization and Governance class. It's interesting to read the free trade (bhagwati) debate vs the fair trade (stiglitz) debate. Both authors, in this case, want the same end result -- the elimination of poverty in third world countries, fair arenas in which to perform trade and commerce for all countries, and the proliferation of markets. Both men are economists, and their viewpoints aren't all that mutually exclusive to each other. However, Bhagwati adovcates free trade, and determines that when small farmers can't compete with big multinational farming corporations with their low, subsidized prices, that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank should step in and clean things up. Stiglitz advocates a built in protectionist slant within the trade policy, protecting small, poor countries. He also discusses international trade more from the point of view of the US and discusses very specific trade policy failures and successes, whereas Bhagwati discusses ideas from a much more theoretical, international view.
The problem with relying on the IMF and the World Bank to clean up inevitable problems has multiple consequences. First off, the asymmetries and financial crises are bound to happen under free trade. Bhagwati denounces shock therapy (sudden market liberalization and opening of trade borders) and describes it as a proven method for failure. However, going completely over to free trade would have the same effects.
The analogy to US domestic policy would be similar to what we currently have in place. A capitalistic meritocracy, where everyone looks out for themselves and their prodigy, and then when individuals grow up and find themselves down and out, social safety nets like welfare and medicaid/medicare step in and save them. While theres nothing wrong with the social safety nets, I think we all know that those safety nets are overloaded. They were designed for emergency backup use, not for long term dependency. A much better solution to end poverty in the United States would be to make opportunity fair from the beginning -- revamp public school funding, give poor people better teachers, provide poor individuals with the tools to enter into a meritocratic system on a level playing field. Don't simply leave them in the dust, counting on them to grow up and eventually need to rely on social safety nets.
Stiglitz's advocation to build in protectionist measures to trade agreements in order to allow poor countries to develop slowly and intensively makes much more sense. However, according to Bhagwati, these protectionist measures can not be too pervasive or their economies will fail and they will never be able to reach the exalted capability of trading completely freely.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
new stuff
school starts tomorrow. I've been vacationing/preparing/moving for the last month or so and so I'm all out of sorts. i also dont have a steady internet access right now so its hard for me to do internet-y things. like, theres two sq feet of space in my house where i have steady internet access, and its on the left side of my bed. And the internet guy isnt coming til friday.
Evan and I have decided to get the most adorable puppy in the world, a tiny little 8 week old yorkshire terrier baby. We debated a lot about adopting vs buying from a breeder, and basically decided we wanted both a puppy and a small dog, and that when we had a real yard and less size constraints that wed adopt. We'll adopt for the rest of our lives, after this little guy. We're naming him Napoleon. =) and we're picking him up Friday.
Its been exactly a year since the first day of JVC last year and I'm embarking on a totally new, different experience. So much happens in one year, yet it feels like such a short amount of time...
I'm not in the mood to wax poetic about anything sooo i'll upload a photo of napoleon as soon as evan sends me one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
