Saturday, June 28, 2008
I drove to Rochester yesterday afternoon, checked into a hotel, spent some time in the whirlpool, watched a DVD movie, ate takeout ribs.
Today was Jay's father's memorial service, with a reception in the church hall afterwards. Daughter and Hercules also came. (It's like an 8-hour drive for them.) The church (Presbyterian) is huge and fancy, but not air conditioned. A lot of people attended the service, but the reception was sparsely attended. The oldest daughter expressed disappointment. I pointed out that at 91, he'd outlived all his friends, but I think the sweat pouring down my face might have had something to do with it, too.
The family was going out for dinner afterward. I didn't want to go with them. There's one person who seems to intensely dislike me, and when he's around his wife and daughters are also rather cold to me (they're merely politely cool when he's not around), and I see no reason to subject myself to that. Jay didn't like this guy, his brother-in-law, for several reasons. I was willing to give him a chance, but then I learned about him for myself, and Jay was right.
The guy is a snake. I can usually find something to respect about anyone, but this guy? No. He's a me me me person, the kind who will do exactly what he wants without considering the effect his actions might have on others. (He has a very different view of himself. Sorta like people who lie and cheat all week, but think they're good because they go to church every Sunday and contribute to the building fund.) We were all there to celebrate Dad's life. From some things he has said, I know without a doubt that this guy was there to celebrate Dad's death. He's tickled pink at getting rid of an annoyance.
Aaaaagh! I'm angry. Almost everyone who spoke at the service mentioned Dad's little dog, who went with him everywhere. A mini-Schnauzer. He loved that little beasty, and was worried about what would happen to her when he couldn't care for her. The snake promised Dad that she would have a home with his family.
She has been sent to a Schnauzer rescue group. So much for deathbed promises. Pissed me off royally.
Ah, well.
The mountain falls where Jay's ashes are is three hours south of Rochester, so I've decided to visit Jay tomorrow. I'm currently in a hotel in Corning, halfway between Rochester and the mountain.
I've got a lot to ask him.
.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
1880 The Worm Turned
Friday, June 27, 2008 (wee hours am)
Cyndi Lauper is five years older than Madonna. They both released their debut albums in 1983. They sounded a lot alike, to this untutored ear, anyway. They sang a lot of the same kinds of songs.
I liked Cyndi better. She looked kind of punk, dressed from thrift shops and looked it, had pink hair before it was popular, all of which seemed to make her more real, more honest. She was outrageous, but it was always obviously a part of her. I thought she was fun.
Madonna was too slick for me. Too calculated. She was outrageous, too, but it was carefully calculated outrageousness. I would not use the words real, honest, or fun to describe Madonna.
Consequently, Madonna's star rose. Cyndi's never fell - she has worked steadily and has had a strong fan base all along, but it was Madonna who got all the press, all the flashbulbs.
Funniest thing - I am hearing that now, at 50, Madonna's crown is slipping. Critics have called her latest album "desperate". People are saying she looks hard, is not aging well. At the same time, I am suddenly seeing Cyndi Lauper everywhere.
And by damn, at 55, she's sounding and looking about the same as ever, still full of giggles and energy.
I say good for you, Cyndi. It's about time you got some attention.
-------------------------
Musing:
Madonna based her whole career on sex appeal. Cindi's was more sexy fun. Maybe there's a lesson there, as to which lasts longer.
Oh, and one thing I will forever blame on Madonna - she's the one who started this underware-on-the-outside fashion. I hate hate hate seeing women walking around in what look to me like slips! Or with a bra showing, like it's too pretty to hide or something. That's all her fault. She started it.
.
Cyndi Lauper is five years older than Madonna. They both released their debut albums in 1983. They sounded a lot alike, to this untutored ear, anyway. They sang a lot of the same kinds of songs.
I liked Cyndi better. She looked kind of punk, dressed from thrift shops and looked it, had pink hair before it was popular, all of which seemed to make her more real, more honest. She was outrageous, but it was always obviously a part of her. I thought she was fun.
Madonna was too slick for me. Too calculated. She was outrageous, too, but it was carefully calculated outrageousness. I would not use the words real, honest, or fun to describe Madonna.
Consequently, Madonna's star rose. Cyndi's never fell - she has worked steadily and has had a strong fan base all along, but it was Madonna who got all the press, all the flashbulbs.
Funniest thing - I am hearing that now, at 50, Madonna's crown is slipping. Critics have called her latest album "desperate". People are saying she looks hard, is not aging well. At the same time, I am suddenly seeing Cyndi Lauper everywhere.
And by damn, at 55, she's sounding and looking about the same as ever, still full of giggles and energy.
I say good for you, Cyndi. It's about time you got some attention.
-------------------------
Musing:
Madonna based her whole career on sex appeal. Cindi's was more sexy fun. Maybe there's a lesson there, as to which lasts longer.
Oh, and one thing I will forever blame on Madonna - she's the one who started this underware-on-the-outside fashion. I hate hate hate seeing women walking around in what look to me like slips! Or with a bra showing, like it's too pretty to hide or something. That's all her fault. She started it.
.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
1879 Kitty Update
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Well, it's a little over 10 months since I captured and adopted Jasper. He weighed about 5 lbs then. He had tiny feet, so I figured he'd stay small as an adult.
He now weighs 15 lbs! Which is a LOT when he's hanging by one claw from the back of my pants.
He still has tiny feet.
.
Well, it's a little over 10 months since I captured and adopted Jasper. He weighed about 5 lbs then. He had tiny feet, so I figured he'd stay small as an adult.
He now weighs 15 lbs! Which is a LOT when he's hanging by one claw from the back of my pants.
He still has tiny feet.
.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
1878 I'm Feeling Bitchy
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
I'm really feeling nasty lately, like all my famous calm and cool has fled, and everything is bugging me. It's been building and building over several months. I want to snap at everyone and everything. I have no patience left. "Damn it, do it right or get out of my way!"
I think it might be because there's someone important to me with whom I have been very patient. (My first word choice there was "forgiving", but actually, there's been nothing to forgive. He/she has done nothing wrong, technically.) Anyway, every bit of my patience and understanding and tongue-biting has gone that direction, and there's none left for anywhere else. I know this person is doing the best he/she can, so I've tried very hard to understand, but, well, it's just one thing after another. Our relationship is such that I can't (yet?) bring myself to say "I've had it. I quit." It's like the little girl with the little curl - when it's good it's very very good, but when it's bad it's horrid.
I've tried to diffuse it by writing that person castigating letters, and then not sending them. That works to get me to sleep on nights when my mind keeps going in circles, when I'm angry getting it out does help, but it does nothing for the bigger problem.
I need to handle this differently. I need to learn a new approach. Maybe all it will take is redefining terms, or expectations. Until then, I'll be pretty pissy.
--------------------------
So, I've a few things right now that are annoying me beyond their worth.
1.) A friend had a party a while ago, and I just found out about it. He said he was sorry I wasn't able to attend. I said I hadn't been aware of it. It turns out that he had called another person to get my phone number (remember my "psycho ex-girlfriend"? Her. I had just made it clear to her, again, that I can't be pals with her because she's toxic to me), and she told him not to worry, she'd call me and invite me. She didn't, and I suspect she had no intention of doing so.
This thoroughly pisses me off.
But saying anything will only escalate hostilities.
2.) We know how little respect I have for the vaulted Mensa IQ. I value intelligence, and I've found it everywhere, inside and outside of Mensa. Some of the deepest stupidity is to be found within Mensa, mainly because some people are so convinced they're brilliant that they must therefore be right, and won't listen to anything that doesn't fit with their own conclusions.
We have a Yahoo Group for the local Mensa, for discussions, news, activities, and so on. I have decided I am never ever EVER going to post anything there ever ever again, no matter how tempting. No matter how carefully you explain something, there will always be at least one person (and always one particular person) who obviously didn't read the whole message and goes off half-cocked, and no matter how much you try to explain it better, she obviously doesn't let anything get past her initial misunderstanding. I've given up and let her have her way more often than I can stand, but no more. I quit.
This situation thoroughly pisses me off.
But saying anything is futile.
3.) There's another more national Mensa Group I follow. The best of the best, don't you know. Brilliant minds all, of course, just ask them. Someone posted a puzzle she had read but couldn't solve, requesting an answer: "You have a piece of rope that just fits around the Earth. If you put 1-metre high sticks right around the equator and lay the rope on top, how much longer does the rope need to be to make ends meet?"
I was amazed and disgusted by the stupidity exhibited in the responses. (As I said, I'm feeling especially bitchy.)
Oh! My! God! How did these people get into Mensa? Some obviously didn't really read the question. Some read too much into it. Still others didn't carefully read the explanation when the correct answer was given, and continued to argue. The last guy up there had the general idea, but 1) he used the formula for the area of a circle instead of for the circumference, both of which he'd learned in grade school, and 2) even if we were after the area (somehow), you don't square Pi! Ever! All of which is especially egregious since the correct answer and explanation had already been given, but by damn he knew HE was right, so he had to "correct" everyone! Without, of course, crediting, understanding, or checking the previous answer.
But rest assured - no one's faith in their superiority will be in the least bit shaken. Just ask them.
That thoroughly pisses me off.
But saying anything is shouting down a well.
(And before a lurker leaves a comment accusing me of the same attitude, the original name of this blog was "I Don't Understand". There are a lot of things I will admit I don't understand, but at least I'm willing to listen, question, examine, and try to learn.)
I have more faith in the people reading this post. The problem is very simple. There's no trick. It doesn't require anything more than remembering how to find the circumference of a circle.
Go think about it a bit. You might have to quickly review the definitions of and the relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference, and draw a few pictures.
.
. Answer and math lesson follow the pause.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Hint: Circumference (distance around) = Pi times the diameter (distance across the middle), where we'll use 3.14159 for Pi. Think about what the sticks are doing.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Another hint: The diameter or circumference of the earth isn't given in the problem, so it probably doesn't matter. So give the earth a circumference of, oh, say, zero, and then consider whether that changes anything.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer:
Forget the rope. Think of how the sticks increased the diameter, and therefore the circumference.
The diameter has been increased by 2 meters, i.e. by one stick-worth on either end of the diameter.
Since the circumference is Pi times the diameter, and we have increased the diameter by 2 meters, then the increase in the circumference is Pi times 2, or 3.14159 times 2, or 6.28318 more meters ...
... no matter where you swing the diameter (around the equator, pole to pole, or at an odd angle, just so it goes through the center), no matter what the true diameter or circumference of the earth is. In fact, you could use the moon or a marble or an atom instead of the earth, and the increase would still be 6.28318 meters.
Math lesson:
Like the guy in the list above, I sometimes confuse the formula for circumference with the formula for area of a circle, and forget when to use the diameter and when to use the radius. It's easy to forget. Unlike a square, you can't figure a circle out out just by looking, and sometimes we get confused.
Here's how I remember, by comparing the circle to a square.
Draw a square.
Now draw a circle inside the square, with the sides of the circle touching the sides of the square.
Draw a line across the center of the circle. This is the diameter of the circle. We'll call it "D" for short. The radius (or "R") is half that - the distance from the center to the edge.
Note that "D" is also the length of each side of the square.
Distance around - circumference:
Finding the distance around a square (perimeter) is easy. Just imagine walking around it. It's D+D+D+D, or 4 times D.
Notice that the distance around (circumference of) the circle is obviously less than the perimeter of the square - we cut the corners when we walk around it. So it will be like 4 times D, but somewhat less than 4 times D. How much less? That's that famous magic Pi you hear of in school. Pi is (rounded off) 3.14. So Circumference = 3.14 times D.
(This isn't an explanation why, it's just a way to remember the formula....)
Two radii make one diameter. So we can also say Circumference = 3.14 times 2R.
Now for the area.
Finding the area of a square is easy. It's D times D. (If the square is 6 feet by 6 feet, then it's 6 times 6 or 36 square feet. We do this all the time with flooring and paint estimates.)
Notice that the area of the circle is somewhat less than the area of the square, again because we're leaving out the corners.
We know the area of the square is D times D, or D squared. We know the area of the circle will be less, and we suspect that 3.14, Pi, is going to be involved again, but how? Well, it would be nice if we could just multiply D times D, and then multiple that by 3.14, but, uh, it should be obvious that's going to be waaaaaay too big. Maybe we could divide D times D by 3.14? Nope, that will come out too small. It's apparent just by looking that the area of the circle is lots more than one third of the area of the square.
We've gotta get that "4" in there somehow, so the 3.14 can be less.
Mentally redraw the circle in the square, and this time we'll concentrate on the radius.
Now it's easy to see that the area of the square is 4 R squares, or equal to 2R times 2R, or 4 times R-squared. Whoop! It's also apparent that the area of the circle is slightly less than that, or (our magic number, Pi) 3.14 times R-squared!
The area of a circle is 3.14 times R-squared.
(Again, not an explanation, but a way to remember it. And sorry about the made-up notation, but I'm not excited about messing with fonts to get the superscript for "squared". You know what I mean, right?)
Ok. No more excuses for forgetting the formulae for the circumference and area of a circle. Just think of it in relation to a square.
.
I'm really feeling nasty lately, like all my famous calm and cool has fled, and everything is bugging me. It's been building and building over several months. I want to snap at everyone and everything. I have no patience left. "Damn it, do it right or get out of my way!"
I think it might be because there's someone important to me with whom I have been very patient. (My first word choice there was "forgiving", but actually, there's been nothing to forgive. He/she has done nothing wrong, technically.) Anyway, every bit of my patience and understanding and tongue-biting has gone that direction, and there's none left for anywhere else. I know this person is doing the best he/she can, so I've tried very hard to understand, but, well, it's just one thing after another. Our relationship is such that I can't (yet?) bring myself to say "I've had it. I quit." It's like the little girl with the little curl - when it's good it's very very good, but when it's bad it's horrid.
I've tried to diffuse it by writing that person castigating letters, and then not sending them. That works to get me to sleep on nights when my mind keeps going in circles, when I'm angry getting it out does help, but it does nothing for the bigger problem.
I need to handle this differently. I need to learn a new approach. Maybe all it will take is redefining terms, or expectations. Until then, I'll be pretty pissy.
--------------------------
So, I've a few things right now that are annoying me beyond their worth.
1.) A friend had a party a while ago, and I just found out about it. He said he was sorry I wasn't able to attend. I said I hadn't been aware of it. It turns out that he had called another person to get my phone number (remember my "psycho ex-girlfriend"? Her. I had just made it clear to her, again, that I can't be pals with her because she's toxic to me), and she told him not to worry, she'd call me and invite me. She didn't, and I suspect she had no intention of doing so.
This thoroughly pisses me off.
But saying anything will only escalate hostilities.
2.) We know how little respect I have for the vaulted Mensa IQ. I value intelligence, and I've found it everywhere, inside and outside of Mensa. Some of the deepest stupidity is to be found within Mensa, mainly because some people are so convinced they're brilliant that they must therefore be right, and won't listen to anything that doesn't fit with their own conclusions.
We have a Yahoo Group for the local Mensa, for discussions, news, activities, and so on. I have decided I am never ever EVER going to post anything there ever ever again, no matter how tempting. No matter how carefully you explain something, there will always be at least one person (and always one particular person) who obviously didn't read the whole message and goes off half-cocked, and no matter how much you try to explain it better, she obviously doesn't let anything get past her initial misunderstanding. I've given up and let her have her way more often than I can stand, but no more. I quit.
This situation thoroughly pisses me off.
But saying anything is futile.
3.) There's another more national Mensa Group I follow. The best of the best, don't you know. Brilliant minds all, of course, just ask them. Someone posted a puzzle she had read but couldn't solve, requesting an answer: "You have a piece of rope that just fits around the Earth. If you put 1-metre high sticks right around the equator and lay the rope on top, how much longer does the rope need to be to make ends meet?"
I was amazed and disgusted by the stupidity exhibited in the responses. (As I said, I'm feeling especially bitchy.)
- "The answer depends on what number you use for the circumference of the earth, and that's in dispute."
- "Wouldn't you need to know the thickness of the sticks?"
- "okay, i am not good at spatial relations, so i'm not getting this. if the stick is 1 meter high, how does that add 2 meters to the diameter? I understand it's 2, because there's one on each side, but I don't understand what height of the stick has to do with the diameter." [Silk says - OMG! Read her last sentence again! She understands NOTHING!]
- "First- how do you know the stick is vertical, it never says so in the question. Second- why doesn't the thickness matter? If it's thicker, that would make it stick out farther, right? thus using more rope?" [Silk says - It doesn't matter. Reread the question. Did you miss the word "high"? What does "high" mean to you? The rope is raised 1 meter no matter how you set or lay the sticks.]
- "If C=piRsquared R is increased by 1 meter pi (3.14)x1 squared = 9.859 meters"
Oh! My! God! How did these people get into Mensa? Some obviously didn't really read the question. Some read too much into it. Still others didn't carefully read the explanation when the correct answer was given, and continued to argue. The last guy up there had the general idea, but 1) he used the formula for the area of a circle instead of for the circumference, both of which he'd learned in grade school, and 2) even if we were after the area (somehow), you don't square Pi! Ever! All of which is especially egregious since the correct answer and explanation had already been given, but by damn he knew HE was right, so he had to "correct" everyone! Without, of course, crediting, understanding, or checking the previous answer.
But rest assured - no one's faith in their superiority will be in the least bit shaken. Just ask them.
That thoroughly pisses me off.
But saying anything is shouting down a well.
(And before a lurker leaves a comment accusing me of the same attitude, the original name of this blog was "I Don't Understand". There are a lot of things I will admit I don't understand, but at least I'm willing to listen, question, examine, and try to learn.)
I have more faith in the people reading this post. The problem is very simple. There's no trick. It doesn't require anything more than remembering how to find the circumference of a circle.
Go think about it a bit. You might have to quickly review the definitions of and the relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference, and draw a few pictures.
.
. Answer and math lesson follow the pause.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Hint: Circumference (distance around) = Pi times the diameter (distance across the middle), where we'll use 3.14159 for Pi. Think about what the sticks are doing.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Another hint: The diameter or circumference of the earth isn't given in the problem, so it probably doesn't matter. So give the earth a circumference of, oh, say, zero, and then consider whether that changes anything.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer:
Forget the rope. Think of how the sticks increased the diameter, and therefore the circumference.
The diameter has been increased by 2 meters, i.e. by one stick-worth on either end of the diameter.
Since the circumference is Pi times the diameter, and we have increased the diameter by 2 meters, then the increase in the circumference is Pi times 2, or 3.14159 times 2, or 6.28318 more meters ...
... no matter where you swing the diameter (around the equator, pole to pole, or at an odd angle, just so it goes through the center), no matter what the true diameter or circumference of the earth is. In fact, you could use the moon or a marble or an atom instead of the earth, and the increase would still be 6.28318 meters.
Math lesson:
Like the guy in the list above, I sometimes confuse the formula for circumference with the formula for area of a circle, and forget when to use the diameter and when to use the radius. It's easy to forget. Unlike a square, you can't figure a circle out out just by looking, and sometimes we get confused.
Here's how I remember, by comparing the circle to a square.
Draw a square.
Now draw a circle inside the square, with the sides of the circle touching the sides of the square.
Draw a line across the center of the circle. This is the diameter of the circle. We'll call it "D" for short. The radius (or "R") is half that - the distance from the center to the edge.
Note that "D" is also the length of each side of the square.
Distance around - circumference:
Finding the distance around a square (perimeter) is easy. Just imagine walking around it. It's D+D+D+D, or 4 times D.
Notice that the distance around (circumference of) the circle is obviously less than the perimeter of the square - we cut the corners when we walk around it. So it will be like 4 times D, but somewhat less than 4 times D. How much less? That's that famous magic Pi you hear of in school. Pi is (rounded off) 3.14. So Circumference = 3.14 times D.
(This isn't an explanation why, it's just a way to remember the formula....)
Two radii make one diameter. So we can also say Circumference = 3.14 times 2R.
Now for the area.
Finding the area of a square is easy. It's D times D. (If the square is 6 feet by 6 feet, then it's 6 times 6 or 36 square feet. We do this all the time with flooring and paint estimates.)
Notice that the area of the circle is somewhat less than the area of the square, again because we're leaving out the corners.
We know the area of the square is D times D, or D squared. We know the area of the circle will be less, and we suspect that 3.14, Pi, is going to be involved again, but how? Well, it would be nice if we could just multiply D times D, and then multiple that by 3.14, but, uh, it should be obvious that's going to be waaaaaay too big. Maybe we could divide D times D by 3.14? Nope, that will come out too small. It's apparent just by looking that the area of the circle is lots more than one third of the area of the square.
We've gotta get that "4" in there somehow, so the 3.14 can be less.
Mentally redraw the circle in the square, and this time we'll concentrate on the radius.
Now it's easy to see that the area of the square is 4 R squares, or equal to 2R times 2R, or 4 times R-squared. Whoop! It's also apparent that the area of the circle is slightly less than that, or (our magic number, Pi) 3.14 times R-squared!
The area of a circle is 3.14 times R-squared.
(Again, not an explanation, but a way to remember it. And sorry about the made-up notation, but I'm not excited about messing with fonts to get the superscript for "squared". You know what I mean, right?)
Ok. No more excuses for forgetting the formulae for the circumference and area of a circle. Just think of it in relation to a square.
.
1877 Gloom and Doom
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
[Rant on]
I'm reading a lot about how people can't afford the necessities and how it's going to get worse. About how families have to decide between filling the gas tank or filling the grocery cart. Mostly, it ticks me off.
Ok, yeah, there are families that are living hand-to-mouth, day-to-day, and they're not the ones that bug me. It's the ones that make bad financial decisions to start with that really get me going.
The ones with the huge cars, and iPods, and Sirius, and fancy cell phones with expensive phone plans and who don't pay attention to how much they use them, and "name" athletic shoes, and rotating wardrobes. Like the recently seen couple who "cannot afford health insurance", with the kids on Wii on a 5-foot-wide TV in the background of the interview.
People might say, "Well, you're financially comfortable. You don't understand."
These are usually people whose grocery carts are full of snacks and expensive ready-prepared foods, at $7 per person per meal, instead of the fresh vegetables and meats that will run $2-3 per meal. The same folks who will pay $6 for a cup of fancy coffee, and pay for it out of a designer purse. Please! You can afford groceries. You just can't afford YOUR groceries, and you certainly can't afford that purse.
Some people seem to think that they need everything new that comes along. If something is advertised as "better", faster, bigger, they think they need it. Who really needs an SUV?! A Hummer?! Come on! Sheep led by corporate advertising, that's who.
All bull poopy. How do you GET comfortable, and BE comfortable with what you have? You understand the difference between "want" and "need". That's how.
I don't need cable. I don't need an iPod, or a phone that takes pictures, or texting on my cell phone. In fact, I don't need the cell phone. The only time I turn it on is when I travel, and it's more for the convenience of others than my own.
My car is five years old. I bought it used two years ago for $9,000. My thinking included not only the cost of the car, but the ongoing cost to insure it. It works just fine - more than meets my needs.
I have a lot of clothes and shoes, I'll admit. But what most people don't notice is that a large portion of my closet is ten, twenty, or even thirty years old, because I don't buy "fashion", I buy classic. And I see no need to pay retail.
My house is furnished in antiques, purchased at local estate auctions for less than I'd pay for new furniture of equivalent quality and craftsmanship. It's sturdy, strong, and never goes out of fashion.
When Jay was job-hunting around the country, we looked at houses hither and yon. He'd point to McMansions, and say, "We can afford that." My response was always, "That's more space than we need, and I'd have to clean it all! No way!" I cannot understand why people buy more house than they need. And don't tell me it's an investment. It's an investment only if you pay cash. If you've got a mortgage, you'll spend more than you'll ever make on it - unless you pay the mortgage off early, which I have always done, and Daughter and Hercules are doing now (I've taught her well).
Yes, I have four television sets, but I didn't pay more than $200 for any of them.
Yes, I do treat myself well. I do buy some things I merely want, like my Pleo Clyde, and the recent Waterford lamp. (Note that in neither case did it cost more than half retail.) And one of these days I will present myself with a swoopy sportscar, just 'cause I want it.
That's the one argument I have over and over with Piper. He chides me for never spending principal, only income. He says I could afford almost anything I want. I respond that I have everything I need, precisely because I don't buy everything I want.
[Rant off]
.
[Rant on]
I'm reading a lot about how people can't afford the necessities and how it's going to get worse. About how families have to decide between filling the gas tank or filling the grocery cart. Mostly, it ticks me off.
Ok, yeah, there are families that are living hand-to-mouth, day-to-day, and they're not the ones that bug me. It's the ones that make bad financial decisions to start with that really get me going.
The ones with the huge cars, and iPods, and Sirius, and fancy cell phones with expensive phone plans and who don't pay attention to how much they use them, and "name" athletic shoes, and rotating wardrobes. Like the recently seen couple who "cannot afford health insurance", with the kids on Wii on a 5-foot-wide TV in the background of the interview.
People might say, "Well, you're financially comfortable. You don't understand."
These are usually people whose grocery carts are full of snacks and expensive ready-prepared foods, at $7 per person per meal, instead of the fresh vegetables and meats that will run $2-3 per meal. The same folks who will pay $6 for a cup of fancy coffee, and pay for it out of a designer purse. Please! You can afford groceries. You just can't afford YOUR groceries, and you certainly can't afford that purse.
Some people seem to think that they need everything new that comes along. If something is advertised as "better", faster, bigger, they think they need it. Who really needs an SUV?! A Hummer?! Come on! Sheep led by corporate advertising, that's who.
All bull poopy. How do you GET comfortable, and BE comfortable with what you have? You understand the difference between "want" and "need". That's how.
I don't need cable. I don't need an iPod, or a phone that takes pictures, or texting on my cell phone. In fact, I don't need the cell phone. The only time I turn it on is when I travel, and it's more for the convenience of others than my own.
My car is five years old. I bought it used two years ago for $9,000. My thinking included not only the cost of the car, but the ongoing cost to insure it. It works just fine - more than meets my needs.
I have a lot of clothes and shoes, I'll admit. But what most people don't notice is that a large portion of my closet is ten, twenty, or even thirty years old, because I don't buy "fashion", I buy classic. And I see no need to pay retail.
My house is furnished in antiques, purchased at local estate auctions for less than I'd pay for new furniture of equivalent quality and craftsmanship. It's sturdy, strong, and never goes out of fashion.
When Jay was job-hunting around the country, we looked at houses hither and yon. He'd point to McMansions, and say, "We can afford that." My response was always, "That's more space than we need, and I'd have to clean it all! No way!" I cannot understand why people buy more house than they need. And don't tell me it's an investment. It's an investment only if you pay cash. If you've got a mortgage, you'll spend more than you'll ever make on it - unless you pay the mortgage off early, which I have always done, and Daughter and Hercules are doing now (I've taught her well).
Yes, I have four television sets, but I didn't pay more than $200 for any of them.
Yes, I do treat myself well. I do buy some things I merely want, like my Pleo Clyde, and the recent Waterford lamp. (Note that in neither case did it cost more than half retail.) And one of these days I will present myself with a swoopy sportscar, just 'cause I want it.
That's the one argument I have over and over with Piper. He chides me for never spending principal, only income. He says I could afford almost anything I want. I respond that I have everything I need, precisely because I don't buy everything I want.
[Rant off]
.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
1876 More Matt
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
If you liked the previous post (go there first, before this one),
here's some outtakes:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT8jA_pps3o&feature=user]
And this is the first one, from a few years ago:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WmMcqp670s]
His YouTube user page is http://www.youtube.com/user/mattharding2718, where you'll find other videos, including his lectures.
.
If you liked the previous post (go there first, before this one),
here's some outtakes:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT8jA_pps3o&feature=user]
And this is the first one, from a few years ago:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WmMcqp670s]
His YouTube user page is http://www.youtube.com/user/mattharding2718, where you'll find other videos, including his lectures.
.
1875 Where the Hell is Matt?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
This clip should leave you smiling. Also running out to get or update your passport.
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.
[http://www.vimeo.com/1211060]
Be sure to move your cursor off the screen!
It may come up in HD. If it does (it'll say so over on the right of the screen), and if it's jerky, follow the links to the website, and you can turn HD off and watch it there. (Might be better to go to the link anyway - it's bigger there.)
.
This clip should leave you smiling. Also running out to get or update your passport.
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.
[http://www.vimeo.com/1211060]
Be sure to move your cursor off the screen!
It may come up in HD. If it does (it'll say so over on the right of the screen), and if it's jerky, follow the links to the website, and you can turn HD off and watch it there. (Might be better to go to the link anyway - it's bigger there.)
.
Monday, June 23, 2008
1874 Favorite Animal
Monday, June 23, 2008
There's this thingy (don't know what to call it) where you name your three favorite animals in order, domestic or wild, and then list three adjectives to describe each.
I had a very hard time with that. I'm not sure what my favorite animals are! It kind of depends what I'd want to do with it. Deer, foxes, whales, rabbits, dogs, cats, mice, woods turtles, sea turtles, toads, harvestmen, butterflies, cows, musk oxen, elephants, probably more ... they all kind of tie for first, depending on where I am and what I feel like at the moment.
So I picked the three I've had most contact with: dog, cat, mouse. I wanted to pick people, but that wasn't allowed, and after reflection I decided people were further down the list than most of the above anyway.
Next I had to put them in order, and list adjectives. Umph.
1) dog
attentive/appreciative
adoring
protective
2) cat
comfort seeking
affectionate
independent
3) mouse
wonderful parent
energetically industrious
intelligent
Now the common interpretation.
1) is how you see yourself
2) is how others see you
3) is how you really are
Thud. Nope. Wrong on several counts.
I think it should be interpreted thusly:
1) what you want in a mate
2) how you see yourself
3) what you admire in others
Now THAT fits!
And I think it makes more sense because the top animal would have the characteristics you most admire and want near you, the second would have characteristics you personally value and are not too rarified to aspire to, and the third, well, it's third.
That's how it worked out for me.
.
There's this thingy (don't know what to call it) where you name your three favorite animals in order, domestic or wild, and then list three adjectives to describe each.
I had a very hard time with that. I'm not sure what my favorite animals are! It kind of depends what I'd want to do with it. Deer, foxes, whales, rabbits, dogs, cats, mice, woods turtles, sea turtles, toads, harvestmen, butterflies, cows, musk oxen, elephants, probably more ... they all kind of tie for first, depending on where I am and what I feel like at the moment.
So I picked the three I've had most contact with: dog, cat, mouse. I wanted to pick people, but that wasn't allowed, and after reflection I decided people were further down the list than most of the above anyway.
Next I had to put them in order, and list adjectives. Umph.
1) dog
attentive/appreciative
adoring
protective
2) cat
comfort seeking
affectionate
independent
3) mouse
wonderful parent
energetically industrious
intelligent
Now the common interpretation.
1) is how you see yourself
2) is how others see you
3) is how you really are
Thud. Nope. Wrong on several counts.
I think it should be interpreted thusly:
1) what you want in a mate
2) how you see yourself
3) what you admire in others
Now THAT fits!
And I think it makes more sense because the top animal would have the characteristics you most admire and want near you, the second would have characteristics you personally value and are not too rarified to aspire to, and the third, well, it's third.
That's how it worked out for me.
.
1873 No Thanks
Monday, June 23, 2008
A long time ago I suggested to the local Mensa group that a "New Member's Handbook", similar to the one published by the Washington group, would be nice. They've finally decided to do it, and I've been asked to be on the committee. I'm flattered, and would like to, but right now it just doesn't fit. I sent this note to the board member who'd emailed me about it:
Sigh....
.
A long time ago I suggested to the local Mensa group that a "New Member's Handbook", similar to the one published by the Washington group, would be nice. They've finally decided to do it, and I've been asked to be on the committee. I'm flattered, and would like to, but right now it just doesn't fit. I sent this note to the board member who'd emailed me about it:
Thank you for thinking of me, but I don't think this is something I can get involved in right now. I'm a bit overwhelmed with some other stuff going on in my life. Procrastination has become disease, and now it's critical. On the other hand, I'd be pleased if you could consider me a primary reviewer of drafts.
Incidentally, I received an email yesterday requesting comments from ombudsmen on a motion to be put before the AMC [Edit - American Mensa Committee, the national governing board] at the meeting on July 3, concerning the duties of local ombudsmen [Edit - I am the local ombudsman] and the composition of hearings committees. I haven't been able to read the proposition in any depth yet because, naturally, this being Mensa, there has been an onrush of accusations, questioning of motives, slapping of hands and excessive wordiness, copying everyone, to the tune of about 30 emails since 2 pm yesterday. I have to read all of the freakin' things, because there are some real comments and concerns among the streams of territorial hydrant-anointing.
Bleck.
Sigh....
.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
1872 Frontline
Sunday, June 22, 2008
I've been watching the 4-hour Frontline documentary "Bush's War". There's something I don't understand. Given Cheney and Rumsfeld's machinations leading to a belief that there were WMDs in Iraq, why weren't WMDs subsequently found? Seems like that would have been no more difficult to arrange, and enormously convenient.
.
I've been watching the 4-hour Frontline documentary "Bush's War". There's something I don't understand. Given Cheney and Rumsfeld's machinations leading to a belief that there were WMDs in Iraq, why weren't WMDs subsequently found? Seems like that would have been no more difficult to arrange, and enormously convenient.
.
1871 Recommended
Sunday, June 22, 2008
I'd like to pass you over to Stephen Ellis. He's older than I, and I hope that when I'm his age, I have the clarity of thinking and grasp of issues that he has. He writes opinion pieces in his blog. The latest is an open letter to McCain and Obama. I agree pretty much with all his recommendations, and with pretty much the same reasoning. It's interesting. Something to think about. Go look.
.
I'd like to pass you over to Stephen Ellis. He's older than I, and I hope that when I'm his age, I have the clarity of thinking and grasp of issues that he has. He writes opinion pieces in his blog. The latest is an open letter to McCain and Obama. I agree pretty much with all his recommendations, and with pretty much the same reasoning. It's interesting. Something to think about. Go look.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)