Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The Move Starts Now
The movers are here! Or, at least moving the truck around the corner -- will be any second. Things will be moving along soon. I talked to John last night -- could barely hear him, but okay -- we have a free night in Vegas! Also, Maura's giving John a ride to the airport, so that's good. Anyway, by this time tomorrow, I imagine my landlord will be checking out my apartment before I go the direction of my belongings. More to come...
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Barn
A farmer walked into his barn and saw that his brown chicken was acting very strangely. Apparently, the farmer was milking the brown cow earlier that day, and had left his stool near the cow. The chicken had hopped up on the stool and was standing behind the cow. It appeared as if the chicken were thrusting into the cow. It could've been a scene from a nature show or something like it -- perhaps some other show one could download from the internet, if that was your persuasion. The farmer exclaimed:
Brown-chicken-brown-cow
Dunno if this comes across on the internet, or if you have to hear it. Let me know.
Brown-chicken-brown-cow
Dunno if this comes across on the internet, or if you have to hear it. Let me know.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
It is done
My teaching at Cal State Fullerton is all but done. I was officially teaching two summer school classes -- introductory and advanced statistics. However, I was unofficially teaching three; three of my students needed to learn multilevel modeling, so I said if I teach 3 or I teach 15 it makes no difference, provided there is nothing to grade; I've been teaching a varying number of students multilevel modeling on Thursday afternoons -- followed by sushi. Unfortunately, there was one week I had to miss so next week is my last class to give. But, all my official teaching work is done; grades are complete and all I have to do is turn in the sheet next week.
In the past few days, people asking for statistics consulting have been coming out of the wood work! I have a job I'm about to do when I finish this post, another project coming in from the same people, and more data coming in from someone else -- AND, that's from today alone. I also have three things to finish up before the end of next week, each of which will take an afternoon -- I'm thinking of taking one entire day -- early AM to late PM, and hammering them all out, but we'll see how that goes.
It's been an exhausting week. I think it's about time to twiddle with the fist statistical model and turn in; tomorrow, the weekend starts -- I will be sleeping in.
It's also time to start packing. I eagerly await John's arrival and the return trek.
In the past few days, people asking for statistics consulting have been coming out of the wood work! I have a job I'm about to do when I finish this post, another project coming in from the same people, and more data coming in from someone else -- AND, that's from today alone. I also have three things to finish up before the end of next week, each of which will take an afternoon -- I'm thinking of taking one entire day -- early AM to late PM, and hammering them all out, but we'll see how that goes.
It's been an exhausting week. I think it's about time to twiddle with the fist statistical model and turn in; tomorrow, the weekend starts -- I will be sleeping in.
It's also time to start packing. I eagerly await John's arrival and the return trek.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Money, It's a Gas...
Vohs, Meade and Goode (2008) produced a study where they stated "Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior." It's a great article and I'm going to comment on it more -- but for the time being, I have to run to class and teach. Here's the link if you're interested:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120087448/HTMLSTART
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120087448/HTMLSTART
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Crazy Food Experiments
I love savory food. Sweets don't do it for me, unless it's to try something I haven't tried. Actually, trying something I haven't tried does do it for me very much -- I'm always up for a food adventure and usually up for an adventure of any sort. I left my laundry in the washer at the laundry mat this evening and walked across the street to the grocery store. There, I found a bag of Dorritos called "The Quest," with a subtitle that "Guess the flavor is just the beginning." I ate a chip and recalled the flavor from a time in my youth, but could not put my finger on it. It bothered me so much that I had to google it. The chip was darn near the most bizarre flavor one could imagine -- Mountain Dew Flavored Dorritos!!! AND, they're actually pretty good -- not great, but far from bad. Who'd have thunk it?
Friday, June 27, 2008
Sexuality Politics
When I was in high school, Ross Perot ran for president. He advocated a couple of things I didn't like - (1) he was in favor of a flat tax rate -- those who benefit more from society (i.e., the business owners who make lots of money) should give more back to society, and (2) he was against gay marriage -- who the heck cares who one loves. There were likely more, but I didn't pay THAT much attention to Mr. Perot back then and am not taking the time to look up his positions. Anyway, I remember clearly the day I was driving with my father and he told me that he did not think that gay people should be allowed in roles of supervisors of children. We had a large argument about this.
Today, my brother called me stating "I think I fucked up." He said he was talking my parents and he outed multiple of our mutual gay friends. I think that he didn't fuck up and that what he did was probably something that should've been done a long time ago. In particular, one of our friends has all but been disowned by her mother. She's a lesbian who is going to have a baby with her partner of over seven years. Apparently, her brother has taken the same route. I've known that family since I was seven years old and don't believe they'd behave that way to their daughter -- apparently, my beliefs are wrong.
But then I got on this other discussion with my brother. It was about whether marriage should be allowed at all. One percent of people are asexual. And yet there are benefits associated with being married that society allows one. I think that marriage should be disallowed as a state function and that it should be allowed as a religious one -- it seems to me that most of the important aspects of marriage either (a) discriminate against people -- perhaps the one percent of asexuals, or (b) are religious in nature -- and last I checked, we espoused separation of church and state -- although W sometimes makes me question that.
So the discussion went this way. My brother disagrees and thinks that the point of marriage is to have kids. That argument is very much like the Catholic church position -- one of the ends of marriage (at least according to the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae issued and 1968 and reaffirmed by the church in Veritatis Splendor in 1993 -- though the idea has been around since who knows when -- likely right after the time of Paul where the Church decided that the "eminent parousia" (i.e., soon to occur end of the world with the return of Jesus) wasn't so eminent -- Paul (though not officially a Pope -- in the early Church, everything went the way of Peter other than one issue that went Paul's way -- that Christians did not need to embrace all the practices of Judaism) was reinterpreted -- anyway, encyclicals aren't ever overturned -- Paul's idea of eminence was just on the wrong time scale -- as the Pope speaks for God and can't be wrong, though they do get "reinterpreted"). Anyway, the way that my brother can hold his position is that gays must have children -- be allowed to adopt or get a sperm donor. But it seems to me that it is dictating an ends for people that they may or may not want. Then again, he is accurate that most Americans marry and have kids, and therefore, the position is in line with the majority of behavior. Furthermore, his position argues that having kids is what society wants and needs. And that laws should incentivize the good of society. He (a Harvard lawyer) argues that the laws aren't perfect -- and don't have to be -- they should just do what is best for the majority of people -- then they get modified or other laws go into effect to account for the problems associated with some laws. So the debate went whether marriage should be allowed at all -- I argued that companies give benefits to spouses and that's discriminatory against the 1% asexual and the 10% who never marry. He argued that there isn't an equivalent for such individuals and the law has nothing to do with it. I argued that companies give money (at least, often, in the form of insurance payment and benefits) to spouses and not to gay individuals -- giving money to such people is private business and not the place of government. I argued that allowing gay marriage affords such privilege to married people and an amount similar to what is paid for partners should be given to unmarried people. But, he's right, that's supposedly "private business" rather than the government's statement.
Anyway, I didn't realize that I'd have to run when starting this post. My thoughts will be continued. Your thoughts are welcomed and encouraged.
Today, my brother called me stating "I think I fucked up." He said he was talking my parents and he outed multiple of our mutual gay friends. I think that he didn't fuck up and that what he did was probably something that should've been done a long time ago. In particular, one of our friends has all but been disowned by her mother. She's a lesbian who is going to have a baby with her partner of over seven years. Apparently, her brother has taken the same route. I've known that family since I was seven years old and don't believe they'd behave that way to their daughter -- apparently, my beliefs are wrong.
But then I got on this other discussion with my brother. It was about whether marriage should be allowed at all. One percent of people are asexual. And yet there are benefits associated with being married that society allows one. I think that marriage should be disallowed as a state function and that it should be allowed as a religious one -- it seems to me that most of the important aspects of marriage either (a) discriminate against people -- perhaps the one percent of asexuals, or (b) are religious in nature -- and last I checked, we espoused separation of church and state -- although W sometimes makes me question that.
So the discussion went this way. My brother disagrees and thinks that the point of marriage is to have kids. That argument is very much like the Catholic church position -- one of the ends of marriage (at least according to the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae issued and 1968 and reaffirmed by the church in Veritatis Splendor in 1993 -- though the idea has been around since who knows when -- likely right after the time of Paul where the Church decided that the "eminent parousia" (i.e., soon to occur end of the world with the return of Jesus) wasn't so eminent -- Paul (though not officially a Pope -- in the early Church, everything went the way of Peter other than one issue that went Paul's way -- that Christians did not need to embrace all the practices of Judaism) was reinterpreted -- anyway, encyclicals aren't ever overturned -- Paul's idea of eminence was just on the wrong time scale -- as the Pope speaks for God and can't be wrong, though they do get "reinterpreted"). Anyway, the way that my brother can hold his position is that gays must have children -- be allowed to adopt or get a sperm donor. But it seems to me that it is dictating an ends for people that they may or may not want. Then again, he is accurate that most Americans marry and have kids, and therefore, the position is in line with the majority of behavior. Furthermore, his position argues that having kids is what society wants and needs. And that laws should incentivize the good of society. He (a Harvard lawyer) argues that the laws aren't perfect -- and don't have to be -- they should just do what is best for the majority of people -- then they get modified or other laws go into effect to account for the problems associated with some laws. So the debate went whether marriage should be allowed at all -- I argued that companies give benefits to spouses and that's discriminatory against the 1% asexual and the 10% who never marry. He argued that there isn't an equivalent for such individuals and the law has nothing to do with it. I argued that companies give money (at least, often, in the form of insurance payment and benefits) to spouses and not to gay individuals -- giving money to such people is private business and not the place of government. I argued that allowing gay marriage affords such privilege to married people and an amount similar to what is paid for partners should be given to unmarried people. But, he's right, that's supposedly "private business" rather than the government's statement.
Anyway, I didn't realize that I'd have to run when starting this post. My thoughts will be continued. Your thoughts are welcomed and encouraged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
