I apologize for my lack of recent blogging, but I've got some things to catch up on. I'll get back at it soon. In the meantime, this was sort of nifty.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
One Day I'll Be a Cosmolifestyleorangebeltwaytarian Too!
I think Douchebagatarian has a nice ring to it.
To Be Clear....
From the reactions I got it seems I may have been misunderstood. To be clear, the point of yesterday's post is not "people should diet" or "health conscious people are somehow morally better". The point was it's ridiculous to get self defensive and hostile in response to someone's eating habits. Especially when they are not trying to influence your own.
To be sure, if I really wanted to eat an entire pizza I would bet that I could. It doesn't necessarily mean I should or will. If you want to eat an entire pizza that's your prerogative, and I'd say bon appetit. Just like if you want to eat vegetables, that would also be your prerogative. You have a 'God given right' to eat however you want, and that goes for both sides.
What I don't understand is how it came to be that the subject of healthy lifestyles is now taboo, and people are faced with disincentives from those they associate with, and what I mean by this is the economic concept of reward and punishment. Anyway, I'm done on this topic. I hope that cleared some stuff up.
To be sure, if I really wanted to eat an entire pizza I would bet that I could. It doesn't necessarily mean I should or will. If you want to eat an entire pizza that's your prerogative, and I'd say bon appetit. Just like if you want to eat vegetables, that would also be your prerogative. You have a 'God given right' to eat however you want, and that goes for both sides.
What I don't understand is how it came to be that the subject of healthy lifestyles is now taboo, and people are faced with disincentives from those they associate with, and what I mean by this is the economic concept of reward and punishment. Anyway, I'm done on this topic. I hope that cleared some stuff up.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The "Ya know what I hate?" Rant
My office has a very informal and functional exercise of venting our hostility. In the less hectic days, it was a daily occurrence. Now that we're headed full steam into our busiest time of the year, we don't have as much time for it. This practice was the "Ya know what I hate?" rant. Every rant would start with "Ya know what I hate?" and you just vent. About pretty much anything... bad drivers, office politics, figures of speech that just don't resonant well with you... anything. Because everyone seems pretty absorbed in their work right now, I'm not going to break their flow. Instead, I'll rant now. Here goes.
Ya know what I hate? When people upbraid others for leading (or wanting to lead) a healthy lifestyle. I think this is an element of America's "obesity crisis" that doesn't get a lot of attention. It may not effect people to the magnitude as the availability and cost factors of unhealthy foods do, but I can see how it manipulates a person's behavior. People don't need to be alienated for being healthy and responsible. Being on a diet, avoiding unhealthy behavior, exercising and the like are not pretentious unless you go about it in an evangelistic way. Recognizing that gorging yourself with pizza isn't a healthy practice and should be a limited occurrence, or eating fruit and salads should not warrant implications of eating disorders. The assimilation of someone who is health conscious to someone with a serious and unhealthy problem is especially repugnant to me. How does anyone rationalize such a blatant contradiction in their mind? Even people who aren't especially thin are assaulted with roundly accusations when trying to improve their eating habits, regardless whether their reason may be high blood pressure running in the family or wanting to shed a few pounds.
It's an odd phenomenon in my mind. I've witnessed this with others and experienced it myself. I try to be at least somewhat health conscious for a number of reasons. In terms of weight I'm rather average. I'm certainly not heavy, I may even be on the thin side, but I by no means look emaciated. My behavior doesn't betoken me having some kind of problem, and yet I still find myself having to defend my lifestyle choices, especially when it comes to what I eat and how often I exercise. It doesn't leave a lot of incentive for people to try to lead a healthier life when faced with constant alienation and ridicule from their peers. It's a contrary thing to demoralize someone for being conscientious of their own well-being. It's senseless to mock a thin person for choosing vegetables over cookies, last I knew, thin people can have heart attacks too.
I will leave you with my utterly untested, unscientific rational for this phenomenon. If you are one who is so obtusely offended by healthy choices and the people who make them, maybe it's a personal problem... try insecurity or perhaps a flagrant lack of understanding of health and nutrition.
Ya know what I hate? When people upbraid others for leading (or wanting to lead) a healthy lifestyle. I think this is an element of America's "obesity crisis" that doesn't get a lot of attention. It may not effect people to the magnitude as the availability and cost factors of unhealthy foods do, but I can see how it manipulates a person's behavior. People don't need to be alienated for being healthy and responsible. Being on a diet, avoiding unhealthy behavior, exercising and the like are not pretentious unless you go about it in an evangelistic way. Recognizing that gorging yourself with pizza isn't a healthy practice and should be a limited occurrence, or eating fruit and salads should not warrant implications of eating disorders. The assimilation of someone who is health conscious to someone with a serious and unhealthy problem is especially repugnant to me. How does anyone rationalize such a blatant contradiction in their mind? Even people who aren't especially thin are assaulted with roundly accusations when trying to improve their eating habits, regardless whether their reason may be high blood pressure running in the family or wanting to shed a few pounds.
It's an odd phenomenon in my mind. I've witnessed this with others and experienced it myself. I try to be at least somewhat health conscious for a number of reasons. In terms of weight I'm rather average. I'm certainly not heavy, I may even be on the thin side, but I by no means look emaciated. My behavior doesn't betoken me having some kind of problem, and yet I still find myself having to defend my lifestyle choices, especially when it comes to what I eat and how often I exercise. It doesn't leave a lot of incentive for people to try to lead a healthier life when faced with constant alienation and ridicule from their peers. It's a contrary thing to demoralize someone for being conscientious of their own well-being. It's senseless to mock a thin person for choosing vegetables over cookies, last I knew, thin people can have heart attacks too.
I will leave you with my utterly untested, unscientific rational for this phenomenon. If you are one who is so obtusely offended by healthy choices and the people who make them, maybe it's a personal problem... try insecurity or perhaps a flagrant lack of understanding of health and nutrition.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
More From Slate's Undercover Economist
A new take on New Year Resolutions. Keep it, or lose your money. I think it'd work for me.
Check it out.
Check it out.
Beautiful
More wisdom from Will Wilkinson regarding Libertarianism.
He goes on to say:
Read the whole article here.
"One of the embarrassments of the American libertarian movement is its failure to sufficiently acknowledge how collective bias against blacks, women, gays, immigrants etc. deprives blacks, women, gays, immigrants, etc. of their freedom. To my mind, serious forms of structural discrimination are much worse for liberty than certain kinds of coercion. Libertarians make themselves look ridiculous when they claim that everyone is fully and equally free as long as no one is coercing anyone."
He goes on to say:
"In my opinion, it is the responsibility of decent people concerned with liberty to at least denounce, if not actively work to tear down, the racist beliefs and norms that enable liberty-killing structural discrimination. If you don’t think ending discrimination is the government’s job–that this is the sort of thing that should be done by persuasion, not force—then you should take this responsibility extra seriously. It’s your job to persuade. If you think the government should do nothing but stay out of the way, but you are indifferent to racism and people who publish racist newsletters for financial and political gain, then it is not unreasonable to conclude either that you don’t really care about other people’s liberty, or think racism has nothing to do with it. In either case, you would be wrong."
Read the whole article here.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Bear With Me For a Moment...
The site may be under construction for a bit, blogging will be light.
In the meantime, enjoy this.
In the meantime, enjoy this.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thank Goodness!
I think this is an excellent article to address some of the fundamental misconceptions about what libertarians actually believe. Will Wilkinson hopes to make a series of posts on his blogs about some of the key elements of Ron Paul's appeal, which should be interesting. He states:
In particular, the following passage nearly made me squeal with glee. The vast majority of people I meet seem to mistakenly see all libertarians as anarcho-capital rightists.
Very well said. I can only hope that it being said by someone with greater prestige than myself will have a further reaching impact on the way people view what it means to be a libertarian. I'd strongly urge anyone who reads this to take the time to check Will Wilkinson's blog over the next couple of weeks and see what he has to say on the issue. Here's the link.
"I want to say something about why flag-waving “libertarianism in one country” types are ultimately no friends of liberty."
In particular, the following passage nearly made me squeal with glee. The vast majority of people I meet seem to mistakenly see all libertarians as anarcho-capital rightists.
"I had hoped Paul would do more good than harm for libertarianism, inspiring lots of college kids to get interested in the ideas of liberty. But now I’m pretty certain that he’s done a lot of harm, causing many people to associate libertarianism with racist cranks. I think it’s pretty important then to publicize the fact that there are genuinely liberal versions of libertarianism out there. The young people who got interested in libertarian ideas through Paul need to be able to find Cato, Reason, the IHS, and other places where one can learn about classical liberalism, which isn’t about keeping the Mexicans out, deploring the abolition of slavery, or hoarding gold."
Very well said. I can only hope that it being said by someone with greater prestige than myself will have a further reaching impact on the way people view what it means to be a libertarian. I'd strongly urge anyone who reads this to take the time to check Will Wilkinson's blog over the next couple of weeks and see what he has to say on the issue. Here's the link.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
"You're Likable Enough, Hillary"
Did these words actually impact the results in New Hampshire, as it's been suggested? I don't think Obama meant any spite.
He snickers a little, but the tone of the conversation isn't a serious one. To criticize him for that seems a little silly. I can think of a hundred worse ways to respond. See for yourself.
He snickers a little, but the tone of the conversation isn't a serious one. To criticize him for that seems a little silly. I can think of a hundred worse ways to respond. See for yourself.
Walking a Fine Line
I found this interesting. The journalist makes a lot of good points on the issue of manipulating stock prices. The kids involved are very bright and have some good input as well.
Hah, Aww
I know I tend to sympathize with libertarian causes, but there is no denying this is humorous.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
They Watch TV So You Don't Have To
Correspondents from the Economist commentate on New Hampshire coverage. It's more entertaining this way, I think.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
I Love BloggingHeads TV
This is a good one. Kerry Howley and Will Wilkinson discuss guest work. They're so cute.
My favorite part is when they talk about America's Next Top Model and Will laughs about still-born fetuses.
My favorite part is when they talk about America's Next Top Model and Will laughs about still-born fetuses.
Uh-Oh!
Didn't see this coming. Haha, just kidding... everyone totally saw this coming. Recall a previous post linking to an article in which Cato calls the energy bill, which provides subsidies for American biofuels, "a moment of idiocy".
Turns out, researchers at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute are attributing recent increases in the deforestation in the Amazon to the billions of dollars in subsidies for the production of corn. To briefly summarize, U.S. is the world leader in soy bean production. However soy farmers are switching to corn in order to qualify for subsidies. Soy production in the U.S. fell 15 percent. This of course, means downward pressure on supply creates upward pressure on price. An upward movement price will entice new producers to enter the market to take advantage of the favorable return until the supply is driven back up to is original equilibrium and price is driven back down as well. Brazil is the worlds second largest soy producer.
So maybe nobody's first guess was deforestation of the Amazon, but there are certainly people out there that voiced that this would have untold impact on markets and economic conditions as well as environmental consequences.
Turns out, researchers at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute are attributing recent increases in the deforestation in the Amazon to the billions of dollars in subsidies for the production of corn. To briefly summarize, U.S. is the world leader in soy bean production. However soy farmers are switching to corn in order to qualify for subsidies. Soy production in the U.S. fell 15 percent. This of course, means downward pressure on supply creates upward pressure on price. An upward movement price will entice new producers to enter the market to take advantage of the favorable return until the supply is driven back up to is original equilibrium and price is driven back down as well. Brazil is the worlds second largest soy producer.
"High soy prices affect the Amazon in several ways. Some forests are cleared for soy farms. Farmers also buy and convert many cattle ranches into soy farms, effectively pushing the ranchers further into the Amazonian frontier. Finally, wealthy soy farmers are lobbying for major new Amazon highways to transport their soybeans to market, and this is increasing access to forests for loggers and land speculators."
So maybe nobody's first guess was deforestation of the Amazon, but there are certainly people out there that voiced that this would have untold impact on markets and economic conditions as well as environmental consequences.
I'm Not Sure I'm Convinced....
Although I am admittedly not a fan of Clinton, I'm not sure I'd exactly call this crying. I think people are just confused because for once she answered a question without all the barking and chest pounding we're used to seeing from her. Was it sincere emotion? I find it highly unlikely.
Now, I'm not a big crier... but I could whip up a better patch of fake tears easier than Pillsbury biscuits. Would I do it while trying to win the respect and votes of the nation? Not a chance. I don't even cry to get out of speeding tickets, that would be demeaning for me. I see this as an act of desperation, which has seemed to work to some extent. I say save it, you'll have something to cry about come November.
Now, I'm not a big crier... but I could whip up a better patch of fake tears easier than Pillsbury biscuits. Would I do it while trying to win the respect and votes of the nation? Not a chance. I don't even cry to get out of speeding tickets, that would be demeaning for me. I see this as an act of desperation, which has seemed to work to some extent. I say save it, you'll have something to cry about come November.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Impressive
I realize my posts today may come off a bit whiney, so here is a fun link to teach you how to open about bottle of champagne with a sword. I would be impressed.
I Get It Now!
The graphics on the SWAT team page that I link to in the previous post make so much more sense now. Here it is again.
Now, keep that image in mind when you read this article about how the Lima SWAT team shot and killed a mother of 6 and wounded her 1 year old child during a drug raid. Also, keep in mind the police knew the children were in the house.
Now, keep that image in mind when you read this article about how the Lima SWAT team shot and killed a mother of 6 and wounded her 1 year old child during a drug raid. Also, keep in mind the police knew the children were in the house.
Most Terrifying Police Department.... EVER
I'm glad to not be a resident of Charlottesville, Florida. Their police are terrifying! In September, after barreling down pedestrians in a crosswalk an officer pushed a women to the ground and arrested her and her boyfriend. Full article here. Recently, the 911 call from a witness has been released. Then in October, the police entered a journalists home at 4am, guns drawn and ready because they were investigating a call that there was a burglar in the neighborhood. Read more here.
On a similar note, Reason has a humorous link to the Lima, OH S.W.A.T team page.
On a similar note, Reason has a humorous link to the Lima, OH S.W.A.T team page.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Pareto Improvement?
According to this article, Starbucks isn't slaughtering mom and pop coffee shops. It may actually be helping them. Slate takes an interesting look at how Starbucks differs from corporate killers like Walmart or HomeDepot.
It seems that Starbucks settling next door may be a blessing in disguise. While they expand the area's customer base through advertising, people still respond to incentives. If there is another option 5 feet away with shorter lines, or cheaper coffee the local outfit is likely to benefit from the new larger customer base while maintaining their original base. Also, it is likely that the demand for coffee is fairly elastic. Someone who did not previously view the area as a coffee nexus will choose the coffee shop that will maximize their utility, not necessarily the one that has advertised.
It seems that Starbucks settling next door may be a blessing in disguise. While they expand the area's customer base through advertising, people still respond to incentives. If there is another option 5 feet away with shorter lines, or cheaper coffee the local outfit is likely to benefit from the new larger customer base while maintaining their original base. Also, it is likely that the demand for coffee is fairly elastic. Someone who did not previously view the area as a coffee nexus will choose the coffee shop that will maximize their utility, not necessarily the one that has advertised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)