Quick note

I'll be back to blogging regularly next week, but I thought I'd post a quick note today.

First, I really have been enjoying my time off. I can see how one would get bored eventually, but I think it'd take more than a week or so for that to set in. How have I been filling my idle hours? Well, I went to see a movie for the first time in ages. I saw The Family Stone. It was a little "cute" for my tastes and a lot of the plot twists were simply preposterous, but all-in-all I enjoyed the flick. I don't see any awards in its future, but it was an enjoyable way to kill an afternoon.

I've also been working my way through (the long version of) The Stand. I'm really enjoying it, though my expectations probably were a little high going in. Still, I've stuck with it through 800+ pages, so I must be liking it, huh? Oh, I also saw this in the paper this morning. They started this "Huntsville Reads" thing a couple of years ago and I felt they picked a horrible book to start with -- All the King's Men. I guess they wanted to seem "highbrow", but to me that's not a book that will suddenly make "non-readers" start reading. I reread it that summer and I enjoyed it, but I didn't think it was the best choice for a "get the folks reading" campaign. The Great Gatsby, on the other hand, is inspired.

Well, off to play in the woods today. I'm trying out my new hydration pack that was a Christmas gift from one of my readers in England. Thanks A.

Why ...

did I think walking out into the woods with a 35 pound pack on my back and spending two nights in the cold was a good idea? Could someone remind me?

Regardless, I survived. I'll admit that was in doubt Thursday night. I know I figured I'd underestimated the cold, but I had NO IDEA how much I'd underestimated! I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet the floor of my tent on the bank of the Sipsey River was one of the very coldest spots on Earth that night. Evidence: Friday morning my bag of water was half frozen. I'm not talking about a thin sheet of ice on top; I mean a gallon bag with a 1/2 gallon chunk of ice in it! It was sooo cold. Oh, and then there were the wild hogs.

When I stopped by the Ranger Station to sign in I noticed a flyer explaining how "wild hogs are game too," but I didn't really give it any thought -- until 1:00 the following morning! I'd stayed up, hovering over the fire, for hours, but I finally gave up and went to bed. I honestly had flashbacks to the hypothermia film we had to watch in Hunters' Safety. My winter-rated sleeping bag was doing a pretty good job on everything but my feet, though, so I was just about to drift off to sleep when I heard the most spine-tingling squeal coming out of the night. The thing sounded as if it were being killed in a quite painful fashion. Needless to say, that brought me straight out of my drowsiness. I sat up, turned on my flashlight, and unzipped the window to have a look. I couldn't see anything, though, so I laid back down. Just as I was about to drift off again, I heard multiple hogs making the same noises. Given that I didn't want to end up all "Lord of the Flies", I figured it might behoove me to get up and get a campfire going again. Man, I didn't want to do that!

I did, though, get the fire going again, but the hogs didn't go away. The last one I heard sounded as if he were within 20 yards, hence I wasn't eager to crawl back in the tent and encase myself in a mummy bag that might be the equivalent of a hot dog bun for some crazed porcine! So I ended up sitting by the fire until 3:30 or so when I found I simply couldn't stay awake any longer. Plus, the hog squeals had quieted down so I felt a little more calm. The only problem now was that my tent and sleeping bag had gotten that much colder while I was out by the fire. In the end, though, I slept a few hours and didn't have any further "pig trouble".

I think you'll all understand why, Friday morning, I'd just about decided to come home. In the end, though, the sun came up and that made a huge difference! Not only did it bring some warmth back to the air, but the Sipsey at dawn is a sight to behold. I ended up exploring a little bit around my camping area and then I headed back toward "home" (i.e., the car). I ended up stopping Friday night in a clearing at the confluence of two creeks. It was very pretty and there was a good stock of firewood. Plus, there was a great little hollow by a miniature waterfall where I could pitch my tent. [I've got some pics I'll try to get posted soon.]

Friday night went much better. Chiefly, it wasn't as cold, but I was also a little better prepared. For one, I knew to make my supper before dark. Those little Pocket Rocket stoves are great, but it's hard to tend a pot, keep the flame adjusted, and keep adding fuel to the campfire all at the same time. Maninly, though, it just wasn't as cold. I'm sure the actual temp this morning was pretty chilly, but it seemed balmy by comparison.

Anyway, I walked out this morning and limped back to Decatur. Man am I sore -- quads, hamstrings, deltoids, ... muscles I didn't even know were there! Final verdict -- it was a blast and I can't wait to go again!

Oh, I decided to take "Winter", by Rick Bass, for reading material. He is just such a wonderful writer and reading about winter in EXTREME northern Montana (should have) made me feel warmer (it didn't).

P.S. So, Melusina, ready to retract your questioning of my manhood? I endured extreme cold (and was "stalked" by wild animals) carrying a 35 pound pack for no good reason; I took a manly book to read; and you should have seen my "scruffiness" when I left the woods this morning (I'd put off shaving for a week or so before hand). See, I'm not a woman, just a complex man -- at least that's my take :)

Brr, in the woods

Blogging will be light this week as I experience a few days of freedom. It shouldn't surprise you that one without a cell phone would choose to curtail his computer time as well during his break. So what am I going to do with my time off?

Well I'm going "home" for Christmas, but first I plan to spend a couple of days/nights hiking/camping at the Sipsey Wilderness Area. Yes, it is going to be cold (probably colder than I imagine), but the forecast for Thursday and Friday doesn't look too bad. My plan is to head out Thursday morning and return Saturday mid-day. We'll see about that. I may be so miserable that I only make it one night, but I'm going to give it a shot.

Hey, how about some reader involvement (assuming anyone is reading during this busy time of the year)? I plan to take my "hiker's journal" (Christmas present from Ang), but I expect that a good chunk of my time sitting around the camp will be spent reading. So what should I read? Right now I'm leaning toward Hemingway. He just seems appropriate, especially the Nick Adams Stories, but I don't have a copy of that particular work. Hopefully I'll avoid any "To Build A Fire" situations. So, any suggestions? Please remember weight is a consideration (physical weight, not the "weightiness" of the reading material)! Even though I am reading The Stand right now, that's 3 pounds that will not make it into my pack!

Oh, a couple of updates on recent blogs:

1. I read that the John Seigenthaler Wikipedia entry "dust up" was caused by someone (a friend?) who thought the whole thing was a prankster website. I can't vouch for that, but I read it in a newspaper and according to John, those folks HAVE to tell the truth.
   
2. Porch Cat disappeared for several days. I feared the worst, but he's back now. I talked to the folks at the vet's office and they suggested borrowing a trap from the Humane Society. They did say they'd be willing to look at him if I managed to catch him. We'll see; still working on that. On the bright side, though he is still limping, he appears to have learned to move around pretty well on 3 legs.

1st Amendment For Me, But Not For Thee?

This is a few weeks old, but it just showed up in a paper I read last week. Evidently John Seigenthaler is pretty peeved over his Wikipedia entry.

For those of you who don't know, John Seigenthaler is a legitimate "big man" in a way that few are any longer. He started as a reporter for The Tennessean in 1949 (according to Wikipedia) and later became the publisher and chairman. He also was a founding editor of USA Today. Along the way he found time to work for Robert Kennedy and get beaten up during an attack on Freedom Riders in 1961. Finally he founded the First Amendment Center at Vandy in 1991. I think y'all kind of know my feelings about the 1st Amendment, hence I've always respected Mr. Seigenthaler even if he and I have disagreed on certain issues.

Now, though, he seems to be taking a stance that strikes me as funny for such a staunch defender of the 1st Amendment. His complaint is that part of his entry at Wikipedia is [was, it has been corrected] wrong and potentially libelous:

John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.

Now I can see why he wasn't happy with that particular passage, especially since other sites picked up on it, but his reaction seems to be a tad strong. First, Wikipedia entries can be corrected by someone with more/better information. Now I know that might have been a little late if the information was already out there on other sites, but was the passage that "bad"? True, the use of, "nothing was ever proven," leaves the impression that he might have had some involvement in the Kennedy assassinations, but the man is a very public figure. Is this the worst thing that's ever been printed/said about him? While I don't know of his involvement in the Kennedy administration, is this even a false statement? Notice that the entry doesn't claim he was involved, just that he was at one time thought to be involved.

I believe Mr. Seigenthaler should have calmed down and asked, how would a "reasonable" person respond when reading this? I don't know if I'm "reasonable", but I read it as the ranting of a Kennedy assassination conspiracy nut. The part about "direct involvement" and the tag line of "nothing was ever proven" just seemed to be a little too much for me. So I did not leave with the conviction that, "Magic bullet be damned. It wasn't Castro, the Mob, or the CIA. It was John Seigenthaler."

As I said, I understand why Mr. Seigenthaler was offended by the entry, but he seems to have gone a little overboard for someone who is such a champion of the 1st Amendment. In his op-ed he laments that he has "little legal recourse":

Federal law also protects online corporations -- BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. -- from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. ... Recent low-profile court decisions document that Congress effectively has barred defamation in cyberspace.

While he doesn't directly call for the ability to sue or shut down Wikipedia, he comes dangerously close to implying that would be a reasonable solution. In fact, I think a "reasonable" person would come a lot closer to that conclusion at the end of Seigenthaler's column than he would believing old John had the Kennedy boys killed after reading Wikipedia. Does John Seigenthaler really mean he'd sue a newspaper if it printed this statement? First, he'd have to get over the "public figure" hurdle (see below), but more fundamentally this just seems the wrong tack for the founder of the 1st Amendment Center!

In an overview of press freedom on its website, the First Amendment Center proclaims:

Sullivan and its progeny also hold that the First Amendment protects the publication of false information about matters of public concern in a variety of contexts, although with considerably less vigor than it does dissemination of the truth. Even so, public officials and public figures may not recover civil damages for injury to their reputations unless they were the victims of a reckless disregard for truth in the dissemination of a 'calculated falsehood' [emphasis mine, but it seems to deflate his "unlike print and broadcast companies" argument].

In so holding, the Court ushered in a new century of First Amendment jurisprudence by reaffirming ... the "central meaning of the First Amendment" on which it is based -- Sullivan's recognition that the "freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment" so that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open."

I know Wikipedia is not perfect and I have doubted some of the "facts" I've seen there, but I think it's pretty darned cool -- an online encyclopedia where anyone can share his or her "expertise". If your expertise isn't so "expert" someone will remove it. Yes, there are going to be errors and situations where people "go too far", but it seems odd that John Seigenthaler would be opposed to this "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate".

Shame on you John. I'd expect this reaction from a member of the general public, but I really think you should be able to see the larger principle involved.

New digs? Not yet.

You may remember long ago I blogged about a looming fight over the office with a window in our new building? Well that's been resolved (we lost one of the two offices with windows once the architect got hold of things), but half of our division is moving right now. Yep, the CIS (computer information systems) folks are going to be in the new building once we come back from semester break. The business department, though, is going to be left behind for a semester or so until our side of the building is ready.

I'm wondering what that's going to be like. I imagine it will be quieter, given that over half of our faculty, many of our classes, and our division office (including the secretary, mailroom, copier, etc.) will be in another building. I'm looking forward to the peace and quiet, but I am dreading the fact that I'll have to go to another building to make copies, check mail, or just generally goof off with those folks.

Of course given that we are in academia, the petty jealousies are rearing their heads. There is a general perception that we (business department) are not valued as highly as the CIS folks. Our side of the building will not have the amenities the CIS half has. There is some truth to this. The division office will be in their half, they have lots of offices with windows, and you should see the furniture (both office and classroom) over there. What really strikes me as funny, though, is that it is the business division that is feeling discriminated against.

At most every school I've been associated with everyone else feels like they're getting slighted compared to the business school. Heck, that's why economics departments like to be in business schools rather than in liberal arts (where they probably belong). It's just funny, to me, to be on the other side. Actually, now that I think about it, the same thing was true at UAH. Wait, I should modify that. The business school (er, school of administrative science -- it's a long story) at UAH has some wonderful facilities and resources, but they feel (probably justifiably) that the president ignores them in favor of science and engineering.

Anyway, just had a feeling of irony when I thought about that. I'll let you know how life on the "desert isle" feels next semester. I'm kind of looking forward to it.

Oh, I have a general cat query (I know some of my readers are cat people). When I got home yesterday I discovered that Porch Cat had somehow injured his right front leg. He was limping badly and would put almost no weight on that leg. I suspect he was in a fight, though he could have been hit by a car. I would like to take him to the vet, but I've yet to wear him down to the point where he'll let me touch him. Given that his mobility is limited, I probably could corner and catch him right now, but I'm afraid he'd injure himself (or me) further if I tried to do that. In the past I've had animals come home with such injuries and recover sans treatment. I'm hoping for the same with Porch Cat, but he appeared to be limping worse this morning. I figure I'll take the "wait and see" approach, but I figured I'd solicit ideas just in case. So, any thoughts?

Oh, finally, this just seems silly. I mean I am REALLY not a fan of Castro, but this just seems petty. C'mon, U.S. government, don't you have anything bigger to worry about?

What the @#$%?

This may be old news to some of you, but I've been out of touch for a few days. Today I got a few minutes to browse the web and I find this! Hillary, what have you been smoking? This has got to be the dumbest move ever!

Wait, I retract that. Politically it's not really a dumb move, but it's so blatantly opportunistic that I can't help being a little disappointed. This may surprise some of you, but I kind of like Hillary. Actually I like her a lot as Senator Clinton, but I can't really trust her from her days as First Lady Clinton. Yeah, I know one cannot trust any politician, but I'd just feel a lot better if I could convince myself that Sen. Clinton is the real Hillary. I know it makes more sense to think she had to "play a role" as first lady and now she's free to be her true self. I was just about there and she goes and co-sponsors a flag burning law. I'm sure her office has a "spin" for it, but I agree with Mr. Cohen:

The First Amendment is where you simply do not go. It is sacred. It protects our most cherished rights -- religion, speech, press and assembly -- and while I sometimes turn viscerally angry when I see the flag despoiled, my emotions are akin to what I feel when neo-Nazis march. Repugnant or not, popular or not, it is all political speech. Her sponsorship of the flag measure calls for reconsideration all around -- either by Hillary Clinton and her support of the flag bill or by liberals and their support of her. [Though I don't see why the question should be limited to "liberal support". St. Caffeine]

What's next Hillary, stumping for Roy Moore?

ARGH!

Yep, it's time, yet again, for final exams. I am knee deep in things that need to be graded and I see no end in sight. Alas, this too shall pass, I just don't know when. Actually I do. It'll all be over Friday about noon -- just in time to bottle the oatmeal stout.

So finals are seriously eating into my blogging time. Sorry about that (if any of you have missed my ramblings), but I'll point you to a couple of interesting things I've spotted recently:

Some Manhattan mansion owner has really racheted up the "holy vs. secular" Christmas debate. I'm no expert, but this seems to be a tad extreme.

I knew there was a new film incarnation of Pride and Prejudice though I wonder why anyone would do a remake after the excellent BBC version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. Anyway, ... what I did not know is that there are two endings for this new version -- one for the U.S. and a "tamer" one for the UK. Jeremy Dauber has an "interview" with Jane Austen over at the Christian Science Monitor. He delves into her feelings about screen adaptations and asks about rumors of her involvement with perennial bad boy Colin Farrell. The whole thing is kind of silly, but it's funny to read interview responses in Jane Austen English.

That's all for today.

Wow!

That's all I can say after seeing the Ansel Adams exhibit at the Huntsville Museum of Art on Saturday! Okay, that's not REALLY all I can say, as you are about to find out.

I mentioned the exhibit to Cousin Kari over Thanksgiving (she's a bit of a photography nut) and she said that she and Cousin-in-Law Jason would like to come over and check it out. Seeing as how I really wanted to see it myself, but knew it'd probably be one of those things I just never "got around to", I told her I thought that was a grand idea.

Well let me tell you, the exhibit did not disappoint. I wasn't sure exactly what to expect because it seemed a bit odd to me that Huntsville would get a full-fledged Ansel Adams exhibit and if they did I'd have expected to hear much more about it than the occasional ad in the newspaper. In reality I figured they might have 10 or 15 of his lesser known prints, with maybe one famous work. Boy was I wrong. They must have had more than 100 of his works AND many of his best known prints were included. I think my favorite may have been Maroon Bells:



The exhibit also included Clearing Winter Storm, The Tetons and the Snake River, lots of shots of Half Dome, and bunches of Waterfalls. It was amazing!

Though I've long understood (thanks to my art history friend in college) the difference between seeing an original painting and a reproduction on a poster, this was the first time I'd experienced the same thing with photographs. Adams' actual prints just blew me away. Though the museum store had reproductions of many of the prints, they just weren't the same. In fact, I didn't even bother linking to one of my very favorite shots above because internet image doesn't even look like the same picture.

It's not just that the reproductions are smaller, they somehow lose the essence of the shot. The shadows, the glowing whites, the amazing details, ... It was amazing how Adams could photograph a sweeping vista and keep everything, from 10 feet to infinity, in perfect focus. You can see raindrops on grass in the foregroud and individual branches on trees miles in the distance. I was overwhelmed.

Again, why is Huntsville not pushing this more? This is an exhibit I'd expect to see in Chicago or Nashville, at the least, yet Huntsville has it and, as far as I can tell, they're doing nothing more than running a weekly ad in the Huntsville Times. They don't even have an ad in the Decatur Daily!

So here's my PSA for the day -- GET TO HUNTSVILLE AND SEE THIS EXHIBIT NOW! It runs through January 16th and admission is only $7 (half-price on Thursday's after 5:00). They are starting a Maxfield Parrish exhibit December 18th and admission goes up to $10 then. Though I abhor Maxfield Parrish (long story involving a college roommate), the Adams exhibit still will be worth the price of admission.

I'll trade ya'

I'll apologize ahead of time. This is a boring (for some) economics rant. I know y'all don't read this blog for economic analysis, but sometimes it just comes out. It is, after all, what I do. General interest next time.

I finally have a few minutes to launch into a substantive discourse. Unfortunately, I've chosen a topic that will bore most of you to tears. Tough; it's a topic that's been on my mind of late -- the idea that we need to manage trade to make sure it's fair . What is meant by fair trade? Well that's really the crux of the problem.

Foreign Affairs just put out a special edition (web only, no subscription required) that deals with many of the current issues in international trade. Unfortunately, the essays on the main page are devoted to technical aspects of the Doha Round of WTO negotiations and nothing there approaches the simple, yet elegant, writing of David Ricardo (my favorite economist of all time). [Okay, I know it's extremely nerdy that I have a favorite economist, but that's just me.]

Fortunately, there are links on the sidebar to some other essays. Though N. Gregory Mankiw got in trouble for speaking like an economist when he was head of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, he knows how to present an eloquent argument. In this essay he takes on the anti-dumping argument for trade restrictions:

The ostensible purpose of antidumping law is to help ensure competition by punishing foreign firms that sell their products at "unfair" [predatory] prices in U.S. markets. In practice, however, antidumping has strayed far from this purpose, becoming little more than an excuse for special interests to shield themselves from competition at the expense of both American consumers and other American companies.
...
What is especially perverse is that the impact of antidumping tariffs falls most harshly on two groups whose interests members of Congress should be working to protect: the least well-off of their constituents and the vast majority of American producers. All Americans pay higher prices for food and housing as a result of antidumping tariffs, but the burden is likely greatest on the poor, because these necessities make up a larger share of their spending. U.S. producers are affected because most items hit with antidumping tariffs are not finished goods but components that are used to make other items. Since 1989, for example, imported ball bearings have been subject to tariffs ranging above 50 percent. U.S. manufacturers of ball bearings surely benefit, but there are many more buyers of ball bearings in the United States than there are producers -- and all of them end up paying significantly more than they should and than their foreign competitors do.

While true examples of dumping (probably) need to be dealt with, Mankiw points out that today's anti-dumping statutes essentially amount to nothing more that anti-bargain.

While I recognize that many workers (in both countries) will be affected by trade, stopping the trade from happening is not the answer. Should we use some of the gains from trade to help the displaced workers? I think so, but that's a far cry from outlawing the trade because it will have a negative impact on some part of society. In economics there is always another side. Keeping prices high to help one industry hurts consumers and producers of other goods. That's why I'm amazed there are so many progressives in favor of restricting international trade.

Wonder why very little candy is produced within the U.S. anymore? It's not because of cheap labor from other countries, it's because of cheap sugar. As Daniel Drenzer has pointed out:

[D]espite the fact that 90 percent of the world's candy canes are consumed in the United States, manufacturers have sent much of their production south of the border in the past five years. The attraction of moving abroad, however, has little to do with low wages and much to do with protectionism. U.S. quotas on sugar imports have, in recent years, caused the domestic price of sugar to become 350 percent higher than world market prices. As candy makers have relocated production to countries where sugar is cheaper, between 7,500 and 10,000 workers in the Midwest have lost their jobs -- victims not of outsourcing but of the kind of protectionism called for by outsourcing's critics.

This is why I make my macro students read Bastiat's petition on unfair competition from the sun. It's a simple example of the unintended consequences of taking this argument to its logical extreme.

Okay, that's my long (trust me; it could be longer) rant on trade. We just finished discussing these issues in macro and I always get a little ginched up afterwards.

Mooching off others

The end of the semester is in sight. Tomorrow is the last day of classes and then I just have to survive finals! Maybe next week I'll have time to share some deep, philosophical thoughts -- or at least a good rant. In the meantime, I'm still mooching off the (unbeknownst) kindness of others. Today's victim: Newmark's Door.

Specifically I'm stealing another "best of" list. Today it is the AFI's 100 Best Movie Quotes. #1 is predictable -- Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. -- but some of the others are a bit less obvious. I am, though, troubled by #98 -- Nobody puts Baby in a corner. Now I've heard lots of folks make fun of that line, but I never knew anyone who thought it was a great movie quote. The biggest disappointment, however, is that my all time favorite movie line didn't make the cut: Silent Bob's only line from Clerks -- You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you.

Also of interest, ... Book-A-Minute. I'm pretty sure this is a sarcastic response to the desire to boil classics down into CliffsNotes or the cell phone text thing that I ranted about earlier. Anyway, at Book-A-Minute, you can get the true "nuts and bolts" of many classic novels. For instance, The Sun Also Rises:

Stock Hemingway Narrating Character: It was in Europe after the war. We were depressed. We drank a lot. We were still depressed.

THE END

Or how about The Collected Works of Jane Austen:

Female Lead: I secretly love Male Lead. He must never know.

Male Lead: I secretly love Female Lead. She must never know.

(They find out.)

THE END

Yes, Greek reader, they do Gatsby and it's a hoot.

Okay, I'll try to get back into blogging soon.

Classic toys

Renee Busby of the Mobile Regsiter has an interesting piece (actually a book review) on timeless toys from the past. I always like these "little known facts" sort of things. My favorite:

The game "Twister" began as a shoe polish promotion. Before the game even debuted in 1966, Milton Bradley had concerns that the game would be too risqué and socially unacceptable because it required men and women to become entangled in knots. After the game's release, sales were slow, which prompted Milton Bradley to pull the plug on the production of the game. But on May 3, 1966, things started looking up for "Twister." That night, Johnny Carson invited his guest, Eva Gabor, to play the new game with him on his show. The publicity catapulted sales. That year, more than 3 million sets were sold.

Busby's review mentions many more -- from Candyland to Pez. Read the whole thing if you're nostalgic for the days when a toy's only special effects were in the imagination of the child playing with it. Yep, I'm a mid-30s geezer; I'll admit it.

Things are busy, busy today, so that's all.

Relief

I FINALLY made it through The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth and I have now submitted my review. I have a confession to make though. While I did want to read and review this book, I likely would not have gotten it done this quickly if not for the fact that last week's paper listed another book I'd like to read. I'm not sure how exactly one would review this book, but I do want to read it.

Oh, I also picked out the backpack I'm asking Santa for. Hopefully this will prevent a repeat of the infamous G.I. Joe Christmas when I was approximately 25 years old! Mom, bless her heart.

A little thing

Though my weekend was largely uneventful, one sort of nice thing did happen. It was a small thing, but it made an impression on me.

Yesterday I had to go shopping. Now I detest shopping, but society requires that I purchase and send Christmas cards each year. Yes, I know I don't HAVE to do that, but I just don't like what that would say about me as a person. So, given that I was forced to participate in retail trade yesterday, I decided that I'd reward myself with a trip to CiCi's Pizza -- not the best pizza in the world, but you can't beat the price.

As usual, I carried my latest car book with me. While I was eating, though, I became distracted by a woman and her little girl sitting at the next table. What was it that caught my attention? It was the lack of squirming and screaming from the little girl. Now I'm not indicting all young children (specifically I'm not talking about a 6-year-old angel I know in MS), but it seems that they like to holler and run around. Given that I'm old beyond my years, such things often cause me great irritation. This mother and daughter was different.

I notice that I just referred to "mother and daughter" in the singular sense -- as I would when talking about a "couple". I'm not sure if that's grammatical, but I think it's accurate. They seemed more like a couple of friends out for a meal rather than a mother dragging (or being dragged by) her child. They sat there quietly and had a conversation with each other. Now I don't think they were debating relativity vs. quantum physics, but they seemed like they actually were talking to each other. The little girl listened quietly and they each took turns speaking. It was kind of weird, but in a nice way.

Though I wasn't on the prowl, I noticed that the mom was not wearing a wedding ring. I wondered if these two were like Lorelei and Rory Gilmore (from Gilmore Girls) -- a single mom and her daughter who truly are best friends. It's hard to explain, but it was somewhat touching. I wanted to compliment the woman on her well-behaved child, but I was afraid I'd end up with a face full of pepper spray and a trip to the pokey.

Anyway, that was kind of the highlight of my weekend. I don't know why, but it made me feel good about humankind -- especially since I didn't get pepper sprayed!

An ominous day, so far

Let's just say today has not gotten off to a great start. How so?

1. I overslept. True, I only overslept by 15 minutes or so, but it meant I had to choose between shaving this morning or being able to go socialize (for the length of time I prefer) at the coffee shop. Guess which I chose. Yep, I'm Scruffy Caffeine today. Oh well, it's Friday and shaving has never been at the top of my list of things I worry about doing every (other) day. Okay, I'll 'fess up; I just used the overslept thing as an excuse not to shave today. Oh, my shirt is VERY wrinkled as well, so it all goes together. Still, oversleeping just throws my whole day off.
   
2. I ran into the storm door as I attempted to leave the house this morning. How, you might ask, did I do that? Well it's really too hard to describe, but essentially something on the porch prevented the door from opening all the way and I just plowed right into it.
   
3. The past day or so I'd noticed that the steering seemed to be a little funny in my car. Now I treat car problems the way I do health problems -- ignore them and they'll go away. If one goes to the doctor or the mechanic, one NEVER hears good news. Hence, I avoid both. Yes, I know that is dumb as dirt, but it's my way. Realistically I figured the car problem might be something as simple as some power steering fluid, but I just hadn't got around to checking it out. This morning, though, on the way to the coffee shop I noticed that the steering was REALLY weird. The car kept pulling hard right. Hmm, I thought, maybe I've got a low right-front tire? When I got to the coffee shop I checked and the damned thing was almost flat! I'm serious; this was an extremely low tire. I hadn't noticed it before because I never really approach the car from the right-front. Regardless, I realized this situation needed remedying ASAP. Fortunately for me, I keep one of those portable air compressors (the kind you plug into the cig lighter) in my trunk. Thus I was able to air up my tire, but those little portable compressors are slow as molasses and it was pretty darned chilly outside this morning. Now I'm just waiting to see how quickly the tire leaks back down.
   
4. Once I did make it to school, the test I was giving today was not back from the print shop. That was a problem. Fortunately I was able to pawn that one off on our secretary and she came through like a peach. Still, it was nervewracking to be teaching a class, knowing I had to give a test to the next class, and not knowing whether the test was going to be ready when the time came.

There must be something in the air as Melusina is also having a bad day. I guess I should be thankful that nothing worse has happened. I am, however, headed to Huntsville in a few minutes (assuming my tire still has air in it) so who knows what adventures await? I'm going to a craft show (long story) so I just KNOW something noteworthy will happen there. I'll fill y'all in next week.

WooHoo

According to the UPS tracking system, the ingredients for my next batch of beer are waiting on my porch as I type. I love these automated tracking systems.

Anyway, this time I'm making an oatmeal stout. Hey, does that mean beer is a breakfast food? Hmm, ... Things still are pretty busy right now, so I'm not sure how soon I'll get this batch going. I'm sure y'all will hear updates as I get frustrated with the whole process. Volunteers who help bottle get take home goodie bags. Hint, hint.

Sorry, but I have nothing of substance today. [Some might ask if I ever have anything of substance. To you I'd say, quit reading my blog.] If you're looking for a good read, though, I will point you to Chick Truths. Okay, no snarky comments about the name; the woman can write. I only wish she would write more often. No matter the topic, I always enjoy reading her posts. My friend, ang, says the woman's writing reminds her of my writing. I appreciate the sentiment; if only it were so.