Vote Kinky

I've been hearing about this, but Newmark's Door pointed the way to a CBS News article about Kinky Friedman's campaign to be the next governor of TX. If you know anything about Kinky (whether from his books or his music), you won't be surprised to find many amusing and potentially offensive comments in the article. Here's how CBS describes old Kinky:

[T]he latest eccentric with his eye on the prize may be the oddest ball of all, a man who boasts he never held a real job, did have a real drug problem, gets his biggest kicks from offending people, yet maintains a surprisingly large following. Morley Safer reports on Texas’s leading singing Jewish cowboy, Kinky Friedman, who is campaigning as an independent to be the next governor of the Lone Star State.

What exactly qualifies Kinky to be governor of America's second largest (sorry, TX, folks; unless/until global warming really picks up, Alaska's got ya' beat) state? Apparently not much:

When he was reminded that musicians are not known for their excellent work habits, Friedman replied, "OK, so we're not gonna get a lot done early in the mornings."

Of course, it also seems that Kinky doesn't think the job will be that difficult:

His two main issues are illegal immigration — he wants to close the border until Mexico cracks down — and education. He’s running as the teacher’s best friend.

Well you just knew the religion thing would come up. Does Kinky think a Jew win the TX governor's race? Yep:

"Absolutely. Listen, I tell people, trust me, I'm a Jew, I'll hire good people," Friedman says.

Yeah, there's a lot of tounge-in-cheek with Kinky, but I think it would be an interesting experiment. Does he have a shot? Conventional wisdom says NO, HELL NO, but he does have some factors working in his favor:

• Voter turnout was only 29% in the last election. If he can tap into the "apathy vote", it might get interesting. As Kinky puts it, "Every crazy redneck in Texas is already supporting me. "
• He has managed to hire the guy who ran Jessie Ventura's campaign in MN. If a former pro wrestler can be governor, why not an irreverant musician/novelist?
• Perhaps most importantly, Willie supports him! Yep, Willie Nelson threw a fundraiser for Kinky at his golf course (entertainment by Billy Joe Shaver). I don't know this for sure, but I suspect old Willie carries some weight in TX.

So, would I vote for Kinky? Probably not. It reminds me of the excitement that gets stirred up her in AL everytime Charles Barkley talks about running for governor. I like the idea of the "outsider" candidate, but someone has to "make the trains run on time" and I'm just not sure how effective Kinky or Charles would be at that. Still, I like the idea and if it gets people a little more excited about local politics, that's great. So, good luck, Kinky. If I lived in TX, I'd sure sign your petition. Fortunately, TX's ballot access law isn't as restrictive as AL's, so I expect he'll at least make it on the ballot.

Umm, beer

I heard about this organization a good while ago, but the Huntsville Times ran an article a couple of weeks ago that brought them to my attention again. So now I'm an official member of Free the Hops. What is Free the Hops, you might ask? Philosophically, it is a group dedicated to increasing awareness of and appreciation for quality beer, especially within Alabama. They want people to know there are other beers besides Bud, Miller, etc. Yes, most people know other brands, such as Sam Adams or Sierra Nevada, but there's a whole world of beers and beer styles out there. Free the Hops wants to make people aware of the panoply of possibilities (my own phrase) in the beer world.

That may be the philosophical motivation, but on a more practical level, Free the Hops is an advocacy group dedicated to removing two Alabama laws that keep a lot of the best beers out of our fair state:

The ABV Limit
The 6% ABV limit excludes approximately 1/3 of the world's beer styles, some of them the finest, highest quality beverages on earth. Entire styles of specialty beers fall above this limitation, such as barleywine, a strong ale with a typical ABV between 8-13%. Barleywines are elegant and expensive, sometimes cellared and aged for years like a fine Cabernet. Another elite group of beers, those brewed by Trappist Monks in Belgium (considered by many to be the greatest beer in the world) is comprised almost entirely of beers above 6% ABV. These "Dubbels" and "Trippels" are currently illegal in Alabama.

The Container Limit
Though it is impossible to quantify exactly how many other beers are excluded by the 1 pint limit, it is safe to say that many more fine beers are unavailable to Alabamians due to this additional restriction. For example, Rogue Ales -- one of the most notable craft breweries in the United States -- sells most of their beer in 22 ounce bottles. Only 5 of their 25 core beers fall within Alabama's ABV and container size restrictions. Furthermore, many beers from Europe (such as those of Young's Brewery in England) are only exported in 500 mL or 750 mL bottles -- too big for Alabama.

Of the Top 100 beers at BeerAdvocate.com, 98 aren't found anywhere in this state. Become a member of Free The Hops today to help bring the world's greatest beers to Alabama.

So anyway, the article linked to above is about FTH's fight to repeal these two measures (wisely, I think, FTH is concentrating on the ABV law right now) and the Alabama Citizens Action Program's attempt to make sure the laws stay in place. Though I don't want to get into every aspect of the argument here, ACAP's two chief arguments FOR the laws are just too easy to pass up:

"It's ridiculous to even think about putting a beverage on the market with that high level of alcohol that teenagers want to buy," he [Dan Ireland, ACAP president] said. As for the argument that the law already allows wine twice as strong, Ireland answered: "Beer is the beverage of choice, not wine. Kids are not going out and buying wine."

Yes, if one is willing to use the term beer liberally, it probably is true that beer is the beverage of choice for teens looking to get drunk. It does not follow, though, that the problem will worsen if the 6% cap is lifted. First, the beers being discussed are not cheap. I doubt teens will splurge for the $10-$12 6-pack of something like Arrogant Bastard when they can get a CASE of Milwaukee's Best for the same price. Second, these beers are not "guzzling beers". They are hearty and usually much heavier. They are sipping beers. No one funnels St. Bernardus Abt. 12! [BTW, thanks to Dave for bringing a couple of St. Bernardus products back from TX. I am, though, still waiting for the Abt. 12. Any chance of that this year?].

ACAP's next argument seems a little better, but it has holes too:

"We know this talk is about this gourmet, high-price beer," said Dan Ireland, ... "But you're opening Pandora's box for all beer people to raise alcohol levels."

Ah, a good old slippery slope argument. Now Mr. Ireland admits (or brags about, depending on your perspective) he has never had a drop of alcohol. This comment shows that he doesn't know much about beer making or selling either. There's not an ABV knob on the beer vat that you just switch to 6%. Making higher alcohol beer (as a general rule) is harder and more expensive -- not what beer companies are looking to do. Second, WHY would "all beer people" raise their alcohol levels? Watered down beer is cheap AND people drink large quantities of it! If you raise the ABV level of Budweiser, Joe 6-Pack will become Joe 4-Pack -- again, not what beer companies are looking to do.

Anyway, that's just my take on the ACAP arguments -- rubbish! Though I'm not much of a joiner, I did send my $25 to FTH. Besides, I wanted one of their t-shirts and a membership (including a complimentary t-shirt) was just a few dollars more. [Hey, I am an economist -- marginal evaluation is important to me.] So, go take a gander at the website and join up if you're interested. That's my PSA for the day.

New Digs

Ah, so this is how the other half lives. Yep, the move is complete! I came in today (Saturday) to uninstall and reinstall my keyboard drawer, move the computer, and hang some stuff on the wall. Mind you, the chief thing I wanted to get on my wall was my framed poster of the hats worn by all 160 minor league baseball teams in America. Ooh, I also grabbed a cool old map of the AL counties from a classroom that was about to be demolished. Originally it was a "gimme" calendar promotion from some business back in 1967. I love maps, so I couldn't let it fall prey to the wrecking ball.

Actually the new office is not that different from the old one, but the business division will stay together now AND I have a window -- though I can't figure out a good way to get the blinds to stay up. My main motivation in moving, though, was to force myself to organize and pare down. As to that, mission accomplished. I did, though, think I was going to have to commit homicide during the move!

See, the previous tenant of this office took my paring down idea to an extreme. I really do think her computer and current semester textbooks are the only things she took! You would not believe the piles of junk that were left in here. ARGH! Still, I wanted to move, so I didn't have much choice. Yes, I could have thrown a fit and insisted that she come back and clean out her office, but I don't "insist" very well and I wanted to get moved quickly. Hence, I ended up moving her out. Fortunately we have one empty office in the suite that no one is claiming, so I was able to move a lot of her old textbooks and an extra bookshelf to that office.

So now I'm moved in to my fancy new office and I don't have any excuses for not grading that set of stats homeworks. Ugh. In the meantime, here are some shots of the new digs.

Lost just lost me

I don't know if any of you watch Lost, but it seems to be a pretty popular show and I enjoy watching it, when I remember that it's on. Last night, though, they may have jumped the shark.

Given the fanatical devotion to this show, I wasn't surprised to find that several someones out there recreate the transcript of each episode. Unfortunately, though, no one has gotten around to last night's episode. Hence, I'm going to have to do this from memory.

To set the scene: Charlie (former druggie rock star) has been having these weird "lucid dreams" or "visions" or something. They all seem to involve Claire and, more specifically, Claire's baby boy being in SERIOUS peril. In all the visions, Charlie is being encouraged to "save the baby" from some looming danger.

Okay, now Charlie is telling the big, incredibly wise, zen-like priest guy about his "sleepwalking" and "crazy dream" sessions. Here goes:

Charlie: Man, something is wrong. I'm sleepwalking all the time and I keep having these weird, very vivid dreams where the baby is in grave danger.

Zen-Guy: What kind of dreams? [He is a man of few words.]

Charlie: Well, the baby is ALWAYS IN DANGER and Claire, among others, keeps telling me that I have to SAVE THE BABY. Oh yeah, there's a white dove that flies down from heaven.

Zen-Guy: Hmm. [I told you; he's a man of few words.]

Charlie: What? What is it? Tell me! [Charlie is much more loquacious.]

Zen-Guy: Maybe the dreams mean something.

Charlie: What? What is it? Tell me! [Charlie also is unoriginal.]

Zen-Guy: Maybe you're supposed to SAVE THE BABY!

Wow! Thanks a lot, big Zen-Guy! Good thing the castaways have a religious/spiritual leader among them to interpret such a confusing dream sequence! The only conclusion I can reach: Charlie is a complete dumbass!

I don't know just why that bothered me so much, but I don't think I can watch the show any longer. If they're resorting to such cheap gimmicks, I fear they have run out of originality. Thankfully, I still have the Gilmore Girls!

Note: The GGs aren't perfect. I was watching a rerun the other night and I caught them in a pretty big boner. If you've seen the show, you know it's famous for it's rapid-fire, razor-sharp dialog. It's usually pretty good, but occasionally they get a little too rapid. In the episode I was watching, Paris was trying to cut someone down by dismissing his thoughts as an "amusing anecdote". Problem was, she called it an "amusing ANTIDOTE". I really don't think Paris was talking about funny medicine. Yes, I know Paris is not a real person, but I was offended that a super-intelligent Yale journalism major would make such a mistake.

May I quote you?

I'm not going to go off on this again, but I noticed the following picture in the paper yesterday:



Just thought that was a little amusing, given that I'd just blogged on the Someone Sez method of argument. Oh, I will comment on a couple of comments to the original post.

First, I agree with Ang about the, "I can outshout you, so I'm right," method of argument. I think pretty much everyone (other than radio and TV hosts) agrees with that one.

As for Mel's point about the usefulness of a good quote: couldn't agree more. My favorite thing about writing papers in grad school was the opportunity to unearth obscure quotes from famous figures. What I was emphasizing was that just repeating a quote, even from a respected authority, does not prove the argument. Of course you are on a little safer ground, I think, if you're quoting an authority on the matter at hand (e.g., quoting Alan Greenspan on the dangers of inflation), but you've still got some work to do. As an example, here are the two quotes I used to open my dissertation [question was whether committees are good (small numbers of specialists make good policy) or bad (small numbers of greedy folks get pork for their consituents)]:

Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work. Woodrow Wilson

They [legislators] spring into action with uncritical zeal, determined from the outset to win for the complainant because he is a constituent, not because his cause is known to be just. Sorry, don't have the original author and I'm too lazy to look up the source.

I then spent MANY pages trying (I really did try, I promise) to distinguish between these two alternatives. Final conclusion: no clear winner, but the evidence for the pork barrel hypothesis was weak in most areas (other than agriculture).

Anyway, that's my final word on quotegate.

Kind of dull

Things have been pretty slow around here. A little work news, though: we (the business folks) may try to stage our own little "power play" in our building. As you may remember, the CIS folks have moved to the fancy new building, but "they" are running behind on getting the business division's side of the building finished. Hence, we're still over here in the old building. Not only are we still in the old building, but we're sort of scattered about in the old building. My boss mentioned that she's a bit lonely down in the main office suite all by herself and she even suggested that the rest of us should move down there with her. Problem was, no one wanted to move to a new office and then have to move again in a few months when they do get our new building ready. Now, though, we've reconsidered.

First, there's kind of a general fear that our part of the new building may not be ready for quite some time and we may be stuck over here longer than anyone anticipated. Further, the folks who will eventually be the new tenants of our old building have been sniffing around, taking measurements, and talking about all the changes they plan to implement. We don't mind the new folks moving in (if we get to move to our new building), but we don't want them to move in and get the "nicer" offices and then have us end up stuck in our little "closets" for another year or so. Further, if we are going to be over here for a good while now, it just seems to make more sense to have us (the business faculty) all grouped together rather than have us interspersed among people from all different departments. Right? Anyway, that's our thinking.

As a result of these new developments, we've decided that we will all move down to the main office suite. The only (potential) problem is that my boss's boss says we shouldn't be surprised if someone "up the line" is unhappy with this action. Why? Well it may be that some of the "future" tenants have already made plans to come over here and snag the "nice" offices. Yeah, it's a petty thing, but as someone once said about academia, "The battles are so fierce because the stakes are so small!"

Who knows what will happen, but as things stand now, I may have a window by Friday afternoon. I'm sure you're all on the edges of your seats, waiting to see how this turns out. Fear not; I'll let you know.

In the meantime, there was a nice little piece in the CS Monitor today about how no one just "drops in" for a visit anymore. I had comments to make, but it's about time to go teach and I've got to brew some coffee.

How high?

Not much blogging time today, but I did see this link showing the highest points in each state. [Keep in mind, some of the little "red dots" aren't placed exactly right, but there really is one for each state.] I love maps and I just thought this was way cool. It seems Google amazes me with something new at least once a month.

That's all for today.

Good arguments

Okay, folks, time for another of St. Caffeine's pet peeves. Excited, aren't ya'? Well, here goes: sloppy arguments! If you know me well, you'll know that I love a good debate. Now I'm not saying I personally like to argue with people. In fact, I'm quite confrontation-averse. I do, though, enjoy a good debate: one where both sides have good facts and string together cohesive arguments. As a sign of this, I think my absolute favorite class in college might have been "intro to logic".

Unfortunately most people today take the "I'll outshout you" approach to debate. I won't even go off on that nasty trend, but there's a more subtle type of "debate abuse" that bothers me almost as much. I call it the "Someone Famous Agrees With Me, Hence I Must Be Right" approach. Yeah, I don't think that name will catch on. Let's just call it the Someone Sez approach.

Basically what I'm talking about is finding a famous quote and using that quote as PROOF of the superiority of your position. Don't get me wrong; I love a good quote and I've used them for years in school papers and speeches. The point I'm trying to make, though, is that a quote, by itself, does not make your argument. Er, you still need supporting evidence!

What has brought this to my attention lately? I'll tell you: Ben Franklin and the Patriot Act (and all other national security issues of the last few years). I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen the following quote in a letter to the editor or an opinion column:

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

That's a noble sentiment and old Ben was a pretty wise fellow, but parroting his words does not mean that the Patriot Act is a bad idea. Personally, I have a lot of problems with portions of the act (see earlier 1st Amendment rants), but this does not "prove" anything. You still need some supporting evidence.

See, that's the problem. Letter writers invoke the Someone Sez argument and then sign off. They don't actually show that Ben's statement is true and relevant in the context of the current argument. To show the folly of this, consider this from Winston Churchill:

In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.

Using this quote, W's eavesdropping is justified. Does Churchill's quote make that claim true? No. Nor do Franklin's words invalidate the Patriot Act. [ALERT: I think it should be clear that I'm not arguing for or against) the Patriot Act, I'm just pointing out some holes in common arguments.]

While I was on the topic, I found a couple of more examples of Someone Sez that might lead to a change in U.S. government:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801
This is a popular one, but it doesn't make it true.

"We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money." -- Davy Crockett, Congressman 1827-35
This would tend to eliminate most government spending, but should Davy Crockett's thoughts on government spending really carry that much weight today?

Anyway, this is just my take on a common "argument" today. If I were in charge I'd say, "Please, please keep debating issues, but put a little thought and original effort into your arguments. I planned to address straw men and ad hominem arguments, but I think I've bored you enough today.

You'll take my coffee when ...

I try really hard not to be one of those "the government is out to get me" libertarians, but this is just a little beyond the pale. [Hat tip to The Agitator.]

City of Shaker Heights, OHIO - ( Jan 17, 2006 ) Following a health trend that appears to be brewing [pun intended, I'm sure] up all over the nation, Mayor Judith Rawson has signed a proclamation for the City of Shaker Heights that addresses the issues regarding caffeine intoxication and dependency.

In the proclamation the Mayor is "calling upon all Shaker Heights citizens, public and private institutions, business and schools to increase awareness and understanding of the consequences of caffeine consumption."

The proclamation also spells out many dangers of caffeine abuse such as heart disease, pancreas and bladder cancer, hypoglycemia, and central nervous system disorders. By getting the word out about the serious dangers of caffeine, Mayor Rawson hopes to prevent a substance that can "pose a significant hazard to health and longevity."

True the mayor doesn't seem to be trying to ban caffeine, but doesn't this just seem to be a little too nanny state? For one thing, the evidence on the "dangers" of caffeine seems to be mixed. As The Agitator points out, there is good evidence that caffeine may, in fact, be good for you. Okay, though, maybe this annual event really is just designed to make others aware of some potential adverse effects -- you know, just get the info out there and let people decide on their own. Well, I might have bought that until I saw this line about some of the ways this event has been celebrated in the past:

Prior years have seen ways of celebrating this event ranging from educational events in school to even picketing outside coffee houses.

Picketing coffee houses?!?! By the way, anyone else notice that these folks evidently are given access to schools? That bother anyone?

Of course skeptic that I am, I wonder if founder Marina Kushner's passion for this event is at all influenced by the fact that she has written a book on the dangers of caffeine and sells her own line of caffeine-free soy coffees.

Regardless of the movement's motivation, this just seems to be one of those cases where the government has no business meddling. Given that I choose to blog as St. Caffeine, I'm sure I'm not unbiased in my reaction either. Still, this seems silly and it just gives further ammunition to folks who fight any government regulation. "See," they'll say, "this is just like when the government tried to ban coffee." Final verdict from the Court of St. Caffeine: mayors should stick to local governance and ribbon cutting and not worry about how much coffee folks are drinking.

At last

I think I might have found the woman for me. Evidently one Maria Dahvana Headley grew tired of "dating only intellectual, literary types," and instead decided to spend a year just saying yes:

Frustrated by those guys, she reversed course, resolving to spend one year responding positively to all flirting and saying yes to literally anyone who asked her out. The ensuing 150 dates included a homeless man, several non-English speakers, 10 taxi drivers, two lesbians and a mime.

I figure even I'd look like a catch compared to a mime! Of course, Maria has now chronicled her year of adventure in a book -- with a happy ending (she married one of them). I doubt I'll read the book, even though one review described it as "sheer chick fluff" and goodness knows I end up reading way more chick books that I can reasonably explain. Still, it sounds like a cool idea.

Of course I approach all these books with a hearty dose of skepticism. That's what bugged me while reading Homer Hickam's October Sky. Everything just seemed to fall into place a little too perfectly. I was suspicious. I promise I had this feeling about memoirs before the current controversy over A Million Little Pieces. I haven't read the book, though Caffeine Brother and a co-worker both strongly endorsed it. As for the controversy I like Mary Carr's take:

Great memoirs don't take bizarre experiences and make them more bizarre and outrageous. They take bizarre experiences and make them familiar. That's the power.

As for myself, I can't quite explain why, but I'm offended by the deceit. Both the people who recommended the book to me told me that it was very inspirational and uplifting. They seemed to imply that it's as easy to find inspiration in fiction as non-fiction and if this book helped someone in a bad situation then it shouldn't really matter whether it was true. I can see that, but what if you read the book and had a reaction along the lines of, "Gosh, if this guy could overcome ALL THAT and make it back, then what's my excuse?" Now you find out many of the author's worst experiences were "exaggerated" (to be kind)! I think I'd be pissed. As for the "every memoir exaggerates" excuse, ... I might buy that as an explanation for recreating dialog or combining two people into one character, but to make up events and pass them off as true, that just seems a little much. Still, it worked out well for the guy. His second book seems to be doing real well and Oprah backs him on the whole "scandal" issue. Yep, being James Frey right now wouldn't suck.

5 Things

As I mentioned earlier this morning, The Vol Abroad tagged me with the 5 Things meme (BTW, what's a meme? I know it's meaning in the blogosphere; I'm just not familiar with the word. Guess I could look it up, huh?) Anyway, here goes (though I reserve the right to lie to make myself seem more impressive and interesting -- I need the help):

5 JOBS YOU'VE HAD: (1) College econ/stats instructor, (2) Serf, at the mercy of my master's every whim (the official title was "graduate research assistant"), (3) Delivery driver and basic Man Friday at a funky deli in Oxford, MS, (4) Boat dock guy at a crappy "resort" in the middle of Nowhere, TN (I've always wondered who thought, "Hey, let's put a crappy resort here in the middle of nowhere," and whether he's still employed), (5) Kelly Girl. Okay, I wasn't really a Kelly GIRL, but I did work as a Kelly temp one summer. I worked 3rd shift, 7 nights a week, making the cartons for 12 packs of Coors Light. To this day I can look at a Silver Bullet 12 pack in the store and tell you whether the machine was in need of adjustment.

5 MOVIES YOU COULD WATCH OVER AND OVER: Like The Vol, I'm not a big movie person. I like them well enough, I just don't get around to watching that many. Still, there are some that I find myself watching again and again whenever they pop up on TV. So, ... (1) Clerks, (2) Raising Arizona, (3) The Usual Suspects (almost went with Pulp Fiction here), (4) Field of Dreams or Bull Durham (I couldn't pick and they're both Kevin Costner baseball movies, so I count them as one choice.), (5) The Station Agent (since I raved about it yesterday) or similar "artsy", "do nothing" films. There's probably 4 or 5 of these alone.

5 PLACES YOU'VE LIVED: Thanks Vol. Your list really makes me look like a bumpkin. (1) Lawrenceburg, TN, (2) Oxford, MS, (3) Tuscaloosa, AL, (4) Huntsville, AL, (5) An Aleut fishing village outside Nome, AK. Okay, #5 is a lie, but the thought of adding another AL residence was just too depressing.

5 TV SHOWS YOU LOVE TO WATCH: I'm assuming these don't have to be current shows, so I'll start with the all-time best TV show ever: (1) Northern Exposure, (2) Ed (another bygone show), (3) Gilmore Girls (best show on TV today), (4) Lost (I admit it), (5) Veronica Mars (I had to pick a 5th). Though it's also off the air, honorable mention to "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr." just to cement my quirky reputation.

5 PLACES YOU'VE BEEN ON VACATION: Yet again, Vol, thanks for boosting my self esteem. Sigh: (1) NC/VA/WV minor league baseball corridor, (2) New Orleans, (3) Smoky Mtns., Sipsey Wilderness Area, various other woods and river type places, (4) Washington, D.C., (5) The Jungles of Borneo -- another lie, see explanation above. Hmm, maybe I should take Thailand Jeff up on his offer to come visit?

5 WEBSITES YOU VISIT DAILY: Hmm, this one is harder than I thought. (1) Obviously folks that I have "linked" on my blog. Seriously, I haven't done that many so I can honestly say I visit each daily (if I'm on the computer), (2) Amazon (This surprised me, but I really do find myself checking out a book or CD there most every day. I don't buy much from them, but I do mooch.), (3) The Christian Science Monitor or the WaPo for news and commentary, (4) During the season I visit ESPN baseball daily. Though the MTVization of ESPN really annoys me, they have great content, (5) Arlo & Janis just because they make me laugh. Today's strip was particulary apt for me.

5 OF YOUR FAVORITE FOODS: Mom's biscuits, pizza, cornbread dressing (not stuffing), gumbo, and french fries.

5 PLACES YOU'D RATHER BE: Wait, is this a "places I'd rather live" or just a "places I'd rather be right now"? Oh well: (1) Oxford, MS (Been there? Then you get it.), (2) Asheville, NC (I love the funky, eclectic vibe -- with mountains), (3) Alaska, somewhere between Anchorage and Fairbanks (I had to do a report on AK in 4th grade and I've been fascinated with it ever since), (4) a small town in southern WV, between the state line and Charleston (seriously beautiful country, lots of baseball, and Charleston is a neat town), (5) The Yaak Valley in way northwest Montana. Thank Rick Bass for that one. I'm sure I could have "gone exotic" on these, but I'm a simple man (in more ways than one).

5 ALBUMS YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT: This is a tough one for me because I love so much music of all different types (thankfully books weren't on this meme). Well, let's see: (1) The Trinity Sessions a solid, solid album, (2) Steve Earle's Guitar Town, before old Steve got a little too strident for my taste. I don't know that this is the best album of the genre, but in my opinion this album saved the Townes Van Zandt style of "country/folk/rock" music and made the whole alt.country movement possible. It makes the list., (3) David Gray's White Ladder -- a little over-produced for my taste, but chock full of killer songs, (4) The first, and by far best, Lyle Lovett album. If you've ever listened to it closely, then you get it. (5) Wow, my last choice. Errr, ... I want something by Van Morrison, but since I made my own "best of" I can't choose an individual album by him. What about some Springsteen -- maybe Born to Run? No, I'll just go with what's in my CD player right now: Iris Dement's Infamous Angel. Seriously, if this album doesn't make your spine tingle at some point, you've just got no blood in your veins.

5 folks I'm tagging: Sorry, but I'm going to have to opt out of this one. I don't know 5 people (who blog) to tag that haven't already been hit. Man I hate that; I'd really be interested to see some other answers to these questions. C'mon slacker friends, start blogging so I can tag you with this meme. Note, a couple of readers do HAVE blogs, they just don't use them.

Whew, I survived. Thanks, Vol. I dreaded doing this, but it turned out to be kind of fun.

Full of crap

Sorry, but this bugged me all night. Yesterday I did a "why I blog" post and as I sat at home last night I came to the conclusion that St. Caffeine is full of crap. While I still believe that writing down my thoughts helps me think through some issues, that's not really why I blog. So what did I come up with as a replacement answer?

I write because I'm a word guy. Yep, I just love putting words together in sentence form. I used to keep a (sort of) daily journal, but since I've been blogging that has fallen off. So basically blogging is just a fill in for my journal keeping, but with hyperlinks and (sometimes) an audience! I hate to admit it, but the audience aspect can be seductive.

So, end result: I write because I enjoy it and the thought that someone else reads my thoughts is hard to resist. That's not as noble as yesterday's explanation, but it just bugged me all night. To borrow a word from Holden Caulfield, it seemed so phony.

Oh, The Vol Abroad tagged me in the "5 questions" game. I'll get to that this afternoon. I promise, no more philosophy or introspection for the rest of the week.

I'm 100 Today

No, not in years -- in blog posts. No, I'm not anal enough to keep up with my blog count on my own, but blogger shows the number of posts and I just realized this is number 100. Hmm, 100 posts, maybe some time for introspection?

The first and most obvious question, to me, is why do I do this every day? Do I have something monumental and life-changing every day? Are you nuts? Of course I don't have anything mildly important every day. Heck, I could probably count my noteworthy (even to me) posts on 1 hand. I did like my early rant about the misuse of statistics in public policy and I'm still tickled by the account of my disastrous trip to the grocery store during the World Series. I've also enjoyed exchanging book notes with some readers, but I don't think those rise to the "I Must Share This With The World" level. So why do I blog almost daily (at least M-F)?

Given my love of quotes, I'll "borrow" a reason from Daniel J. Boorstin (evidently an American social historian and educator):

I write to discover what I think. After all, the bars aren't open that early.

Now I'm not really much of a barfly, but I like the quote. Plus, I think there's a kernel of truth in it. By writing I do develop my thinking on an issue. Sometimes it's a silly, meaningless issue, but sometimes it's something more serious. On these latter issues, especially, I tend to discover my true feelings as I write. Of course given that blogging is an instantaneous sharing of thoughts, I sometimes share before I fully develop my thinking or I just make a mistake. I made both goofs in a single post last week.

I irritated Ang by implying that it doesn't really count as going to church unless you read the right version of the Bible and, just for good measure, wear sackcloth smeared with ashes. While I really didn't mean either of those things, and Ang didn't accuse me of that, in retrospect I can see that my thoughts weren't clearly spelled out. Heck, I don't even know if I have clear thoughts, but that didn't stop me from sharing. In the same post, I also managed to (potentially) insult Melusina by suggesting she was a private school snob (though that's not what I meant; it was supposed to be funny). That was just a case of pure writer error. I guess I figured all the Hume-Fogg folks I'd known were so damned brainy that it must be a private school.

So, I write to figure out what I think (or just because I can't resist a soapbox), but that sometimes leads to "whoops" moments. Oh well, I have LOTS of those in class (especially when doing math at the board), so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I have those blogging. So, dear reader, keep reading if you wish. Maybe you'll find something interesting, informative, or maybe just amusing.

In an attempt to provide a little bit of that, here are a few things to check out:

Top 10 Things I Hate About Star Trek. I never was a big Trekkie, but I found some of them amusing -- especially the one complaining about the predictability of many Enterprise "crises": "Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and 'Ensign Gomez' beam down to a planet. Which one isn't coming back?" Of course I'm not sure the 10 combined are as "funny" as the first (at the time of writing) comment: "I lost my Trekkiedom when they made fun of Capitalists and abolished money--that was way too lefty for me..." C'mon people, it was a SciFi show with analog clocks and counters on a light speed capable craft and you're going to be offended by the politics?

If any of you have the Encore Love channel (no jokes, DISH gave it to us to make up for losing another network), tonight it's showing The Station Agent. There aren't a lot of movies that I absolutely love, but this was one. I actually went to see this during the New England Patriots vs. Carolina Panthers Superbowl a couple of years ago. Yes, there was a female involved, but the Superbowl is a wonderful time to go to the movies. Anyway, the movie isn't really "about" anything, but I really enjoyed it. The characters, the story, the setting, ... It all just seemed to work. It's well worth a little TiVo space.

Speaking of movies, did any of you see Daltry Calhoun? Caffeine Brother tells me parts of it were filmed in Columbia, TN, but the soundtrack is what's caught my attention. My internet "radio" station has played a few songs from the soundtrack and I've liked them all. In addition, the movie sounds like one I'd like. So, did ANYONE see this movie? I'm not holding out hope. The Station Agent is sort of an "underground" movie, yet it has generated 9877 votes on IMDB. Daltry Calhoun, by contrast, has 46.

Well, that's it. Hopefully I'll make it to post 101.

This confuses me

This morning while browsing over at the TPM Cafe (see, I read liberal blogs too, not just libertarian) I was a tad surprised and very confused by a Matthew Yglesias post:

Canada's ruling-but-embattled Liberal Party has come out in favor of eliminating their constitution's "notwithstanding clause," a rarely used provision that permits the parliament to override judicial decisions about their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think the notwithstanding clause is a good thing (see Scott Lemieux for reasoning) and would be disappointed to see our friends to the north lose one of their more admirable constitutional quircks and instead start slogging down the American path where we're forced to endure judicial confirmation hearings that are both incredibly consequential and mind-bogglingly tedious.

Now I'm no fan of the judicial confirmation farce, but is he serious about this notwithstanding clause thing? Intrigued, I looked a little (not a lot) deeper. Based on my cursory snooping, it seems that the notwithstanding clause does, in fact, allow parliament (or even provincial parliaments) to override judicial decisions for a period of up to 5 years (can be renewed). Needless to say, I was surprised that Matt would come out in favor of a clause that, if applied in America, would seem to give state legislators veto power over federal court decisions. Surely, I thought, I must be mistaken. The more I looked, though, that seems to be just what the notwithstanding clause does.

Well maybe, I thought, Matt didn't think about it being applied at the provincial (or state) level. No:

[I]t's my understanding that the notwithstanding clause has a lot of implications for Quebec where the provincial legislature has invoked it several times in order to keep various restrictions on the use of the English language in place.

What sort of restrictions? Well, one "famous" example I found occurred in 1989 when,

The premier of Quebec employed the "notwithstanding clause" to override
freedom of expression (section 2b), and equality rights (section 15). This
allowed Quebec to continue the restriction against the posting of any commercial
signs in languages other than French. (from the Wikipedia entry linked above)

Now I know the folks in Quebec treasure their French roots, but how is this any different from John C. Calhoun's infamous nullification argument or Judge Roy's Rock? I know I have the tendency to be cantankerous just for the sake of argument, but I really do not see the difference here. In fact, Matt himself speculates that the current argument about the clause is driven by the furor over gay marriage. Yet, he still comes out in favor of it? I know the "liberal judiciary" very often is exaggerated and vilified in the U.S., but I thought many of the advances and improvements in American society that liberals are (justifiably) most proud of were achieved through the federal court system. True, Matt is not as "far left" as many at TPM, but I'm really troubled by this.

Again, I'm certainly no legal scholar, so I really hope I'm just missing something here. Hey, Vol, I understand the Canadian system is based, in large part, on the English system. Does the Vol-in-Law have any familiarity with this sort of clause? Is it one of those legal things I just don't understand that really enhances rights rather than restrict them? Someone please tell me I'm wrong about this whole notwithstanding clause.

I hope it's not the case, but a cynic might think Matt's approval of the clause comes from a sentiment like that expressed at Liberalism without Cynicism:

[J]udicial supremacy is an American institution, not a Canadian one. The Canadian system is based on Parlimentary supremacy, not on "checks and balances" between the legislature, executive and courts. Martin's proposed constitutional amendment would make Canada more American, not less. (Italics in original.)

Opposing the removal of this clause simply because it would make Canada more like America seems to be a stupid, knee jerk reaction. But that's just me.

Furthermore ...

I got some interesting feedback on yesterday's post from Ang and Mel. I sort of responded in the comments, but my last comment was getting long enough that I figured I could get a full post out of it. Here goes.

First, I'll touch on Angie's comment. I didn't realize it at the time, but yesterday's post actually went off in two directions. I started with Virginia Postrel's claim that the decline in reading the KJV version of the Bible bears some of the blame for today's lack of reading, writing, and verbal skills. I guess she could have blamed it for poor math skills too, but the only numbers I really recall in the Bible are 3, 7, 10, 12, and 40 and I figure it's pretty hard to construct a math tutorial from just 5 numbers. No, in all seriousness, I simply thought it was an interesting hypothesis. As I thought on it a little more, though, I don't think I buy the explanation. I think another claim of hers (that I didn't address) -- that the movement away from reading the KJV has dampened the "oratorical oomph" of our political speech -- probably has some support, but I really don't buy, "The kids would be more literate if they only read the Bible more." No, I think it would be more accurate if you just left "the Bible" out of that statement. As I mentioned in my first comment yesterday, though, while I do think it is important to get kids to read, I also think it's important to challenge them as readers.

The rest of yesterday's post sort of veered off into today's churches. Upon rereading the post, I realized I should have made a cleaner break between topics, but the whole stream of consciousness thing got away from me. Anyway, that's the point Angie and I have discussed before and though I perfectly understand (and agree with many of) her arguments, I also found myself "nodding along" with Virginia as well. I'm sorry, but at heart I think I'm still an Old Testament Baptist. I could no longer be happy in that setting, but it made a deeper impression than I like to admit.

As for Mel, ... Her comment about "not know[ing] how they give the grades they do," got me to thinking. Of course I'd love to be the guy in "Stand and Deliver", but it just doesn't happen that often. In reality, we have to work with what we're given. I will say that I've been pleasantly surprised by the quality of the average student since moving over here. I won't say the students are better than they were at UAH (there are fewer "superstars" and more of the "clueless" who don't even know if they want to go to college), but the average student is about the same. When evaluating the students, I try to maintain a high (in my opinion) external standard that is the same as it was at Tuscaloosa and Huntsville. I'd like to think A students in my classes now would have made A's at either of those other schools. Sometimes, though, I cave.

There are times when a student makes an A not for truly "mastering" the material, but simply because he or she far outperforms the rest of the class. In other words, in some classes no one really earns an A (in my objective opinion), but even in those classes the top couple of students probably get an A. It's not a good feeling when that happens, but fortunately that's not the norm in my classes.

Now I felt really down after admitting that, but now that I've thought about it, I have to reconsider whether that practice is so bad. I remember some of the real "head hurting" classes (Knobloch and Kim's classes come to mind) from grad school. Their exams were so impossible I doubt anyone ever honestly exceeded 90%, yet they didn't flunk us all. In fact, I made a 62 (I think) on the first test I ever took in grad school, yet it was a C+. For a long time that practice -- give an impossible test and then grade on a curve -- infuriated me. I was used to getting 95's, 98's, etc. on my tests and I did not like what the grad school grades seemed to say about me. Once I started teaching, though, I reconsidered.

I'm sure it can be done, but with a standard (non-curve) type test I have a really hard time distinguishing the "smart", naturally bright, good memorizing student from the REALLY smart, REALLY bright, REALLY gets it student. See, if I design a test that a naturally bright, shows up to class and pays attention, and does the minimum amount of outside work can get a 90% on (something the "smart" kids have grown used to), then both he and the "superstar" will get an A and I can't tell the difference in the two. If, on the other hand, I give an "impossible" test -- one that only the truly sharp, hardest working students will even get an 80% or 85% on -- then I can separate the superstars from the rest. Hence, while I do not have an explicit curve, I do build extra points into my tests that work as separators. After giving one of these tests, I usually end up bemoaning the poor performance, but then I have to remind myself that the test was not an easy (definitions, matching, bold terms from the book) test. I don't know if it's true, but it's the rationalization that gets me through the day come test time.

Okay, that's it.

Hmm, interesting thesis

We've all heard the complaint that today's kids have awful writing/reading/comprehension skills. I've experienced it firsthand in the classroom. I don't give a lot of assignments that are graded on grammar, but test answers and short papers show me that today's students have trouble writing. The more common problem I encounter, though, is reading comprehension. As a few of you know firsthand, my test questions are written in "word problem" form. I present a hypothetical scenario and then ask the students to "solve" the problem presented. I think that's why the most common complaint I hear, semester-to-semester, is that my test questions are hard to figure out. "It's not the material, it's the figuring out what you're asking," they'll say. "Yes," I tell them, "that's part of what I want to test you on."

As I said, it's a common complaint. Virginia Postrel has an interesting explanation. According to Virginia, the downward trend in "language skills" can be (partially) blamed on the movement in churches away from actually reading the Bible, especially the King James Version:

Some years ago, an editor asked me how he could give his children an appreciation for the English language. He wanted them to write well. Since he's an evangelical Christian, I told him he should teach them Psalms from the King James translation of the Bible. My mother did that with me as a child, and it gave me an early sense of metaphor and rhythm. It taught me to appreciate, and understand, complex, beautiful English.

My friend didn't like my suggestion. After all, nobody reads the KJV anymore. Forget poetry (not to mention sensitivity to the underlying Hebrew), today's suburban Christianity is all about accessibility. It's been dumbed down.

Now I'm not a Christian, let alone an evangelical. If megachurches want to play bad-to-mediocre rock instead of great hymns, that's their business. But the spread of Christian pap does have spillovers, not the least of which is that devout Christian faith no longer brings with it a deep familiarity with what's actually in the Bible, as opposed to a few verses from the preacher's PowerPoint. Unless the person is over a certain age, Biblical literacy, when you do find it, rarely means acquaintance with great English. Forget theological or philosophical sophistication. I'd settle for the ability to comprehend complex sentences.

Now I'm not sure I buy this as (nor do I think she's selling it as such) a total explanation, but it's an interesting hypothesis. I remember reading the KJV as a child and Virginia is right; it is not an easy read. Forget all the "begot" chapters, it's a complex piece of writing. Though I didn't grow up reading the bible by lamplight every night, I do agree that Bible literacy was much higher in days of yore. Despite the fact that church attendance has remained high, my experience with a lot of the modern churches has shown me that the Bible doesn't really show up a whole lot from Sunday-to-Sunday. It seems weird for me to say this now, but one of the things I did like about church (back when I used to go more regularly) was the formality and sanctity of the whole experience. I guess I understand why churches have (in Virginia's words) dumbed down the material, but I sort of think church has become almost too casual.

This is an issue my friend Angie and I have discussed, but I never really thought of the effect on literacy. See, Ang, another reason I'm not going to be swayed by your (admittedly good) arguments. Anyway, just something I thought was interesting. Feel free to respond if you'd like to offer your take.

Oh, I also tried this from Daniel Drenzer, but evidently I don't look like any celebrities. It was kind of a letdown because I've always pictured myself as a sort of Clint Eastwood/Brad Pitt/Tom Cruise looking fellow. Okay, that was a joke, but I was sort of disappointed that I apparently match NO celebrity faces at all. Sigh.

FINALLY!

Sorry to bore (some of) you with baseball news, but I have to let out a great big HALLELUJAH! Bruce Sutter finally got into the Hall of Fame! For years now I just haven't understood how the "experts" could keep him out. For gosh sake, the man revolutionized the way baseball was played. The next two closest candidates were Jim Rice and Goose Gossage. I think Rice was a heck of a player and I wouldn't be offended if he were voted in some day, but c'mon HoF voters -- do the right thing by Goose! Sure Rice was a nice player, but like Bruce, Goose was dominant. He was the one guy (in the AL) that so clearly excelled at his role. Goose comes in, game over. That was it. He and Rice were very close this year, but I expect both to drop some next year when Ripken and Gwynn show up on the ballot. That's too bad.

Okay, so I've now met with all my classes and I even wore a tie for the first day of class. That won't happen again, but it keeps me in "tie tying" shape for those times when one is required. I got a pretty good feel from most of the classes, except for the MW night class I had to pick up. The class originally was assigned to an ancient adjunct who is known for holding class only for 30 minutes or so if he doesn't cancel class altogether. Well he almost always teaches the class in that particular time slot so most of the students in there were ones who had taken the first principles from him last semester and they were looking forward to a repeat experience. You should have heard the collective gasp when I walked in. One of them finally worked up the courage to ask, "Where's Dr. X?" I explained that he wasn't going to be teaching the class and they seemed very nervous. As we went through our introductory stuff, I realized it was worse than I'd imagined. They told me that they NEVER drew any graphs in Dr. X's class! How, pray tell, can one teach principles of economics without graphs?!?! Once I knew all this, I sort of laid it on thick about how much more difficult this class would be and I flat out encouraged them to drop if they weren't willing to do the work. I just checked my roll and approximately 1/3 of the folks that were there last night have withdrawn. Each of the "drops" had Dr. X for the first class.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not taking pleasure in scaring off students, but I am glad that we're starting to correct the Dr. X situation. Ooh, I did get to use the Ma Caffeine line: "I don't fail any students, they fail themselves." [Insert evil chortle!]

More later in the week. Very busy getting things started right now.

They're back

Yep, spring semseter classes started today. The only "bump in the road" for me is that my MW 8:00 class did not "make". That meant that I had to pick up an alternate class to justify the continuation of my employment. There was some debate between me and a co-worker, but in the end I got the 5:30 p.m. class rather than the 7:00 p.m. class. I don't feel too badly for her, though, as she got one of Caffeine Mom's chess pies out of the deal.

Oh, I mentioned that I was having company on Friday. I'm not sure about them, but I had a good time visiting with The Vols. I don't think I'd seen them since their wedding. Is that right? Anyway, we went to see the Ansel Adams exhibit and I just wasn't as impressed this time. [Yes, I know, diminishing marginal returns; I teach that stuff.] Still, I enjoyed seeing them. Oh, we also sampled some of my oatmeal stout and I think it tasted better than it did last week. Of course the Vols claimed that it might have tasted better because I'd worked so hard to lower their expectations. Still, I feel better about this batch than I did at first. We also "shared" some music. I sent some Lucinda and some Cowboy Junkies home with them and I got a copy of Dolly's latest. I'm still a little confused by the Dolly album. Dolly doing protest songs just takes some getting used to. I am, though, very taken by her cover of the old Tommy James (or Joan Jett for those with no sense of history) tune, "Crimson and Clover". That was very well done.

Not much else to go on about today. I had to (er, got to) go see the family yesterday. We finally got around to having "Christmas" with Mom's side of the family. I think everyone had a good time though there were WAY too many babies around for my taste. I spent most of the time talking to one cousin and her husband about hiking and camping. We're going to try to find the Kinlock Shelter out at Sipsey before long.

Oh yeah, as for classes ... Well, I've only had one so far. We'll see how the rest of the day goes. I'm sure I'll have many humorous anecdotes anon.

P.S. From Marginal Revolution, yet another reason I love being an economist. You can think about any old topic and call it "economics". Ain't life grand? Oh, also on MR, something The Vols maybe should have had BEFORE their trip to Vegas.

Gotta run

Ugh, classes start on Monday. I'm sure I'll have much to say on that next week, but no time to blog today. I've got company coming down for a quick visit. See y'all on Monday.

Externality markets

Do you have a "cause"? If I do, it'd have to be conservation/environmental issues. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those the sky is falling, Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich types. Nothing annoys me more than listening to someone preaching the "progress is bad" line while ensconced in the comforts born of centuries of economic progress. It pisses me off. Still, I care about conservation and environmental issues.

As an economist these issues fascinate me because they are perfect examples of market failures. [Read any textbook treatment of externalities if you're curious.] What really excites me, though, is that they are market failures that often can be improved through markets. Huh? If it's a market failure, then how can markets fix the problem? There's a lot of debate about just how to do that, but the tradeable permits option is the most popular approach today. Though they aren't perfect, I think this approach offers wonderful opportunities, but the environmental community needs to stop vilifying emissions trading as a license to pollute. Yes, technically that's what emissions trading creates, but it also eliminates polluting without a license. Anyway I'm not trying to sell you on the wisdom of tradeable permits today. No, today, I'm talking about the opportunity to move economic theory out of the classroom and into the real world.

See, I always tell my students that one of the nicest features of emissions trading schemes is that they allow an individual to express his own intensity of preference above and beyond the dictates of society. If you still think there's too much pollution, then get off your hip, pony up the jack, and buy up some of those "pollution licenses" and let them go unused. To an economist this is a much better approach than just whining that, "Someone ought to do something." As I said, I always emphasize this an additional attraction of tradeable permits, but I've never gone beyond the this could happen. Now, though, I've found a couple of opportunities to walk the walk.

First, there is TerraPass. This is the brainchild of the MBA program at Wharton. Basically, you can enter specifics about the type of car you drive and your annual mileage and TerraPass sort of figures out the cost of your vehicle's annual emissions. You then pay that amount to TerraPass and they use the money to buy up pollution permits, invest in clean energy, etc. In a sense, you are paying the cost your emissions impose on society. You get a warm fuzzy feeling from this and they send you some decals, certificates, etc. to show you are a good person.

Another group that does pretty much the same thing is Carbonfund. The setup seems to be very similar, though Carbonfund's people claim they operate more efficiently than TerraPass and Carbonfund does have the advantage of being tax deductible. My gut feeling is that they probably are a little less "wasteful" and I'm inherently skeptical of anything coming out of an MBA class project (I've seen too many of them in operation), but their approach doesn't seem as "sexy" as TerraPass and Carbonfund's method of computing your carbon cost seems a little more complicated. Hence, I get the feeling TerraPass has a better shot of garnering mainstream momentum.

End result: I haven't yet decided which of these two approaches I like best, but one of them is going to get a contribution from St. Caffeine. My PSA for the day -- check them out and consider a contribution of your own. It seems like a better use of charity dollars than just giving money for lobbying purposes. That's sort of the same reason I prefer The Nature Conservancy to most other conservation groups.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Unbelievably sad

First, there was the near certainty of doom, then there was the joyous news of miraculous survival, and finally the awful correction:

Great joy turned to deep sorrow and rage Wednesday morning when mining families here were told inaccurately that 12 of the 13 miners trapped in a coal mine were alive only to be informed, hours later, that they were dead.

It was all the result of a "miscommunication," a mining company official said. He and others thought they heard a transmission from rescuers that the 12 were alive.

They learned the truth a half hour later but waited three hours to inform the families, who were celebrating the "miracle, " dancing and singing Amazing Grace in front of the Sago Baptist Church, which was ringing its bells.

As many of you know, I spend a good bit of my vacation time most summers in WV. Though I haven't been to this particular area, I have driven a lot of the narrow, twisty roads in the coal mining regions. It's like a different world -- a return to very small-town life in company towns. Even with my tangential connection I felt the elation when reading the "good news" this morning. I can't imagine the soul-crushing devastation of the locals.

All quiet ...

Things are pretty quiet here in the old building since the CIS folks moved out. Of course the students aren't back yet, but for the time being it's pretty darned peaceful.

Not much to report today. As you may have noticed, I tinkered around a bit with the layout of the blog. I'm not fluent in HTML, but I poked around the template page and kept changing numbers until I finally found a combination that made my "writing screen" wider without taking away the sidebar to the right. Oh, I also finally got around to linking to Melusina. See, if you comment, and write interesting blog posts of your own, I will recognize you. [CF and Winemaker, this doesn't apply if you never write on your blog.]

Hmm, what's going on in the wide world? Well, I did see this today. Evidently the old homes in New Orleans weathered the hurricane better than many of the newer structures:

The structure of her home was, for the most part, intact. To withstand hurricanes and flooding, her 1923 Craftsman-style bungalow - in one of the city's many historical neighborhoods - had been built with a mix of impervious materials, such as plaster, cypress, and slate.

In fact, these homes will be some of the easiest to save in New Orleans, preservation experts say and should be among the first. They are the city's cornerstones, and their rebirth is New Orleans' rebirth.

Gives me hope for my little 1928 house when the big one hits Decatur.

Also, this just seems wrong. Excuse me; I know there's a Narnia movie now, but there's really no need to write a book based on the movie because it's already been done! True, I haven't read the new book, but I think this excerpt makes it pretty clear this is a completely unnecessary retelling of the story. They made a movie based on a book and now they've written a book based on the movie. Why?

Sorry to be brief, but I'm not feeling 100% today.

Back to work ... sort of

Well the Christmas break is over and now it's back to work. Actually, classes do not start until next week, but "they" decided that we needed to report back today. I've got plenty to do, though, so I really don't mind. Besides, I was about to go nuts sitting around the house all day every day. I did, though, discover what the cats do all day -- they sleep! I think Gumbo was just about ready to run me out of the house just to get some peace and quiet.

So, what did I do over break? As you know, I went camping for a couple of days. Though I did whine about the hardships endured, I enjoyed my trip. I'll post a couple of photos of my trip. First, my campsite on the first night (note the creek/river in the background):
I actually thought the second night's campsite was a little more picturesque, but none of those shots "came out". Next, a shot of a neat waterfall:

I couldn't capture it all in one shot, but there were some cool ice formations at the bottom of this fall. I think I liked this fall so much because it's a quarter mile or so "off the beaten path" so most people never see it. I still didn't make it all the way to East Bee Branch Falls, but there's always next time.

What else? Well, I did LOTS of reading. I made it all the way through The Stand and I was a tad let down. Still, I'm glad I read it, though I do think the "short" version might have been sufficient for me. Oh, I also got around to finishing up William Kennedy's "Albany Trilogy" by knocking out Ironweed. I enjoyed all three of the books, but I thought Ironweed, winner of the Pulitzer Prize, was the weakest of the three. I've felt the same way about Michael Chabon and Richard Russo as well. I guess I'm just an oddball. Go figure.

Nothing big or new to report today -- just getting back into the spirit of blogging. Oh, I did see this Top 10 List today. I don't know what it says about me that I couldn't even crack this one. Maybe the folks at Wired just don't know about me. That's got to be it, right?