Ruminations

New Blog!

2006-03-06T13:04:00.000-08:00

Yes, you heard it and you heard it here first! I am moving my blog to a newer, sleeker place. It's still called Ruminations, only this time it's found HERE I'll leave this site up so that people can access archives and all that (especially the former awesome posts that I wrote up ;) but all new posts will be at the other blog.

Thank you, and good night!

Packing

2006-02-27T17:33:00.000-08:00

It is approximately 10 days before I leave for Germany and, naturally, I have started packing in my usual method. My usual method involves me calculating how many outfits I will need to keep me going until I leave, plus an outfit for the flight, plus counting how much clothing I will need for the 20 days of my stay (3 days in Germany, plus 17 in Finland).
Not surprisingly, I discovered I will need:
1) All of my underwear.
2) All of my socks.
3) All of my jeans.
4) And all of my shirts
To get me through the first 20 days of my trip.
This should enlighten you as to the size of my wardrope (ie, not very large).
Lucky for me that I work all but two days before my travel. So I know that I can pack all my shirts (minus 3, 2 for the days off, 1 for the day of travel), minus the Target ones, and all my pants, minus the khaki ones. If you see me and you wonder why I'm wearing red and khaki and I'm not at work, realize it's because nearly all of my other clothing are hibernating in my suitcase.
Packing naturally involves quite a bit of shopping, and I've noticed that my 10% discount card at Target is coming quite in handy: I spent $160 there the other day, but managed to buy the following items: 1 pair of shoes, 1 purse, 1 umbrella, 1 pair of pants, 3 shirts, some gift items, a new jacket, and a vacuum seal bag. This was some gooood shopping.
Unfortunately, I still have more left to do. I need to stock up on all my "Personal Hygiene Products," which yes, I know, I can buy them in Germany. They have everything we have. But we have lower taxes, which amounts to lower cost, plus my 10% discount...and I'm getting all the shampoo, floss, toothpaste, razor blades, etc. that I will need in advance.
Then there are still a few gift items that I have to get, including some decidedly vague cookies my host sister wants me to pick up. I'm rather tempted to just buy a large variety of cookies and hope to god that I got the right ones, but I recently discovered that's a bit out of my budget and, further more, I'm going to have to budget rather carefully for the remaining gift items I want to pick up.
That's because I made the mistake of making up a budget. And let's just say that I definitely have to watch my spending. There are some things that I am simply not willing to skimp on, of course, such as my bike ride around the Netherlands and my honeymoon (to Ireland!!), but other things, such as my trip to Ukraine, are at risk at the moment. It could be I've overestimated my base costs per month ($560 Euros for room, food, and pocket money), but thinking back to my previous long-term stay in Germany, I think overestimating it might be a wise thing. I have no idea how much I spent then (I didn't keep track) but let's just say I spent freely.
But not this time. I'm definitely going to have to watch what I spend, budget, and skimp on a few things. So, sorry, I won't be spending as much on postcards as I did last time. For those of you who already got a postcard from Germany from me, consider that pretty much it. Instead, you get my blog, which is infinitely more detailed and cheaper than postcards, not to mention immediate!

Despite the unpleasant budget news, I am still very much looking forward to this trip because I know it's the last time I'm going to pretty much cutloose and not have to work. That, itself, warrents a celebration.
Other than that, I need to try and find some sort of way to supplement my income while in Berlin.

Maybe I'll become a prostitute.

America's Debt Diet

2006-02-25T18:17:00.000-08:00

For the first time in my life, I watched Oprah, but don't worry, it was with good reason! Oprah Winfrey has finally decided that the time has come to use her amazing star power for good, instead of endorsing frauds. She has launched what she calls "The American Debt Diet," which is a reoccuring segment of her show that chronicals three American families, all in debt, and their struggles to get out of it. It's a lot like the biggest loser, only it doesn't pretend to be a reality show.

I just watched the first episode, and it was truly frightening. All these people, so many credit cards, so much debt, all of them admitting they don't have a clue how to manage money...and I thought I was bad for only having a checking and a savings account. No, these people are much, much worse. First of all, they all have decent incomes (not one of them is making a measly $8,000 a year as yours truly is). Second of all, they all seem to use money to make themselves feel good. Kind of how I eat a bag of candy to reduce my stress ;). Then they all have credit cards, spoiled children they can't say no to, and houses they can't afford.

Why do they do it??

When I started going to college, I decided that it would be a good idea to learn from the mistakes of my elders, and decided no credit cards (my brother-in-law charged his education on his), go to a cheap college where the majority of the tuition would be covered by scholarships, and try to work and save. While I have from time to time regretted my decision to go to WSU, thanks to the relatively unchallenging courses, everytime I compare my student loans to the national average, I feel a lot better about myself. I racked up only $5,600 in student loans compared to a typical $18,000. I have no credit card debts and have actually only had a credit card for maybe 3 months. This is due to the fact that I work for Target, and it just seemed like the Company Thing To Do. Not that I needed their extra 10% off; I already get that as an employee. Unfortunately for them, I lost the card somewhere in my room and have yet to find it. No one's charged anything (I keep checking to make sure...), so I figure one day I'll find it, and cut it up. It was pointless really: I would buy something on the TargetCard, go home, pay it off from my checking. 3 steps instead of two. Who needs it?

Come to think of it, the TargetCard Peddling has to be one of the things that I really do dislike about Target, and one of the ways that it is worse than Wal-mart. I never thought I'd say it but it's true. First of all, as they mention in the Debt Diet Episode, In House credit cards have the highest interest rates. Mine was 20%. I never had a balance, so it doesn't matter, but can you imagine how quickly you could get behind and never catch up? Second, cashiers (and the whole salesfloor team) is constantly under pressure to get the RedCards sold, which is probably why I'm glad I work flow and backroom. No pressure :) When I worked cashier after Thanksgiving and Christmas, I had to peddle them...and I ended up getting 5, which is pretty good considering I'm horrible at selling stuff. As an up note, a lot of customers would refuse saying they didn't need another credit card. Good for them!

Anyway, back to the topic: So far, the only debt I have at the moment is my student loans, and I've even started paying off the balance on them to where I only owe $4,802.49. This is on two loans. My goal is to have the first, unsubsidized loan (which means I pay the interest) paid off before the rates rise on July 1. Then I'll probably save up (or invest money) to get the balance for the second loan, which I don't have to pay until probably January 2007. It's subsidized, so I don't have to bother with interest until then.

Provided Graybeard (my car) holds up, I will have no debt in one year, maybe even sooner. And that's not a position many Americans find themselves in.

Even worse than where American consumers find themselves is where the American government finds itself. They tell us we should save money and not get in so much debt, while they're spending like money grows on trees. Oh wait. I forgot. They're the government. For them, money does go on trees. And when the shit hits the fan, it's the overly indebted American consumer that gets to pay for it with higher interest rates, inflation, and dollar with little value.

Reread the part where I mentioned "higher interest rates" due to government debts. That affects primarily you and me, also known as The American Citizen. If you have debt that you can get rid of, get rid of it now, before you find yourself completely unable to pay.

And, anyone who wants to watch the Debt Diet Episode can find it here, on Bit Torrent, or can IM me and I'll transfer it to you...much much slower, however :)

Bread

2006-02-23T16:38:00.000-08:00

As far as food goes, I'm not a particularly picky person. Gourmet food is more or less wasted on me; I haven't the palat to tates the difference between it and real food, so simpler is better.

But that ends when it comes to bread. I love bread. But I don't mean the mushy, chewey crust-not-worthy-of-that-name American (sliced) bread. I mean bread that takes effort to chew, where the gluten is well defined and the crust hard, but not stale. It used to be I would have to go to either Europe or Panera to get this kind of bread. Just thinking of German Brötchen makes me wish the next 16 days would go by a little quicker. But it's expensive to fly to Germany just for bread. As for Panera bread, it's fairly expensive. So, I've been spending some time lately practicing baking my own good bread.

Here's the first loaf of bread I made, simple french bread

I was rather surprised at how well it turned out, considering the fact it was my first try. The secret, I suppose is simply letting it rise: I mixed the water, flour, and yeast together before going to bed. Then when I got up to go to work (at 3am), I took it out, kneeded it and formed it into the loaf on a cookie sheet. Then I let it rise for 8 hours until I got home from work, then baked it. And in 40 minutes, perfect wonderful bread.

Then I moved on to the more complicated Sourdough Bread
This takes a lot longer to bake than the French bread, especially if you don't have any sourdough starter, which I didn't. So, last Saturday morning I made up the starter, let it "sour" for 48 hours, on Sunday evening added the flour, water, yeast, salt, let it rise in the bowl over night, then shaped it, let it rise at work, then baked it. It was finished by Tuesday, but with less than satisfactory results. I could hardly taste the difference between it and my french bread! Fortunately, I had chosen to "maintain the starter" and proceeded to take that out and let it sour more this time. The second loaf, above, was completed in only 2 days, and has a bit more sour taste to it. It's still not as sour as I prefer my sourdough bread, so I figure in a few days, I'll start another loaf.

By the time I leave for Germany, I shall have made the perfect sourdough bread! I hope I'm not spoiling myself with all this good bread ;)

Interesting to note...

2006-02-19T09:23:00.000-08:00

Germans can be grumpy, unpleasant people—and it's not because of post-Nazi guilt or a diet filled with bratwurst, says one American researcher. It's because of their vowels. Hope College psychology professor David Myers says saying a vowel with an umlaut forces a speaker to turn down his mouth in a frown, and may induce the sadness associated with the facial expression.

I'm not entirely sure where David Myers was going with this one. He continues on to say that English speakers tend to be happy because of the "e" and "ah" sounds. But what about all of those other languages out there that have umlauts, or sounds equivalent to umlauts? Are they also unhappy and depressed, or is it just "let's pick on the Germans time"?

Finnish has a TON of umlauts in their language(äyriäisötökkä), should they be less happy than the Germans then? What about the Russians? They have a different alphabet, but may still have the same umlaut sounds.
I would venture a guess that this might have more to do with weather than with language: if I lived in a place where it was cold, dark and rainy for a significant period of time, I think I'd be a little "unpleasant" and prone to invade any neighbors with better weather.

But I suppose it's comforting that i'm not the only person who has noticed that if you're going to yell at somebody in any language, German would be the language to do it in!

The link also has other interesting tidbits in there too, which I also recommend for reading.

Edit:
Lately I've thought more about this post and decided that it might also suffer from a great degree of cultural bias. For example, in the midwest, we smile a lot and you're expected to be friendly. We're not as bad as the South, but we're getting there. In Germany, it's completely different and reserve is the order of the day. You don't smile at people for no reason. If you do, it's evidence of a weak mind. This doesn't mean that they're grumpy and unfriendly; it's just harder to get past that public reserve. This is true in Finland and many other European countries. And it has nothing to do with language.

For another response to this, Andrew Hammel has his own ideas.

Comparing Kansas and The Free State

2006-02-12T08:01:00.000-08:00

Some Porcupines have started lists that detail the differences between the states they left, and New Hampshire, and I find it to be a very useful activity:

Kansas
*5.3% sales tax
*$0.24 excise tax on each gallon of gas
*$0.79 tax on each pack of cigarettes
*$2.50 tax on each gallon of spirits
*$0.30 tax on each gallon of table wine
*$0.18 tax on each gallon of beer purchased
*Three state income tax brackets, ranging from 3.5% to 6.45%
*Mandatory insurance for all drivers, regardless of driving history
*Mandatory seatbelt laws
*A rather disturbing history of emminent domain abuse
*$5,047 are spent per pupil per year in Kansas schools
*Homeschooling regulations require parents to "Operate a home school as a non-accredited private school, teach for a period of time equivalent to public schools (186 days a year), register name and address of school", but requires no records to be kept, and no testing.
*Average state property taxes were $116.682 for $1,000 valuation.
*You cannot buy Sudafed or other cough medicine over the counter. Rather, you must go to a pharmacy, show ID, and sign your name in a book. You are not allowed to buy significant amounts of it at any one time. If you go to various pharmacies and buy Sudafed (say, if you have a lot of sick family members), don't be surprised for a search warrent to be issued on your house, as you obviously have a meth lab. You're guilty until proved innocent.
*All liquor shops are privately owned, though people under 21 years of age are denied entrance unless accompanied by their legal guardian. Everyone must have picture IDs.
*You must present your Social Security card in order to get your driver's license (picture ID)
*If you want to quit high school before graduation (to home school, or do something mmore useful with your time), you must read and sign a piece of paper that says you recognize that dropping out of high school will have a significant downward effect on your income, and that you are basically screwing yourself over for life.

Now, New Hampshire
*There is no state sales tax.
*There is no state income tax.
*There is a $0.18 tax on each gallon of gasoline purchased.
*There is a $0.52 tax on each pack of cigarettes.
*The state government controls, and owns, all sales of alcohol (both wine and spirits) in the state. They must be purchased at State liquor shops.
*There is a $0.30 tax on each gallon of beer.
*Insurance is optional, not mandatory. If you have a good driving history, you can save yourself the $40 each month.
*Recognizing that adults are intelligent beings and The State is Not Your Mother, seatbelts are recommended, but OPTIONAL for 18+
*Due to a ruling against government land grabs in the 1980s, New Hampshire has had NO instances of emminent domain abuse.
*$7,926 are spent per pupil for school funding
*Homeschoolers in NH have the option of operating a homeschool, with no teaching or attendence qualifications. Homeschoolers must sumbit a curriculum along with a letter of intent to the school board when they decide to homeschool, maintain a portfolio, and submit to testing by July 1, each year.
*New Hampshire is ranked 49th when it comes to local tax burdens, with the highest property taxes in the US (due to a lack of other taxes on sales and incomes).
*You may buy cough syrup as you desire, without getting your house searched.
*You do not need your social security card to get a driver's license, but if you have just moved there, you need to have proof of residence (a utility bill or the like, with a New Hampshire address, addressed to you).

Obviously, there are plenty of things we can do to improve the status of the Free State relative to Kansas, especially when it comes to school funding, liquor, and property taxes. Part of me wonders, however, if some of the high property taxes are not due to the extremely high per pupil school funding. Homeschoolers and private schoolers in the state are effective out of $7,000 if they decide on a form of education other than the public schools. How is that fair?

My Price Elasticity of Demand Just Snapped

2006-01-29T07:17:00.000-08:00

It doesn't matter the price. Money has, all of a sudden, ceased to havve meaning for me. While I can't see the point of paying more than $40 for a pair of pants and $20 for a shirt and think no one should ever, ever pay more than $100 for a pair of shoes...I have to have this.
I don't care if the clothes I wash in it are crap, but imagine not having to buy a dryer. NOt having to wait an hour for the clothes to dry. No purchasing detergents! No thinking something is dry and then putting it on and discovering it is, in fact, wet in teh crotch. No more buying detergents! No more paying extra for electric bills or water!
If you're European, you won't have to hang up the laundry and wait for it to dry!

I want it :(

The Gourmet's Love-Song

2006-01-19T17:21:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Douglas Adams, I have developed a strong appreciation for the works of PG Wodehouse, and have recently come to appreciate some of his poetry as well:

HOW strange is Love: I am not one
Who Cupid's power belittles,
For Cupid 'tis who makes me shun
My customary victuals.
Of, Effie, since that painful scene
That left me broken-hearted,
My appetite, erstwhile so keen,
Has utterly departed.

My form, my friends observe with pain,
Is growing daily thinner.
Love only occupies the brain
That once could think of dinner.
Around me myriad waiters flit,
With meat and drink to ply men;
Alone, disconsolate, I sit,
And feed on thoughts of Hymen.

The kindly waiters hear my groan,
They strive to charm with curry;
They tempt me with a devilled bone --
I beg them not to worry.
Soup, whitebait, entrées, fricasees,
They bring me uninvited.
I need them not, for what are these
To one whose life is blighted?

They show me dishes rich and rare,
But ah! my pulse no joy stirs,
For savouries I've ceased to care,
I hate the thought of oysters.
They bring me roast, they bring me boiled,
But all in vain they woo me;
The waiters softly mutter, 'Foiled!'
The chef, poor man, looks gloomy.

So, Effie, turn that shell-like ear,
Nor to my sighing close it,
You cannot doubt that I'm sincere --
This ballad surely shows it.
No longer spurn the suit I press,
Respect my agitation,
Do change your mind, and answer, 'Yes',
And save me from starvation.

P.G. Wodehouse

He's probably better known for his Berlin Broadcasts that nearly got him charged with treason during World War II, which just goes to show you that the Brits had gotten so stiff-upper-lipped by that time, they'd forgotten how to laugh. The transcripts are hilarious and well worth reading.

Why I Will Homeschool

2006-01-18T12:58:00.000-08:00

I never thought I'd find all the reasons in one place, but here they are, in a beautifully written article posted on Home Education and Other stuff

He's baaaack!

2006-01-17T16:45:00.000-08:00

Looks like I'm not the only one returning after a break, thoough Hasidic Rebel's break was a bit longer than mine! I used to read his blog years and years ago before he stopped writing. Then, out of curiosity today I decided to look him and see if he was posting. A lo and behold! He just started up again.

Pictures!

2006-01-17T15:00:00.000-08:00

And while I'm on the subject of updating, here are some pics. I did manage to reinstall Windows and get my computer working again, but unfortunately, it wiped out my hard drive in the process, which means no more linux. It's amazing how childish windows feels after using linux. I loathe it, and loathing it makes me feel oddly good :) But fortunately I backed up my drive when I installed linux, so when I Get my laptop, I just have to transfer all the stuff. And now the pics:

First off, the Ring:

And now, a picture of my fiance (I was going to say random weird guy who gave it to me, but I guess I should be nice ;))

We're wincing because it was rather sunny in Colorado in October. It's not the most recent picture, but it's probably one of the better ones we have; the ones taken in Winter look too dark for my liking and I don't feel like going through all of these photo editing programs that came with my camera to fix it :)

So there you are!

Letting Go

2006-01-17T14:01:00.000-08:00

I know, I haven't updated in a long time, and I have no real good excuse for it other than the fact that any time I've tried to sit down and write a post, I can't write it out to my satisfaction, so I just stop completely. Even writing it out on paper has failed to produce anything good, so I just let things sit and stew for a little while.

This isn't to say I haven't been busy; to the contrary: I have now moved to working full-time at Target, and I pretty much come home so tired I don't have the mental power to write a post (yep, that sounds like a great excuse, right there.)

I've also started packing up my room. I know that it's really early, but I am so ready to go it's not even funny. I haven't traveled any where for so long that my Wanderlust is really pent up (okay, Finland last May doesn't count. It was only for two weeks and I keep forgetting that I've been there). The vast majority of my books are now packed up in plastic containes, along with my stuffed animals and Christmas ornaments, basically stuff I know i won't need before going to Germany, but will need after moving to New Hampshire. This also has the added advantage of letting me know how much space I have to deal with when it comes to packing. I plan on moving with just what I can fit in my Honda, minus the space for me and for my dad. So I've been getting rid of a lot of clothes I would love to wear, but never do lately in recognition that Graybeard of my imagination has a lot more room than in reality.

Unfortunately, my pre-emptive packing has had the unfortunate side effect of turning my Biggest Nephew into...well, a brat. The day I was packing up my books, he came into my room and asked me if I wanted to keep that book, if he could have my star wars books (I was actually tempted to say yes to that one, but I would like to keep the X-wing books and Thrwan Trilogy, you know, the GOOD ones). Then he asked if he could have some of my flags, or how about my computer (no, my brother's getting it) or how about my whole room? He stopped short of asking if he could move in next week, but that's probably only due to the fact I ordered him out of my room and shut the door.

I realize that my going away is going to be extremely difficult on him. It was the first time, as well. Everytime I spoke with him on the phone, he asked me how many months until I would come home again and had an extremely bad year in school. Apparently laying claim to all of my stuff is his way of saying, "I'll miss you!" I could have thought of a better way to say it though. So I finally explained to him that the way he was expressing himself was making me feel rather unwelcome, as though he could not wait for me to leave. So instead of trying to take my stuff, he's just spending more time with me and we've been having discussions, which is a nice change. So we've walked through college hill with the dog, discussing hte houses, saying what we would get fixed and which houses we like best. He's also asked me my opinion on which middle school he should go to. I'm a bad person to ask this sort of thing because I'll give an honest answer. In this case, it was "All middle schools are crap, so it matters very little whihc one you pick. Just don't pick one that feeds into West High or South High (the worst high schools) and you'll escape the worst of it.
A good thing, however, is that my constant traveling and involvement with Stuff of German Origin has got him thinking that learning German would be a good idea. Hooray! I'm having an influence! Unfortunately, I don't think that many of the middle schools have German programs, or at least any worth participating in. I told him that and that if he wanted to learn it, he'd probably be better off doing it on his own or with my help. I'm not sure if this is something he will be interested in doing long-term, mainly because it's a reaction to me going away, not him wanting to learn something.

I'm rather anxious at how my nephews are going to take me going away this time, mainly because this time I won't really be coming back. B.N. is the only one of them who is really aware of this fact, however. Littlest Nephew just looked at my containers and asked me where all my books went. I told him I packed them up in the containers so that I could take them with me when I moved away, and this seemed like a good explanation to him. He understands the words, but he has no concept of what they mean. As far as his young mind can remember, I've always been here and will always be here. I imagine he will internalize whatever he feels from my absence. He's more of an introvert than B.N. is anyway. Whatever B.N. is feeling, he makes everyone else feel as well. But L.N. is a little quieter and more cautious and avoidant of situations he can't understand or explain. When I left for Finland for two weeks, he didn't go in my room wondering where I was (B.N. hung out there when I was in Germany). Instead, he avoided it the whole time. But as soon as I got back, BAM! He was in my room messing around with my stuff with renewed vigor.

So it will be interesting. The one thing that saddens me more than anything about leaving, though, is that I will no longer be a part of their lives, except as a passive and distant observer. I won't be Aunt Shelly, provider of free candy, ample video-game playing time, walks, cuddles, and tickeling, but someone they only hear about and only comes around every once in a while. Even worse, I will no longer have a ready made excuse to go to the park and swing on the swings :(.

My nephews have been a constant part of my life since I was 11 years old. It's going to be a tough cord to cut.

Engaged!

2005-12-27T12:13:00.000-08:00

This is just a quick update before I go again, as I am currently without internet access :)
In any case, Lasse and I got engaged just a little after midnight on Christmas Day (hooray!) The ring is beautiful, and I would post pictures but as my previous post stated I am using linux at the moment and I don't want to go through all the effort to find out whether or not my digital camera is compatible with it :) In anycase, it's done with, I had a very merry Christmas and I hope everyone else did too!

PS: I got the present from you and the family, Christin! Thanks! Frohe Weihnachten!

Windows: 0, LInux: 1

2005-12-15T06:10:00.000-08:00

My computer crashed on Tuesday. I left the room to get an apple, came back with apple in hand...and it had booted. I managed to restart and get into windows a couple of times in an attempt to try to fix the stupid time, but each time it kicked me out quicker than the time before until it would not even let me in under safe mode.
Fortunately for me, I had installed Linux on my computer over the summer...and where Windows would not work, Linux did! I can stll access all my files from Windows on linux, plus I have the backup I made of my harddrive when I installed Linux in the first place.
Really,if it weren't for various difficultlies (My printer won't print on linux, though it wouldn't print work documents either, my Mp3 player can't be accessed, my webcam won't work, and I can't get on MSN), I would switch over to linux completely and just screw Windows. It's sooo much better.
For instance, you can leave your computer on a lot longer on linux without it booting. My computer had gotten to the point where i couldn't even leave it in Windows for the 8 hours I was asleep or gone in the day without it reverting to the emachines screen. If you turn your computer off with programs on in linux, they will still be on and exactly how you left them after you reboot. You can also change more things and customize the icons EXACTLY HOW YOU WANT THEM in linux, provided of course you have the skill to. I don't, but the knowledge I can is comforting :)
Having said all this, I'm still rather tempted to get Suse Linux 10.0 and install it on my laptop when I get the laptop, just to have the option. It only costs $50!

The End of the Story

2005-12-12T15:28:00.000-08:00

When I was in middle school, I discovered a deep interest in the history of the Soviet Union, as an outgrowth of my interest in World War Two, and one day my mother presented me with an old black book she had found somewhere. It had nothing on the cover and was simply entitled, "I Chose Freedom, V.A. Kravchenko." I didn't read it for a while, but when I did, the book was gripping. It is an autobiography of Victor Kravchenko, born to a family in Ukraine during the 1905 revolution. After the Bolsheviks gained power, Victor joined the party, first as a Komsomol and later worked his way up to a mid-level position in a swank Moscow. Between that time, he witnessed the Ukranian collectivization as one of the party faithful sent down to encourage the peasants to give up their land, famine, purges and the mass deportations to Siberia. Finally in 1944, he was allowed to work for the Soviet government in Washington DC. He found the moment, and defected, knowing that this would cause his wife, father, mother, and brother to be arrested and tortured back home.

The book was written in 1946 and was an immediate bestseller. It ended as Kravchenko described moving from hiding place to hiding place, attempting to avoid the long arm (and knives) of the NKVD, Soviet secret police.

I had always wondered what happened to him after that. Did he live? Survive? What happened?
Then, out of curiosity, I googled his name and found an article that tells the rest of the Kravchenko story. The answer, in short, is yes, he survived, but only for 20 years after the publication of his book. He was found shot in the head in his New York apartment, an apparent suicide.

Even more tragic are the events that befell his family left in the USSR. His father, who had supported him and urged him to do the right thing throughout his whole life, was sent to a gulag and died there. His mother was also sent to a gulag and died there. His brother, who was completely apolitical, was also sent to a gulag...and died there. His second wife, Irina, was executed after she refused to testify against him at the libel suit Kravchenko brought against the French Communist Party in 1949 (they claimed the book was a work of fiction). His first wife decided to testify, in order to protect Victor's son, Valentin, who was born after they had divorced. It protected Valentin until 1982, when he was also arrested and sent to a gulag for 7 years, as was his stepfather.

In the US, however, Kravchenko had two more sons, though he refused to marry their mother, believing this would put them in more danger. The sons never knew he was their father until 1965, shortly before his death, and never had the chance to talk to him with this knowledge.

And there you have it. A whole family brought down by the Soviet regime, one after another, picked off like so many targets. If one family member was arrested, the rest were soon to be picked off one by one. The children would be left to roam the streets, where they would later be picked up by the police and sent to children's camps. The whole of the Kravchenkos was affected by this, no matter how distant their relation. The article doesn't mention this, but I'm willing to bet that many of Kravchenko's close associates found themselves arrested after his defection as well.
And the same things happened in China, during the Cultural Revolution. And the same things happened (and still happen) in North Korea.

There is another book coming out, called the Kravchenko Case, which is more or less a biographical sketch. It's been 15 years in the works, and is due for publication soon :)

Moskau, Moskau

2005-12-10T15:04:00.000-08:00

Follow the link

Why My Kids Won't Attend Public School, Reason #3,812

2005-11-09T04:19:00.000-08:00

The DARE Program

I can't think of a more stupid program to put in public schools and waste tax money on. Seriously. A better name for this program would be "Child Indoctrination Program So They Will Unquestioningly Support Our Failing War on Drugs." Note: when the government has to have programs to teach people why things are bad, odds are, those things aren't really bad.
The same goes for most drugs.
Yes, many are extremely addicted, including crack, heroine, and LSD. But many others of them (and the ones they specifically target) are not. Instead of expecting children to 100% ban all of them and telling them they are ALL bad, why not aim for something a little more balanced, like talking about the various medical benefits of marijuana, how heroine (I think it was heroine) was first developed as pain relief for hospital patients and, while it worked better than morphine, it also turned out to be a lot more addictive.

Mix the good with the bad. For $5,000 a year, I think we can afford to be a little more balanced. More than being told what to do, kids need information so that they have the ability to make their own choices later on in life. From the subjects to the hours to the people they socialize with to the D.A.R.E program, public schools lacks this.

Norberg Sums It Up

2005-11-06T03:33:00.000-08:00

This weekend, the US failed to create momentum for a Free Trade Area of the Americas, since it wants to keep wasting billions in subsidies on farms that would be able to survive without them (in which case they don´t need them), or wouldn´t (in which case they don´t deserve them).
--Johan Norberg

It's really too bad he's married. But that's alright. I have a free trade guy of my own :)

Women's "Selfish Desires"

2005-11-05T07:08:00.000-08:00

Today's liberated, Ivy-League-educated women are willing to sacrifice their privilege and their opportunities to become independent leaders of the 21st century. They are eschewing the opportunities that Gilman's protagonist and other oppressed women of the time yearned for. Ivy League women are not taking advantage of the ability they have to make incredible strides in the fight for gender equality that would benefit women from all backgrounds. Instead, they are choosing to use their power for their own selfish desires.

--Julie Schiller, 20, Sociology Major at the University of Hartford.

Tell me, Julie, who owns you? Who in your life has the power to make decisions reagarding your current situation and your future? As you have already reached your majority, I would venture a guess and say that you do. Congratulations! You own yourself! Now, let's extend this question a bit further and include all women in it. Some of these women will undoutably have attended Ivy League schools, while others not. Some will work, some will have children, some will have neither jobs nor children.
Who owns these women? Do you own these women? Who has the ability to make choices for these women, to decide for them whether or not they should work full-time and raise children, or concentrate on one or the other? Do you have that right? Furthermore, does feminism have that right?
You incorrectly state that feminism is the "fight for gender eqaulity," but if that is all feminism has done or meant to do, how did it manage to change the state of affairs so dramatically from "submissive, weak, and emotional" women to "young, dominant women...in a commanding position"? YOu seem to think that all women needed in order to gain "equality" is simply to start working and do the same things that men spend their lives doing. This assumption is false and ignores a full 100 years of feminist history.
Feminism is not the quest for "gender equality." It is not the ability to say, "I work and bring home the same money as any man." Rather, feminism at its core involves nothing less than the ability to say, "Whatever I do in my life, I am the one who will choose it." It is, in short, the concept of self-ownership.
Have you ever questioned why women of the Victorian era were meek and demure, why they rarely had careers? Because they could not say "I am my own person, I will make my own decisions and be true to myself." In the 19th centry, a wife was her husband's property and was legally bared from the workplace as a married woman.
That women today have the ability to choose not to work and still get Ivy League degrees inspite of this decision shows how far feminism has come to bringing true equality of choice to society.
When you imply that women should not be permitted to choose for themselves the direction of their lives ("choosing to use their power for their own selfish desire"), you are also implying taht women do not deserve the right of self-ownership. But instead of men owning women, you think that feminism should own them so that the feminist ideals of an androgenous society, devoid of any color or variation, may come to be. This is the kidn of feminism that seeks to minimize choice for women, instead of maximizing it.
In the Victorian Era, you would have been condemned for your selfish desire to work, instead of sacrificing yourself for home, husband, and children. Today, you condemn others for choosing this life for themselves. How lucky for all beneficiaries of feminism that your words have no binding affect on anyone but yourself!

Na, Pech, Bayern.

2005-11-01T15:30:00.000-08:00

Oh, those poor, poor, Bavarian thigh-slappers

In other news, I will be in Berlin with the World Cup. Unfortunately, I have very little interest in any sort of soccer my nephew is not playing, so I guess I won't be going.

2005-10-27T03:41:00.000-07:00

The Dallas Observer has posted a good article discussing unschooling, namely one family's experiences with it.

I agree with a lot of what unschooling says, namely that you need to trust the child to learn what he needs to know for his life. But at the same time, I still think that parents are meant to be there, not just as listeners, but as guiders and leaders, helping their children to be successful. So I'm probably more in favor of a hybrid unschooling/homeschooling experience: no formal education until age 8 or so, and then bits and pieces here and there as it becomes relevant. I'm certainly not one of those who would have the patience to let my child turn 14 before learning to read!

That aside, my main problem is that there are some things you need to insist on from your kids, such as learning logical critical thinking. This might have been useful for Quinn, the eldest unschooled child in the article, who seems to be some sort of New Age Hippy, thinking he can gleen wisdom from homeless schizophrenics. Yea, don't agree.

2005-10-26T17:27:00.000-07:00

(It should be noted that this was written on October 12, 2005. Nicole is the one doing the choking in the picture.)

I've known for over 24 hours by now, but for some reason, it just now hit me that Nicole Bingham is dead. I read in the paper about the apartment fire in Lawrence last week just enough to ascertain that it was not any of the people I knew who went to KU and cared no longer. Until my mom called and told me that she had heard one of the victims was most likely Nicole. Still, it didn't sink in until I saw the newspaper article and her picture on the front page. She had changed a bit from when I knew her in middle school; most notably, she had gained weight, not overweight, but a healthy weight that contrasted with her stick-thin figure in middle school.

While I wouldn't call her my best friend in middle school, she was the first friend I made there. We sat together the first day at lunch, her last name and mine being right after each other in the alphabet. Through mutual acquaintances, we formed a group of friends that lasted until the end of seventh grade, when it broke apart in a burst of firghting, of which I was the main target. By the end of that school year, I had two friends left: Stephanie P. and Nicole. Of those two, only Nicole openly defended me against my friends-turned-enemies, hugging me and comforting me after I burst into tears under the weight of what was going on at school and at home. I don't know if she knew how much I appreciated that becasue other than her, I had no one but myself to lean on for comfort. She did not pretend to be neutral and we remained friends through 8th grade. Then she chose to go to North instead of continuing on in the IB Program, I to East, and we quickly lost touch.
I haven't spoken to her in 7 yaers and I can't believe how strongly this is hitting me. I haven't taken much effort to keep track of friends from those days; I just assumed that all of them were doing well and in college, like me, and set to graduate.
The fact that the apartment fire was arson only makes it all the more harsh and unfair. She majored in history, like sh said she would. She wrote a paper in 8th grade on the Black Plague and told me how Ring Around the Rosey was about the black death, a rumor I would repeat until I found out it wasn't true. I remember how we used to volunteer at the library together, how we used to alternate who would get the Dr. Peppers at lunch each day. One day, when it was my turn, I ended up dropping one can down the stairs several times and decided it'd be better if I gave that one to Nicole. Unwary, she opened it immediately and it exploded everywhere just as Mrs. Bush (our principal) walked by. I remember how she helped me try to improve my wardrobe when all I had to wear was secondhand and similarly unfashionable clothes. Hell, I even remember the time she invited me to her evangelical church in a youthfully misguided attempt to convert me. We watched a video that featured a group of teens who died in a car wreck after a party and all of them went to hell except the one who had accepted Christ into his heart. She cast worried looks at me thorughout the presentation, hoping I would get saved and spare myself an eternity of fire and brimstone.
While I can't say for sure, I hope her fervor lessened over the years as she grew older. I hope she realized that there are more things in life that define good and evil than having accepted Christ into one's heart. Nicole's actions when I knew her were good, and I believe she would have acted in the same way regardless of her religion.
For all we know, the man who was arrested on suspicion of setting the fire that killed her may have been religious, but that doesn't change the fact he caused the death of three people who didn't deserve to die.
We all imagine we'll die peacefully, in our sleep, or at least in a manner of our own choosing. But burning to death, while alive, and suffocating on smoke is a worse death than I want to imagine for anyone. I would like to think that Nicole didn't suffer, but I know she did. There's no way she couldn't have. And that is so terribly unfair.

The US, Trade Deficit and the "Hard Landing"

2005-10-22T16:36:00.000-07:00

Financial and economic crises are a lot like wars: you never know when the next one is coming and you’re always prepared to fight the last one. With that in view, the constant attempts by economists to predict how severe the consequences of America’s current-account deficit will be are irrelevant at best.

First there are the pessimists, who are like evangelicals and warn of the coming economic Armageddon that will bring high-interest rates, dollar depreciation, and economic recession if we don’t repent our ways, save more, and stop buying plastic crap from China.

Then there are the optimists, who are much calmer about things and fairly certain things won’t be so bad: the dollar will weaken, people will stop buying so many foreign goods, but all of this will happen slowly and be less extreme. It should be noted, however, that most of the economists who say this also work for the Federal Reserve, quite possibly the largest faith-based initiative in the United States. It only works as long as you have faith in it, so it only makes sense that those involved with it want to reassure people that everything will be okay.

Fortunately for the Feds, most recent currency crises support the more optimistic view: bond yields didn’t rise by much and industrialized countries tend to have stronger currencies, so that the risk of inflation or of the government defaulting on loans is slim. Combine this with the fact few people concerned about inflation and it weakens the long-accepted view that bond-yields and inflation risk are intrinsically connected.

Does this mean the optimistic view is right? I don’t know, but I really doubt the pessimists are. If the dollar crashed, interest rates went sky high and the U.S. economy went into a recession, it would be bad news for the entire world, not for those Americans who refuse to save. ON the economic world scene, there are too few countries that have the stability, economic strength and opportunities as the U.S. currently does. The EU might become a viable alternative, but not until it deals with its internal economic difficulties and lets go of “market socialism.” If the U.S. economy goes into a recession and the dollar crashes, the rest of the world will crash as well.

For this reason, I don’t believe that foreigners will stop lending the U.S. money any time soon. The risk is worth it right now, regardless of how big our foreign deficit.

Furthermore, I don’t think that having a current-account deficit is one of our greatest concerns at the moment. As Walter Williams argued,

When we as consumers purchase goods from China, and the Chinese don't purchase a like amount of goods from us, it is said that there's a trade deficit. But instead of purchasing goods, the Chinese might purchase corporate stocks, bonds or U.S. Treasury debt instruments. Just as in my grocer example, there is a balance of trade. The deficit in our nation's goods and services account, sometimes called current account, is matched by a surplus of equal magnitude in our capital account. A large portion of surpluses in our capital account consists of U.S. Treasury debt instruments held by foreigners…If foreigners didn't purchase so much of our debt, we'd be worse off in terms of higher inflation and interest rates.

I guess you could say I’m an optimist, then, because I’m not worried yet. The countries that have had currency crises had worse problems that the U.S. trade deficit. What we should concentrate on instead is eliminating the inefficiencies in our economy that could bring us to the same level as these countries.

I could sure use this...

2005-10-03T13:35:00.000-07:00

Well, except for the penis growth part.

Never Give All the Heart For Love

2005-09-24T16:08:00.000-07:00

When we were studying poems by William Butler Yeats in high school, we learned that he spent most of his life courting a young woman who refused to marry him on the basis that it might ruin his ability to write poetry. I always imagined the conversation went something like this:

Young Woman: I'm sorry, but if I marry you the tortured aspect of your poetry just won't be there anymore.
WB Yeats: Look, I can still write good poetry even if I'm not completely miserable. It's a myth that poets have to be depressed! For example...erm...erm...*thinks hard* There once was a woman from...
*she looks supremely unconvinced*
Well, alright, so it's a bit rough, but I'll polish it up a bit and you'll never know the difference! Hey, where are you going? No, come on, come back, I have a ring!

Okay, so maybe not. But anyway, WB Yeats did write some good poetry. Here is one of his shorter works:

Never Give All The Heart

Never give all the heart, for love
Will hardly seem worth thinking of
To passionate women if it seem
Certain, and they never dream
That it fades out from kiss to kiss;
For everything that's lovely is
But a brief, dreamy, kind delight.
O never give the heart outright,
For they, for all smooth lips can say,
Have given their hearts up to the play.
And who could play it well enough
If deaf and dumb and blind with love?
He that made this knows all the cost,
For he gave all his heart and lost.

Darn Kansas Accent

2005-09-22T07:21:00.000-07:00

Today's Eagle headline has made me aware of yet another way my Kansas accent has led me wrong. For the longest time I thought the idiom was "on tenderhooks." Well, no, it's not. It's "tenterhooks": In a state of uneasiness, suspense, or anxiety; A hooked nail for securing cloth on a tenter.

More Elite College Women Plan to Stay Home

2005-09-20T07:41:00.000-07:00

From the NYT:

At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates.

There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want.

Many women at the nation's most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children.

This is a good thing, from my perspective. It shows that more and more women are no longer taking direct orders from the feminist hierarchy and are, instead, doing what they want. This includes sequencing (developing a career and then taking time off to raise children, and restarting a career), dropping to part time when having children, staying home for good, or just developing a career that is flexible enough to include childrearing. However, the NYT and the college elites aren't very pleased with this:

"It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?" said Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard, who served as dean for coeducation in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
It is a complicated issue and one that most schools have not addressed. The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity.

"They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they're accepting it," said Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women's and gender studies at Yale. "Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.

"I really believed 25 years ago," Dr. Wexler added, "that this would be solved by now."

Wait, this isn't a private issue? Since when was a woman's career choice a public issue? Is this another sign of the patriarchy controlling women, this time by forcing them into male-pattern career paths? Oh, no wait, sorry, these are the feminists advocating it, so obviously whatever they say must be good and liberating for the women.
And this is issue IS solved. We've tried male career patterns and discovered they only work out for women who don't want to have any children, or have to work from economic necessity (these certainly won't be at Yale). It sucked, it was stressful, and most women are re-adapting their idea of a career to fit what they want.
It's also interesting to note that colleges take the stance that if someone isn't going to work or have a career, then educating them is useless and not worth the funding. So we should have our children raised by illiterate women? The most intelligent children, who do the best in schools, are those who have intelligent and educated parents, who help them learn to read and help them with their school work. Educating women who plan to stay at home DOES pay off, it just doesn't pay off in dollars, cents, and lists of famous alumni. Ah well. Can't have it all, can you Yale?

It's interesting because one of the things I absolutely refuse to admit in the university right now is that I plan to have kids and stay at home. It just seems extremely unacceptable, especially since I'm going to a school where getting a job is emphasized. But hey, if it's alright for women going to Yale, it must be fine for women going to WSU!

Who is an American?

2005-09-11T04:56:00.000-07:00

I've taken the liberty of leeching an entire post from Marginal Revolution, a very good economics blog that I found in a roundabout fashion (via finlandforthought.net) and have enjoyed reading ever sense:

On Friday, I took the oath and became an American citizen. I can't claim to be escaping an authoritarian regime or hopeless poverty. Indeed, the security guard at the INS saw my passport and said "What you doing here? Why you want to be American? Free medical care, free welfare. I want to be Canadian." So why did I make the leap? There are plenty of pragmatic reasons. I have a home here, a job, a life. The United States has been good to me.

But the deciding factor in my choice was emotional. Four years ago when I awoke to the devastation, I felt that my country had been attacked. And if that is how you feel then what more needs to be said?

"I was so stubborn, so independent, that I was more American than Czech, even as a little kid. I didn't feel I belonged anywhere until I came to America for the first time when I was 16. I'm not a mystic about many things—I tend to be pretty pragmatic about life—but I honestly believe I was born to be American."

I WISH I could be acquainted with the feelings and thoughts which must agitate the heart and present themselves to the mind of an enlightened Englishman, when he first lands on this continent. He must greatly rejoice that he lived at a time to see this fair country discovered and settled; he must necessarily feel a share of national pride, when he views the chain of settlements which embellishes these extended shores. When he says to himself, this is the work of my countrymen, who, when convulsed by factions, afflicted by a variety of miseries and wants, restless and impatient, took refuge here. They brought along with them their national genius, to which they principally owe what liberty they enjoy, and what substance they possess. Here he sees the industry of his native country displayed in a new manner, and traces in their works the embrios of all the arts, sciences, and ingenuity which flourish in Europe. Here he beholds fair cities, substantial villages, extensive fields, an immense country filled with decent houses, good roads, orchards, meadows, and bridges, where an hundred years ago all was wild, woody and uncultivated! What a train of pleasing ideas this fair spectacle must suggest; it is a prospect which must inspire a good citizen with the most heartfelt pleasure. The difficulty consists in the manner of viewing so extensive a scene. He is arrived on a new continent; a modern society offers itself to his contemptation, different from what he had hitherto seen. It is not composed, as in Europe, of great lords who possess every thing and of a herd of people who have nothing. Here are no aristocratical families, no courts, no kings, no bishops, no ecclesiastical dominion, no invisible power giving to a few a very visible one; no great manufacturers employing thousands, no great refinements of luxury. The rich and the poor are not so far removed from each other as they are in Europe. Some few towns excepted, we are all tillers of the earth, from Nova Scotia to West Florida. We are a people of cultivators, scattered over an immense territory communicating with each other by means of good roads and navigable rivers, united by the silken bands of mild government, all respecting the laws, without dreading their power, because they are equitable. We are all animated with the spirit of an industry which is unfettered and unrestrained, because each person works for himself. If he travels through our rural districts he views not the hostile castle, and the haughty mansion, contrasted with the clay-built hut and miserable cabbin, where cattle and men help to keep each other warm, and dwell in meanness, smoke, and indigence. A pleasing uniformity of decent competence appears throughout our habitations. The meanest of our log-houses is a dry and comfortable habitation. Lawyer or merchant are the fairest titles our towns afford; that of a farmer is the only appellation of the rural inhabitants of our country. It must take some time ere he can reconcile himself to our dictionary, which is but short in words of dignity, and names of honour. (There, on a Sunday, he sees a congregation of respectable farmers and their wives, all clad in neat homespun, well mounted, or riding in their own humble waggons. There is not among them an esquire, saving the unlettered magistrate. There he sees a parson as simple as his flock, a farmer who does not riot on the labour of others. We have no princes, for whom we toil, starve, and bleed: we are the most perfect society now existing in the world. Here man is free; as he ought to be; nor is this pleasing equality so transitory as many others are. Many ages

will not see the shores of our great lakes replenished with inland nations, nor the unknown bounds of North America entirely peopled. Who can tell how far it extends? Who can tell the millions of men whom it will feed and contain? for no European foot has as yet travelled half the extent of this mighty continent!

The next wish of this traveller will be to know whence came all these people? they are mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes. From this promiscuous breed, that race now called Americans have arisen. The eastern provinces must indeed be excepted, as being the unmixed descendants of Englishmen. I have heard many wish that they had been more intermixed also: for my part, I am no wisher, and think it much better as it has happened. They exhibit a most conspicuous figure in this great and variegated picture; they too enter for a great share in the pleasing perspective displayed in these thirteen provinces. I know it is fashionable to reflect on them, but I respect them for what they have done; for the accuracy and wisdom with which they have settled their territory; for the decency of their manners; for their early love of letters; their ancient college, the first in this hemisphere; for their industry; which to me who am but a farmer, is the criterion of everything. There never was a people, situated as they are, who with so ungrateful a soil have done more in so short a time. Do you think that the monarchical ingredients which are more prevalent in other governments, have purged them from all foul stains? Their histories assert the contrary.

In this great American asylum, the poor of Europe have by some means met together, and in consequence of various causes; to what purpose should they ask one another what countrymen they are? Alas, two thirds of them had no country. Can a wretch who wanders about, who works and starves, whose life is a continual scene of sore affliction or pinching penury; can that man call England or any other kingdom his country? A country that had no bread for him, whose fields procured him no harvest, who met with nothing but the frowns of the rich, the severity of the laws, with jails and punishments; who owned not a single foot of the extensive surface of this planet? No! urged by a variety of motives, here they came. Every thing has tended to regenerate them; new laws, a new mode of living, a new social system; here they are become men: in Europe they were as so many useless plants, wanting vegitative mould, and refreshing showers; they withered, and were mowed down by want, hunger, and war; but now by the power of transplantation, like all other plants they have taken root and flourished! Formerly they were not numbered in any civil lists of their country, except in those of the poor; here they rank as citizens. By what invisible power has this surprising metamorphosis been performed? By that of the laws and that of their industry. The laws, the indulgent laws, protect them as they arrive, stamping on them the symbol of adoption; they receive ample rewards for their labours; these accumulated rewards procure them lands; those lands confer on them the title of freemen, and to that title every benefit is affixed which men can possibly require. This is the great operation daily performed by our laws. From whence proceed these laws? From our government. Whence the government? It is derived from the original genius and strong desire of the people ratified and confirmed by the crown. This is the great chain which links us all, this is the picture which every province exhibits, Nova Scotia excepted. There the crown has done all; either there were no people who had genius, or it was not much attended to: the consequence is, that the province is very thinly inhabited indeed; the power of the crown in conjunction with the musketos has prevented men from settling there. Yet some parts of it flourished once, and it contained a mild harmless set of people. But for the fault of a few leaders, the whole were banished. The greatest political error the crown ever committed in America, was to cut off men from a country which wanted nothing but men!

What attachment can a poor European emigrant have for a country where he had nothing? The knowledge of the language, the love of a few kindred as poor as himself, were the only cords that tied him: his country is now that which gives him land, bread, protection, and consequence: Ubi panis ibi patria, is the motto of all emigrants. What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.

He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world. Americans are the western pilgrims, who are carrying along with them that great mass of arts, sciences, vigour, and industry which began long since in the east; they will finish the great circle. The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared, and which will hereafter become distinct by the power of the different climates they inhabit. The American ought therefore to love this country much better than that wherein either he or his forefathers were born. Here the rewards of his industry follow with equal steps the progress of his labour; his labour is founded on the basis of nature, self-interest; can it want a stronger allurement? Wives and children, who before in vain demanded of him a morsel of bread, now, fat and frolicsome, gladly help their father to clear those fields whence exuberant crops are to arise to feed and to clothe them all; without any part being claimed, either by a despotic prince, a rich abbot, or a mighty lord. I lord religion demands but little of him; a small voluntary salary to the minister, and gratitude to God; can he refuse these? The American is a new man, who acts upon new principles; he must therefore entertain new ideas, and form new opinions. From involuntary idleness, servile dependence, penury, and useless labour, he has passed to toils of a very different nature, rewarded by ample subsistence. --This is an American.

British America is divided into many provinces, forming a large association, scattered along a coast 1500 miles extent and about 200 wide. This society I would fain examine, at least such as it appears in the middle provinces; if it does not afford that variety of tinges and gradations which may be observed in Europe, we have colours peculiar to ourselves. For instance, it is natural to conceive that those who live near the sea, must be very different from those who live in the woods; the intermediate space will afford a separate and distinct class.

Men are like plants; the goodness and flavour of the fruit proceeds from the peculiar soil and exposition in which they grow. We are nothing but what we derive from the air we breathe, the climate we inhabit, the government we obey, the system of religion we profess, and the nature of our employment. Here you will find but few crimes; these have acquired as yet no root among us. I wish I were able to trace all my ideas; if my ignorance prevents me from describing them properly, I hope I shall be able to delineate a few of the outlines, which are all I propose.

Those who live near the sea, feed more on fish than on flesh, and often encounter that boisterous element. This renders them more bold and enterprising; this leads them to neglect the confined occupations of the land. They see and converse with a variety of people; their intercourse with mankind becomes extensive. The sea inspires them with a love of traffic, a desire of transporting produce from one place to another; and leads them to a variety of resources which supply the place of labour. Those who inhabit the middle settlements, by far the most numerous, must be very different; the simple cultivation of the earth purifies them, but the indulgences of the government, the soft remonstrances of religion, the rank of independent freeholders, must necessarily inspire them with sentiments, very little known in Europe among people of the same class. What do I say? Europe has no such class of men; the early knowledge they acquire, the early bargains they make, give them a great degree of sagacity. As freemen they will be litigious; pride and obstinacy are often the cause of law suits; the nature of our laws and governments may be another. As citizens it is easy to imagine, that they will carefully read the newspapers, enter into every political disquisition, freely blame or censure governors and others. As farmers they will be careful and anxious to get as much as they can, because what they get is their own. As northern men they will love the chearful cup. As Christians, religion curbs them not in their opinions; the general indulgence leaves every one to think for themselves in spiritual matters; the laws inspect our actions, our thoughts are left to God. Industry, good living, selfishness, litigiousness, country politics, the pride of freemen, religious indifference, are their characteristics. If you recede still farther from the sea, you will come into more modern settlements; they exhibit the same strong lineaments, in a ruder appearance. Religion seems to have still less influence, and their manners are less improved.

Now we arrive near the great woods, near the last inhabited districts; there men seem to be placed still farther beyond the reach of government, which in some measure leaves them to themselves. How can it pervade every corner; as they were driven there by misfortunes, necessity of beginnings, desire of acquiring large tracks of land, idleness, frequent want of economy, ancient debts; the re-union of such people does not afford a very pleasing spectacle. When discord, want of unity and friendship; when either drunkenness or idleness prevail in such remote districts; contention, inactivity, and wretchedness must ensue. There are not the same remedies to these evils as in a long established community. The few magistrates they have, are in general little better than the rest; they are often in a perfect state of war; that of man against man, sometimes decided by blows, sometimes by means of the law; that of man against every wild inhabitant of these venerable woods, of which they are come to dispossess them. There men appear to be no better than carnivorous animals of a superior rank, living on the flesh of wild animals when they can catch them, and when they are not able, they subsist on grain. He who wish to see America in its proper light, and have a true idea of its feeble beginnings barbarous rudiments, must visit our ex tended line of frontiers where the last settlers dwell, and where he may see the first labours of the mode of clearing the earth, in their different appearances; where men are wholly left dependent on their native tempers, and on the spur of uncertain industry, which often fails when not sanctified by the efficacy of a few moral rules. There, remote from the power of example, and check of shame, many families exhibit the most hideous parts of our society. They are a kind of forlorn hope, preceding by ten or twelve years the most respectable army of veterans which come after them. In that space, prosperity will polish some, vice and the law will drive off the rest, who uniting again with others like themselves will recede still farther; making room for more industrious people, who will finish their improvements, convert the loghouse into a convenient habitation, and rejoicing that the first heavy labours are finished, will change in a few years that hitherto barbarous country into a fine fertile, well regulated district. Such is our progress, such is the march of the Europeans toward the interior parts of this continent. In all societies there are off-casts; this impure part serves as our precursors or pioneers; my father himself was one of that class, but he came upon honest principles, and was therefore one of the few who held fast; by good conduct and temperance, he transmitted to me his fair inheritance, when not above one in fourteen of his contemporaries had the same good fortune. Forty years ago this smiling country was thus inhabited; it is now purged, a general decency of manners prevails throughout, and such has been the fate of our best countries.

Exclusive of those general characteristics, each province has its own, founded on the government, climate, mode of husbandry, customs, and peculiarity of circumstances. Europeans submit insensibly to these great powers, and become, in the course of a few generations, not only Americans in general, but either Pennsylvanians, Virginians, or provincials under some other name. Whoever traverses the continent must easily observe those strong differences, which will grow more evident in time. The inhabitants of Canada, Massachusetts, the middle provinces, the southern ones will be as different as their climates; their only points of unity will be those of religion and language.

As I have endeavoured to shew you how Europeans become Americans; it may not be disagreeable to shew you likewise how the various Christian sects introduced, wear out, and how religious indifference becomes prevalent. When any considerable number of a particular sect happen to dwell contiguous to each other, they immediately erect a temple, and there worship the Divinity agreeably to their own peculiar ideas. Nobody disturbs them. If any new sect springs up in Europe, it may happen that many of its professors will come and settle in America. As they bring their zeal with them, they are at liberty to make proselytes if they can, and to build a meeting and to follow the dictates of their consciences; for neither the government nor any other power interferes. If they are peaceable subjects, and are industrious, what is it to their neighbours how and in what manner they think fit to address their prayers to the Supreme Being? But if the sectaries are not settled close together, if they are mixed with other denominations, their zeal will cool for want of fuel, and will be extinguished in a little time. Then the Americans become as to religion, what they are as to country, allied to all. In them the name of Englishman, Frenchman, and European is lost, and in like manner, the strict modes of Christianity as practised in Europe are lost also. This effect will extend itself still farther hereafter, and though this may appear to you as a strange idea, yet it is a very true one. I shall be able perhaps hereafter to explain myself better, in the meanwhile, let the following example serve as my first justification.

Let us suppose you and I to be travelling; we observe that in this house, to the right, lives a Catholic, who prays to God as he has been taught, and believes in transubstantion; he works and raises wheat, he has a large family of children, all hale and robust; his belief, his prayers offend nobody. About one mile farther on the same road, his next neighbour may be a good honest plodding German Lutheran, who addresses himself to the same God, the God of all, agreeably to the modes he has been educated in, and believes in consubstantiation; by so doing he scandalizes nobody; he also works in his fields, embellishes the earth, clears swamps, &c. What has the world to do with his Lutheran principles? He persecutes nobody, and nobody persecutes him, he visits his neighbours, and his neighbours visit him. Next to him lives a seceder, the most enthusiastic of all sectaries; his zeal is hot and fiery, but separated as he is from others of the same complexion, he has no congregation of his own to resort to, where he might cabal and mingle religious pride with worldly obstinacy. He likewise raises good crops, his house is handsomely painted, his orchard is one of the fairest in the neighbourhood. How does it concern the welfare of the country, or of the province at large, what this man's religious sentiments are, or really whether he has any at all? He is a good farmer, he is a sober, peaceable, good citizen: William Penn himself would not wish for more. This is the visible character, the invisible one is only guessed at, and is nobody's business. Next again lives a Low Dutchman, who implicitly believes the rules laid down by the synod of Dort. He conceives no other idea of a clergyman than that of an hired man; if he does his work well he will pay him the stipulated sum; if not he will dismiss him, and do without his sermons, and let his church be shut up for years. But notwithstanding this coarse idea, you will find his house and farm to be the neatest in all the country; and you will judge by his waggon and fat horses, that he thinks more of the affairs of this world than of those of the next. He is sober and laborious, therefore he is all he ought to be as to the affairs of this life; as for those of the next, he must trust to the great Creator. Each of these people instruct their children as well as they can, but these instructions are feeble compared to those which are given to the youth of the poorest class in Europe. Their children will therefore grow up less zealous and more indifferent in matters of religion than their parents. The foolish vanity, or rather the fury of making Proselytes, is unknown here; they have no time. The easons call for all their attention, and thus in a few years, this mixed neighbourhood will exhibit a strange religious medley, that will be neither pure Catholicism nor pure Calvinism. A very perceptible indifference even in the first generation, will become apparent; and it may happen that the daughter of the Catholic will marry the son of the seceder, and settle by themselves at a distance from their parents. What religious education will they give their children? A very imperfect one. If there happens to be in the neighbourhood any place of worship, we will suppose a Quaker's meeting; rather than not shew their fine clothes, they will go to it, and some of them may perhaps attach themselves to that society. Others will remain in a perfect state of indifference; the children of these zealous parents will not be able to tell what their religious principles are, and their grandchildren still less. The neighborhood of a place of worship generally leads them to it, and the action of going thither, is the strongest evidence they can give of their attachment to any sect. The Quakers are the only people who retain a fondness for their own mode of worship; for be they ever so far separated from each other, they hold a sort of communion with the society, and seldom depart from its rules, at least in this country. Thus all sects are mixed as well as all nations; thus religious indifference is imperceptibly disseminated from one end of the continent to the other; which is at present one of the strongest characteristics of the Americans. Where this will reach no one can tell, perhaps it may leave a vacuum fit to receive other systems. Persecution, religious pride, the love of contradiction, are the food of what the world commonly calls religion. These motives have ceased here: zeal in Europe is confined; here it evaporates in the great distance it has to travel; there it is a grain of powder inclosed, here it burns away in the open air, and consumes without effect.

But to return to our back settlers. I must tell you, that there is something in the proximity of the woods, which is very singular. It is with men as it is with the plants and animals that grow and live in the forests; they are entirely different from those that live in the plains. I will candidly tell you all my thoughts but you are not to expect that I shall advance any reasons. By living in or near the woods, their actions are regulated by the wildness of the neighbourhood. The deer often come to eat their grain, the wolves to destroy their sheep, the bears to kill their hogs, the foxes to catch their poultry. This surrounding hostility, immediately puts the gun into their hands; they watch these animals, they kill some; and thus by defending their property, they soon become professed hunters; this is the progress; once hunters, farewell to the plough. The chase renders them ferocious, gloomy, and unsociable; a hunter wants no neighbour, he rather hates them, because he dreads the competition. In a little time their success in the woods makes them neglect their tillage. They trust to the natural fecundity of the earth, and therefore do little; carelessness in fencing, often exposes what little they sow to destruction; they are not at home to watch; in order therefore to make up the deficiency, they go oftener to the woods. That new mode of life brings along with it a new set of manners, which I cannot easily describe. These new manners being grafted on the old stock, produce a strange sort of lawless profligacy, the impressions of which are indelible. The manners of the Indian natives are respectable, compared with this European medley. Their wives and children live in sloth and inactivity; and having no proper pursuits, you may judge what education the latter receive. Their tender minds have nothing else to contemplate but the example of their parents; like them they grow up a mongrel breed, half civilized, half savage, except nature stamps on them some constitutional propensities.

That rich, that voluptuous sentiment is gone that struck them so forcibly; the possession of their freeholds no longer conveys to their minds the same pleasure and pride. To all these reasons you must add, their lonely situation, and you cannot imagine what an effect on manners the great distances they live from each other has I Consider one of the last settlements in it's first view: of what is it composed ? Europeans who have not that sufficient share of knowledge they ought to have, in order to prosper; people who have suddenly passed from oppression, dread of government, and fear of laws, into the unlimited freedom of the woods. This sudden change must have a very great effect on most men, and on that class particularly. Eating of wild meat, what ever you may think, tends to alter their temper though all the proof I can adduce, is, that I have seen it: and having no place of worship to resort to, what little society this might afford, is denied them. The Sunday meetings, exclusive of religious benefits, were the only social bonds that might have inspired them with some degree of emulation in neatness. Is it then surprising to see men thus situated, immersed in great and heavy labours, degenerate a little? It is rather a wonder the effect is not more diffusive. The Moravians and the Quakers are the only instances in exception to what I have advanced. The first never settle singly, it is a colony of the society which emigrates; they carry with them their forms, worship, rules, and decency: the others never begin so hard, they are always able to buy improvements, in which there is a great advantage, for by that time the country is recovered from its first barbarity. Thus our bad people are those who are half cultivators and half hunters; and the worst of them are those who have degenerated altogether into the hunting state. As old ploughmen and new men of the woods, as Europeans and new made Indians, they contract the vices of both; they adopt the moroseness and ferocity of a native, without his mildness, or even his industry at home. If manners are not refined, at least they are rendered simple and inoffensive by tilling the earth; all our wants are supplied by it, our time is divided between labour and rest, and leaves none for the commission of great misdeeds. As hunters it is divided between the toil of the chase, the idleness of repose, or the indulgence of inebriation Hunting is but a licentious idle life, and if it does not always pervert good dispositions; yet, when it is united with bad luck, it leads to want: want stimulates that propensity to rapacity and injustice, too natural to needy men, which is the fatal gradation. After this explanation of the effects which follow by living in the woods, shall we yet vainly flatter ourselves with the hope of converting the Indians? We should rather begin with converting our back-settlers; and now if I dare mention the name of religion, its sweet accents would be lost in the immensity of these woods. Men thus placed, are not fit either to receive or remember its mild instructions; they want temples and ministers, but as soon as men cease to remain at home, and begin to lead an erratic life, let them be either tawny or white, they cease to be its disciples.

Thus have I faintly and imperfectly endeavoured to trace our society from the sea to our woods ! Yet you must not imagine that every person who moves back, acts upon the same principles, or falls into the same degeneracy. Many families carry with them all their decency of conduct, purity of morals, and respect of religion; but these are scarce, the power of example is sometimes irresistible. Even among these back-settlers, their depravity is greater or less, according to what nation or province they belong. Were I to adduce proofs of this, I might be accused of partiality. If there happens to be some rich intervals, some fertile bottoms, in those remote districts, the people will there prefer tilling the land to hunting, and will attach themselves to it; but even on these fertile spots you may plainly perceive the inhabitants to acquire a great degree of rusticity and selfishness. It is in consequence of this straggling situation, and the astonishing power it has on manners, that the back-settlers of both the Carolinas, Virginia, and many other parts, have been long a set of lawless people; it has been even dangerous to travel among them. Government can do nothing in so extensive a country, better it should wink at these irregularities, than that it should use means inconsistent with its usual mildness. Time will efface those stains: in proportion as the great body of population approaches them they will reform, and become polished and subordinate. Whatever has been said of the four New England provinces, no such degeneracy of manners has ever tarnished their annals; their back-settlers have been kept within the bounds of decency, and government, by means of wise laws, and by the influence of religion. What a detestable idea such people must have given to the natives of the Europeans They trade with them, the worst of people are permitted to do that which none but persons of the best characters should be employed in. They get drunk with them, and often defraud the Indians. Their avarice, removed from the eyes of their superiors, knows no bounds; and aided by a little superiority of knowledge, these traders deceive them, and even sometimes shed blood. Hence those shocking violations, those sudden devastations which have so often stained our frontiers, when hundreds of innocent people have been sacrificed for the crimes of a few. It was in consequence of such behaviour, that the Indians took the hatchet against the Virginians in 1774. Thus are our first steps trod, thus are our first trees felled, in general, by the most vicious of our people and thus the path is opened for the arrival of a second and better class, the true American freeholders; the most respectable set of people in this part of the world: respectable for their industry, their happy independence, the great share of freedom they possess, the good regulation of their families, and for extending the trade and the dominion of our mother country. Europe contains hardly any other distinctions but lords and tenants; this fair country alone is settled by freeholders, the possessors of the soil they cultivate, members of the government they obey, and the framers of their own laws, by means of their representatives. This is a thought which you have taught me to

cherish; our difference from Europe, far from diminishing, rather adds to our usefulness and consequence as men and subjects. Had our forefathers remained there, they would only have crowded it, and perhaps prolonged those convulsions which had shook it so long. Every industrious European who transports himself here may be compared to a sprout growing at the foot of a great tree; it enjoys and draws but a little portion of sap; wrench it from the parent roots, transplant it, and it will become a tree bearing fruit also. Colonists are therefore entitled to the consideration due to the most useful subjects; a hundred families barely existing in some parts of Scotland, will here in six years, cause an annual exportation of 10,000 bushels of wheat: 100 bushels being but a common quantity for an industrious family to sell, if they cultivate good land. It is here then that the idle may be employed, the useless be- come useful, and the poor become rich; but by riches I do not mean gold and silver, we have but little of those metals; I mean a better sort of wealth, cleared lands, cattle, good houses, good cloaths, and an increase of people to enjoy them.

It is no wonder that this country has so many charms, and presents to Europeans so many temptations to remain in it. A traveller in Europe becomes a stranger as soon as he quits his own kingdom; but it is otherwise here. We know, properly speaking, no strangers; this is every person's country; the variety of our soils, situations, climates, governments, and produce, hath something which must please every body. No sooner does an European arrive, no matter of what condition, than his eyes are opened upon the fair prospect; he hears his language spoke, he retraces many of his own country manners, he perpetually hears the names of families and towns with which he is acquainted; he sees happiness and prosperity in all places disseminated; he meets with hospitality, kindness, and plenty every where; he beholds hardly any poor, he seldom hears of punishments and executions; and he wonders at the elegance of our towns, those miracles of industry and freedom. He cannot admire enough our rural districts, our convenient roads, good taverns, and our many accommodations; he involuntarily loves a country where every thing is so lovely. When in England, he was a mere Englishman; here he stands on a larger portion of the globe, not less than its fourth part, and may see the productions of the north, in iron and naval stores; the provisions of Ireland, the grain of Egypt, the indigo, the rice of China. He does not find, as in Europe, a crouded society, where every place is over-stocked; he does not feel that perpetual collision of parties, that difficulty of beginning, that contention which oversets so many. There is room for every body in America; has he any particular talent, or industry? he exerts it in order to procure a livelihood, and it succeeds. Is he a merchant? the avenues of trade are infinite; is he eminent in any respect? he will be employed and respected. Does he love a country life ? pleasant farms present them- selves; he may purchase what he wants, and thereby become an American farmer. Is he a labourer, sober and industrious? he need not go many miles, nor receive many informations before he will be hired, well fed at the table of his employer, and paid four or five times more than he can get in Europe. Does he want uncultivated lands? Thousands of acres present themselves, which he may purchase cheap. Whatever be his talents or inclinations, if they are moderate, he may satisfy them. I do not mean that every one who comes will grow rich in a little time; no, but he may procure an easy, decent maintenance, by his industry. Instead of starving he will be fed, instead of being idle he will have employment; and these are riches enough for such men as come over here. The rich stay in Europe, it is only the middling and the poor that emigrate. Would you wish to travel in independent idleness, from north to south, you will find easy access, and the most chearful reception at every house; society without ostentation, good cheer without pride, and every decent diversion which the country affords, with little expence. It is no wonder that the European who has lived here a few years, is desirous to remain; Europe with all its pomp, is not to be compared to this continent, for men of middle stations, or labourers.

An European, when he first arrives, seems limited in his intentions, as well as in his views; but he very suddenly alters his scale; two hundred miles formerly appeared a very great distance, it is now but a trifle; he no sooner breathes our air than he forms schemes, and embarks in designs he never would have thought of in his own country. There the plenitude of society confines many useful ideas, and often extinguishes the most laudable schemes which here ripen into maturity. Thus Europeans become Americans.

But how is this accomplished in that croud of low, indigent people, who flock here every year from all parts of Europe? I will tell you; they no sooner arrive than they immediately feel the good effects of that plenty of provisions we possess: they fare on our best food, and they are kindly entertained; their talents, character, and peculiar industry are immediately inquired into; they find countrymen everywhere disseminated, let them come from whatever part of Europe. Let me select one as an epitome of the rest; he is hired, he goes to work, and works moderately; instead of being employed by a haughty person, he finds himself with his equal, placed at the substantial table of the farmer, or else at an inferior one as good; his wages are high, his bed is not like that bed of sorrow on which he used to lie: if he behaves with propriety, and is faithful, he is caressed, and becomes as it were a member of the family. He begins to feel the effects of a sort of resurrection; hitherto he had not lived, but simply vegetated; he now feels himself a man, because he is treated as such; the laws of his own country had overlooked him in his in- significancy; the laws of this cover him with their mantle. Judge what an alteration there must arise in the mind and thoughts of this man; he begins to forget his former servitude and dependence, his heart involuntarily swells and glows; this first swell inspires him with those new thoughts which constitute an American. What love can he entertain for a country where his existence was a burthen to him; if he s a generous good man, the love of this new adoptive parent will sink deep into his heart. He looks around, and sees many a prosperous person, who but a few years before was as poor as himself. This encourages him much, he begins to form some little scheme, the first, alas, he ever formed in his life. If he is wise he thus spends two or three years, in which time he acquires knowledge, the use of tools, the modes of working the lands, felling trees, &c. This prepares the foundation of a good name, the most useful acquisition he can make. He is encouraged, he has gained friends; he is advised and directed, he feels bold, he purchases some land; he gives all the money he has brought over, as well as what he has earned, and trusts to the God of harvests for the discharge of the rest. His good name procures him credit. He is now possessed of the deed, conveying to him and his posterity the fee simple and absolute property of two hundred acres of land, situated on such a river. What an epocha in this man's life! He is become a freeholder, from perhaps a German boor--he is now an American, a Pennsylvanian, an English subject. He is naturalized, his name is enrolled with those of the other citizens of the province. Instead of being a vagrant, he has a place of residence; he is called the inhabitant of such a county, or of such a district, and for the first time in his life counts for something; for hitherto he has been a her. I only repeat what I have heard man say, and no wonder their hearts should glow, and be agitated with a multitude of feelings, not easy to describe. From nothing to start into being; from a servant to the rank of a master; from being the slave of some despotic prince, to become a free man, invested with lands, to which every municipal blessing is annexed! What a change indeed! It is in con- sequence of that change that he becomes an American. This great metamorphosis has a double effect, it extinguishes all his European prejudices, he forgets that mechanism of subordination, that servility of disposition which poverty had taught him; and sometimes he is apt to forget too much, often passing from one extreme to the other. If he is a good man, he forms schemes of future prosperity, he proposes to educate his children better than he has been educated himself; he thinks of future modes of conduct, feels an ardor to labour he never felt before. Pride steps in and leads him to every thing that the laws do not forbid: he respects them; with a heartfelt gratitude he looks toward the east, toward that insular government from whose wisdom all his new felicity is derived, and under whose wings and protection he now lives. These reflections constitute him the good man and the good subject. Ye poor Europeans, ye, who sweat, and work for the great---ye, who are obliged to give so many sheaves to the church, so many to your lords, so many to your government, and have hardly any left for yourselves--ye, who are held in less estimation than favourite hunters or useless lap-dogs--ye, who only breathe the air of nature, because it cannot be withheld from you; it is here that ye can conceive the possibility of those feelings I have been describing; it is here the laws of naturalization invite every one to partake of our great labours and felicity, to till unrented untaxed lands! Many, corrupted beyond the power of amendment, have brought with them all their vices, and disregarding the advantages held to them, have gone on in their former career of iniquity, until they have been overtaken and punished by our laws It is not every emigrant who succeeds; no, it is only the sober, the honest, and industrious: happy those to whom this transition has served as a powerful spur to labour, to prosperity, and to the good establishment of children, born in the days of their poverty; and who had no other portion to expect but the rags of their parents, had it not been for their happy emigration. Others again, have been led astray by this enchanting scene; their new pride, instead of leading them to the fields, has kept them in idleness; the idea of possessing lands is all that satisfies them--though surrounded with fertility, they have mouldered away their time in inactivity, misinformed husbandry, and ineffectual endeavours. How much wiser, in general, the honest Germans than almost all other Europeans; they hire themselves to some of their wealthy landsmen, and in that apprenticeship learn every thing that is necessary. They attentively consider the prosperous industry of others, which imprints in their minds a strong desire of possessing the same advantages. This forcible idea never quits them, they launch forth, and by dint of sobriety, rigid parsimony, and the most persevering industry, they commonly succeed. Their astonishment at their first arrival from Germany is very great--it is to them a dream; the contrast must be powerful indeed they observe their countrymen flourishing in every place; they travel through whole counties where not a word of English is spoken; and in the names and the language of the people, they retrace Germany. They have been an useful acquisition to this continent, and to Pennsylvania in particular; to them it owes some share of its prosperity: to their mechanical knowledge and patience, it owes the finest mills in all America, the best teams of horses, and many other advantages. The recollection of their former poverty and slavery never quits them as long as they live. The Scotch and the Irish might have lived in their own country perhaps as poor, but enjoying more civil advantages, the effects of their new situation do not strike them so forcibly, nor has it so lasting an effect. From whence the difference arises I know not, but out of twelve families of emigrants of each country, generally seven Scotch will succeed, nine German, and four Irish. The Scotch are frugal and laborious, but their wives cannot work so hard as German women, who on the contrary vie with their husbands, and often share with them the most severe toils of the field, which they understand better. They have therefore nothing to struggle against, but the common casualties of nature. The Irish do not prosper so well; they love to drink and to quarrel; they are litigious, and soon take to the gun, which is the ruin of every thing; they seem beside to labour under a greater degree of ignorance in husbandry than the others; perhaps it is that their industry had less scope, and was less exercised at home. I have heard many relate, how the land was parcelled out in that kingdom; their ancient conquest has been a great detriment to them, by oversetting their landed property. The lands possessed by a few, are leased down ad infinitum, and the occupiers often pay five guineas an acre. The poor are worse lodged there than any where else in Europe; their potatoes, which are easily raised, are perhaps an inducement to laziness: their ages are too low and their whisky too cheap.

There is no tracing observations of this kind, without making at the same time very great allowances, as there are every where to be found, a great many exceptions. The Irish themselves, from different parts of that kingdom, are very different. It is difficult to account for this surprising locality, one would think on so small an island an Irishman must be an Irishman: yet it is not so, they are different in their aptitude to, and in their love of labour.

The Scotch on the contrary are all industrious and saving; they want nothing more than a field to exert themselves in, and they are commonly sure of succeeding. The only difficulty they labour under is, that technical American knowledge which requires some time to obtain; it is not easy for those who seldom saw a tree, to conceive how it is to be felled, cut up, and split into rails and posts.

I am fond of seeing and talking of prosperous families, I intend to finish this letter by relating to you the history of an honest Scotch Hebridean, who came here in I774, which will shew you in epitome, what the Scotch can do, wherever they have room for the exertion of their industry. Whenever I hear of any new settlement, I pay it a visit once or twice a year, on purpose to observe the different steps each settler takes, the gradual improvements, the different tempers of each family, on which their prosperity in a great nature depends; their different modifications of industry, their ingenuity, and contrivance; for being all poor, their life requires sagacity and prudence. In an evening I love to hear them tell their stories, they furnish me with new ideas; I sit still and listen to their ancient misfortunes, observing in many of them a strong degree of gratitude to God, and the government. Many a well meant sermon have I preached to some of them. When I found laziness and inattention to prevail, who could refrain from wishing well to these new country men after having undergone so many fatigues. Who could withhold good advice? What a happy change it must be, to descend from the high, sterile, bleak lands of Scotland, where every thing is barren and cold, to rest on some fertile farms in these middle provinces! Such a transition must have afforded the most pleasing satisfaction. The following dialogue passed at an outsettlement, where I lately paid a visit: Well, friend, how do you do now; I am come fifty odd miles on purpose to see you; how do you go on with your new cutting and slashing? Very well, good Sir, we learn the use of the axe bravely, we shall make it out; we have a belly full of victuals every day, our cows run about, and come home full of milk, our hogs get fat of themselves in the woods: Oh, this is a good country ! God bless the king, and William Penn; we shall do very well by and by, if we keep our healths. Your loghouse looks neat and light, where did you get these shingles? One of our neighbours is a New England man, and he shewed us how to split them out of chestnut trees. Now for a barn, but all in good time, here are fine trees to build with. Who is to frame it, sure you don't understand that work yet? A countryman of ours who has been in America these ten years, offers to wait for his money until the second crop is lodged in it. What did you give for your land? Thirty-five shillings per acre, payable in seven years. How many acres have you got? An hundred and fifty. That is enoughto begin with; is not your land pretty hard to clear? Yes, Sir, hard enough, but it would be harder still if it was ready cleared, for then we should have no timber, and I love the woods much; the land is nothing without them. Have not you found out any bees yet? No, Sir; and if we had we should not know what to do with them. I will tell you by and by. You are very kind. Farewell, honest man, God prosper you; whenever you travel toward **, enquire for J. S. he will entertain you kindly, provided you bring him good tidings from your family and farm. In this manner I often visit them, and carefully examine their houses, their modes of ingenuity, their different ways; and make them all relate all they know, and describe all they feel. These are scenes which I believe you would willingly share with me. I well remember your philanthropic turn of mind. Is it not better to contemplate under these humble roofs, the rudiments of future wealth and population, than to behold the accumulated bundles of litigious papers in the office of a lawyer? To examine how the world is gradually settled, how the howling swamp is converted into a pleasing meadow, the rough ridge into a fine field; and to hear the chearful whistling, the rural song, where there was no sound heard before, save the yell of the savage, the screech of the owl, or the hissing of the snake? Here an European, fatigued with luxury, riches, and pleasures, may find a sweet relaxation in a series of interesting scenes, as affecting as they are new. England, which now contains so many domes, so many castles, was once like this; a place woody and marshy; its inhabitants, now the favourite nation for arts and commerce, were once painted like our neighbours. The country will flourish in its turn, and the same observations will be made which I have just delineated. Posterity will look back with avidity and pleasure, to trace, if possible, the era of this or that particular settlement. Pray, what is the reason that the Scots are in general more religious, more faithful, more honest, and industrious than the Irish? I do not mean to insinuate national reflections, God forbid ! It ill becomes any man, and much less an American; but as I know men are nothing of themselves, and that they owe all their different modifications either to government or other local circumstances, there must be some powerful causes which constitute this great national difference. Agreeable to the account which severale Scotchmen have given me of the north of Britain, of the Orkneys, and the Hebride Islands, they seem, on many accounts, to be unfit for the habitation of men; they appear to be calculated only for great sheep pastures. Who then can blame the inhabitants of these countries for transporting themselves hither? This great continent must in time absorb the poorest part of Europe; and this will happen in proportion as it becomes better known; and as war, taxation, oppression, and misery increase there. The Hebrides appear to be fit only for the residence of malefactors, and it would be much better to send felons there than either to Virginia or Maryland. What a strange compliment has our mother country paid to two of the finest provinces in America! England has entertained in that respect very mistaken ideas; what was intended as a punishment, is become the good fortune of several; many of those who have been transported as felons, are now rich, and strangers to the stings of those wants that urged them to violations of the law: they are become industrious, exemplary, and useful citizens. The English government should purchase the most northern and barren of those islands; it should send over to us the honest, primitive Hebrideans, settle them here on good lands, as a reward for their virtue and ancient poverty; and replace them with a colony of her wicked sons. The severity of the climate, the inclemency of the seasons, the sterility of the soil, the tempestuousness of the sea, would afflict and punish enough. Could there be found a spot better adapted to retaliate the injury it had received by their crimes? Some of those islands might be considered as the hell of Great Britain, where all evil spirits should be sent. Two essential ends would be answered by this simple operation. The good people, by emigration, would be rendered happier; the bad ones would be placed where they ought to be. In a few years the dread of being sent to that wintry region would have a much stronger effect, than that of transportation. This is no place of punishment; were I a poor hopeless, breadless Englishman, and not restrained by the power of shame, I should be very thankful for the passage. It is of very little importance how, and in what manner an indigent man arrives; for if he is but sober, honest, and industrious, he has nothing more to ask of heaven. Let him go to work, he will have opportunities enough to earn a comfortable support, and even the means of procuring some land; which ought to be the utmost wish of every person who has health and hands to work. I knew a man who came to this country, in the literal sense of the expression, stark naked; I think I think he was a Frenchman and a sailor on board an English man of war. Being discontented, he had stripped himself and swam ashore; where finding clothes and friends, he settled afterwards at Maraneck, In the county of Chester, in the province of New York: he married and left a good farm to each of his sons. I knew another person who was but twelve years old when he was taken on the frontiers of Canada, by the Indians; at his arrival at Albany he was purchased by a gentleman, who generously bound him apprentice to a taylor. He lived to the age of ninety, and left behind him a fine estate and a numerous family, all well settled; many of them I am acquainted with. Where is then the industrious European who ought to despair? After a foreigner from any part of Europe is arrived, and become a citizen; let him devoutly listen to the voice of our great parent, which says to him, "Welcome to my shores, distressed European; bless the hour in which thou didst see my verdant fields, my fair navigable rivers, and my green mountains! If thou wilt work, I have bread for thee; if thou wilt be honest, sober, and industrious, I have greater rewards to confer on thee-- ease and independence. I will give thee fields to feed and cloath thee; a comfortable fireside to sit by, and tell thy children by what means thou hast prospered; and a decent bed to repose on. I shall endow thee beside with the immunities of a freeman. If thou wilt carefully educate thy children, teach them gratitude to God, and reverence to that government that philanthropic government, which has collected here so many men and made them happy. I will also provide for thy progeny; and to every good man this ought to be the most holy, the most Powerful, the most earnest wish he can possibly form, as well as the most consolatory prospect when he dies. Go thou and work and till; thou shalt prosper, provided thou be just, grateful and industrious."

--Letters from an American Farmer

As my sister would say...

2005-09-08T01:11:00.000-07:00

Those crazy Germans! To be honest, I'm a little surprised the Germans were offended. Toplessness on TV isn't exactly a novelty there.

A PRAYER FOR MY DAUGHTER

2005-09-07T01:14:00.000-07:00

ONCE more the storm is howling, and half hid
Under this cradle-hood and coverlid
My child sleeps on.  There is no obstacle
But Gregory's wood and one bare hill
Whereby the haystack- and roof-levelling wind.
Bred on the Atlantic, can be stayed;
And for an hour I have walked and prayed
Because of the great gloom that is in my mind.
I have walked and prayed for this young child an hour
And heard the sea-wind scream upon the tower,
And-under the arches of the bridge, and scream
In the elms above the flooded stream;
Imagining in excited reverie
That the future years had come,
Dancing to a frenzied drum,
Out of the murderous innocence of the sea.
May she be granted beauty and yet not
Beauty to make a stranger's eye distraught,
Or hers before a looking-glass, for such,
Being made beautiful overmuch,
Consider beauty a sufficient end,
Lose natural kindness and maybe
The heart-revealing intimacy
That chooses right, and never find a friend.
Helen being chosen found life flat and dull
And later had much trouble from a fool,
While that great Queen, that rose out of the spray,
Being fatherless could have her way
Yet chose a bandy-legged smith for man.
It's certain that fine women eat
A crazy salad with their meat
Whereby the Horn of plenty is undone.
In courtesy I'd have her chiefly learned;
Hearts are not had as a gift but hearts are earned
By those that are not entirely beautiful;
Yet many, that have played the fool
For beauty's very self, has charm made wisc.
And many a poor man that has roved,
Loved and thought himself beloved,
From a glad kindness cannot take his eyes.
May she become a flourishing hidden tree
That all her thoughts may like the linnet be,
And have no business but dispensing round
Their magnanimities of sound,
Nor but in merriment begin a chase,
Nor but in merriment a quarrel.
O may she live like some green laurel
Rooted in one dear perpetual place.
My mind, because the minds that I have loved,
The sort of beauty that I have approved,
Prosper but little, has dried up of late,
Yet knows that to be choked with hate
May well be of all evil chances chief.
If there's no hatred in a mind
Assault and battery of the wind
Can never tear the linnet from the leaf.
An intellectual hatred is the worst,
So let her think opinions are accursed.
Have I not seen the loveliest woman born
Out of the mouth of plenty's horn,
Because of her opinionated mind
Barter that horn and every good
By quiet natures understood
For an old bellows full of angry wind?
Considering that, all hatred driven hence,
The soul recovers radical innocence
And learns at last that it is self-delighting,
Self-appeasing, self-affrighting,
And that its own sweet will is Heaven's will;
She can, though every face should scowl
And every windy quarter howl
Or every bellows burst, be happy Still.
And may her bridegroom bring her to a house
Where all's accustomed, ceremonious;
For arrogance and hatred are the wares
Peddled in the thoroughfares.
How but in custom and in ceremony
Are innocence and beauty born?
Ceremony's a name for the rich horn,
And custom for the spreading laurel tree.
--WB Yeats

More Bras For Europe!

2005-09-06T07:49:00.000-07:00

China and the European Union reached an agreement to end a trade spat yesterday that had left millions of Chinese-made sweaters, bras and trousers stranded at European ports, threatening to sour a meeting of Chinese and European leaders in Beijing...

Under the June quota system, growth in 10 categories of goods was capped at between 8% and 12.5% until 2008. Now, under yesterday's deal, Europe will ease quotas to admit half of the surplus. China agreed for the remaining half to be deducted from next year's quotas, or from quotas for other types of textiles, said Simon Fraser, a senior aide to Mr. Mandelson. China also agreed not to issue any more export licenses for textiles that have exceeded their European quota, the official said...

Chinese industry players welcomed the EU agreement, which focuses on unblocking 48 million sweaters, 18 million trousers and more than 11 million Chinese-made brassieres.

Good for them, at least, that they're letting the goods in the country. I can't imagine anything more wasteful than to just leave them floating in the harbors until the next year. I still thin the quotas are stupid though. As for the US and China?

The U.S. also is bogged down in a trade dispute with China over its textile exports, which have rocketed since the demise of a global quota system in January. Just last week, Chinese and U.S. negotiators failed to reach agreement on a comprehensive plan to restrain the overall growth of Chinese textile exports to replace piecemeal U.S. curbs, most recently on bras and synthetic fabric.

Shall we start a "Bras for Americans" Campaign? Granted, due to high levels of obesity, I think you could say we need them more than Europeans... ;)

Is Driving Worth It?

2005-09-04T13:01:00.000-07:00

I have been riding my bike around the city of Wichita for the past two years and during that period of time most people have generally assumed I'm completely crazy. I have a car, why don't I drive to school? Why do I ride my bike there, and to work? The simple fact is that I ride my bike because I enjoy it. That and the fact that parking at WSU is terrible and riding my bike allows me to bypass that and park right in front of my class. Plus, it's built in exercise: I don't really have to worry about weight gain as long as I ride my bike and eat normally.

However, since gas in Wichita has gone over $3.00 a gallon ($3.19 to be specific), many have started saying, "damn, I'm going to get a bike, too." This is evidenced by the fact the bike rack where I park my bike has been full the past week while normally there might be one or two other bikes. This made me start wondering: is riding my bike (or anyone else riding theirs) really economical? I've always more or less assumed it wasn't, but now let's sit down and actually analyze it.

Alright: I value my time at about $8 an hour, or at least that's what I get paid. The typical circuit I ride my bike on has three legs:
1. Home to WSU: 2.6 miles, in about 15 minutes.
2. WSU to Work: 3.8 miles, in about 30 minutes.
3. Work to home: 2.3 miles, in about 15 minutes.
Totals: 8.7 miles, in about one hour.

So, if we assume my time is worth $8.00 an hour, then riding my bike 8.7 miles costs me $8/hr, or $0.92 cents a mile.

How much does it benefit me? Well, let's compare what it costs for me to drive my car the same distance.
I drive a honda Civic, lovingly called "Greybeard," and it gets roughly 30 miles to the gallon. A gallon of gas costs me $3.19, or roughly $0.11 cents a mile. For the total circuit, it would cost me only $0.96.

That means that choosing to ride my bike instead of driving my car is actually costing me $7.04, if I assume that the opportunity cost of riding my bike for an hour is $8 (what I would be earning if I were working that time instead of riding. I consider that to be my most beneficial alternative).

Lesson learned? Riding my bike is not worth it, economically speaking. It would make much more sense to drive my car, if I did not derive other non-economic benefits from it, such as exercise, the related good mood, getting to park in front of glass, listen to music and generally destress. Plus, I really, really enjoy riding my bike. All of these benefits are priceless, and therefore, do make it worthwhile for me to ride my bike. But that means it is probably not worthwhile for everybody else to ride their bikes. Even if you drive a Hummer that only gets 10mpg, things would not be different. The cost of driving your car would be $0.32 a mile, still cheaper than $0.92 cents a mile. This doesn't include the fact that if you can afford a Hummer, your time is most definitely worth more than $8.00/hr.

Modern Broken Window Fallacy

2005-09-04T12:12:00.000-07:00

Lew Rockwell.com's Gary North has an interesting take on Bastiat's Broken Window essay, entitled "The Broken City," which should be good and informative to anyone who thinks the reconstruction and rescue options down in New Orleans is actually going to be good for the economy.

My personal take on the issue? They shouldn't even bother rebuilding. Thanks to New Orleans' location, it was bound to flood eventually. The city has been in decline for 30 years. Many of the displaced people do not intend to go back. The costs to reconstruct the city and repair it will be tremendous since there is no natural for the water to get out of the basin. New Orleans should have been a lake for many years; let's listen to the environmentalists for once and "let nature take it's course."

2005-09-02T16:02:00.000-07:00

Okay, I am definitely taking my dog for a walk now. Akitas are such great, loyal, wonderful dogs!

Chu-ken Hachiko (lit. the faithful dog Hachiko) was born in Akita in 1923 and was first brought to Tokyo in 1924. He and his owner, Mr. Eisaburo Uyeno, were inseparable friends right from the start. Each day "Hachi" would accompany Eisaburo, a professor at the Imperial University, to the train station when he left for work. Upon returning, the professor would find the dog patiently waiting, tail wagging. This happy routine continued until one fateful day in 1925, when the professor was taken ill on the job and unfortunately died before he could return home.

Despite the fact that Hachiko was less than two years old at the time, the bond between dog and owner was strong. Hachiko continued to wait each day at Shibuya station for a friend who was never coming back. At times, he wouldn't return home for days at a stretch.

The Akita became a familiar sight to commuters as he kept his vigil for over ten years. On March 8, 1935, Hachiko finally went to meet his master. He died on the very same spot he last saw his friend alive.

Target News

2005-09-02T13:27:00.000-07:00

So far, I'm pretty happy with my job. It keeps me busy for at least 5 hours, 3 days a week, pays...fairly well, and gives me plenty of exercise to where I can basically eat what I want without feeling the ill effects (ie, weight gain.) Target is, in that way, like a giant tapeworm ;).
I can also easily rest assured that I'm doing a good job at my work and that I'll get a good review when my 90-day review comes up (some time in September). Not only have they put my name forward as a possible candidate to move start working pricing team as well as flow team, but they always ask me if I can come in and work when they need extra help. The biggest compliment they've paid to me, however, is letting me train one of the new people.
Actually, I'm a little nervous about and considering the fact it meant my move from Housewares to Grocery, I'm wondering if if I should feel more honored or more punished. In grocery we have to rotate. And I have to remember to make sure the dude I'm training is putting everything out, which is hard to do because I'm busy whipping through my section and making sure that I'm putting everything out. I have to slooooow down and make sure he doesn't get left behind, and that I'm there to answer any of his questions and show him where things go. This often involves repeating myself because 1) he's new and it's a lot of information at once so what was said one day might not be remembered the next day we have a truck and 2) 4am is a little early to remember everything.
I try my best to hurry so that we get Grocery done ASAP before he has to leave and get stationary done before he has to leave and I reaaaally hope I'm not pushing him too hard to the point where he says, "This job sucks. I'm quitting!" But I'm used to buzzing around and if I keep going slow, he'll think that he can continue to mosey on around, something he seems already content enough to do...it drives me batty how long it takes him to hang stuff! It's like, dude, just slap it on there!
Then again, maybe he'll speed up. Let's hope so. I also hope I don't screw him up for eternity at this job! ;)

In other news, Target has a "volunteer opportunity" coming up. It's one of the ways we try to look good in the community and all that. I would have volunteered if I could have---I like the people who work there and wouldn't mind hanging out with them outside of work--but all of the times were really inconvenient for me :( So I had to bow out. I feel slightly bad about it, but the fact that it's for a woman's domestic shelter makes me feel a bit less guilty.
Huh? What's that? I'm glad I can't volunteer because I Don't want to help battered women? Well yes and no.
I have nothing against battered women---and I have a lot against domestic violence, but the problem I see here is that most domestic violence shelters are For Women Only and this shelter is no different. Despite the fact that numerous studies have shown that men account for approximately half of all domestic abuse cases and certainly no fewer than 27% of them, they receive almost $0 in funding or charitable contributions. THis is largely due to the image held to day that only men are abusive, when that is far from the truth. There has always been a stigma in society about men hitting women--namely that it's wrong. There has not been the same stigma against women hitting men. Lately it's become a way for women to show how powerful they have become. So men who are abused by their wives and fight back are not called heroic or defended, but very often arrested for domestic violence themselves.
Example: A man's wife was beating him up and grabbed him by the tie and started choking him, so he threw her off him--and he got arrested for domestic abuse. Is that fair?
I feel extremely wrong about helping out a charity that is likely only going to serve half the needy and then is going to tell them that they are such victims, that all men are abusive, etc.
An abused woman has every where to go to seek help. An abused man has no where, and will most likely be made fun of for letting a woman beat him up.

Women-only zealots are hurting victims. They are harming those battered women who would benefit from learning how to regain their trust and respect for male. They are harming the significant percentage of domestic violence victims who are male themselves.
--Wend McElroy

Katrina's Waves

2005-08-29T13:20:00.000-07:00

I don't get it. Surely their music can't be that bad.

Envoy for A Child's Garden of Verses

2005-08-27T17:36:00.000-07:00

Whether upon the garden seat
You lounge with your uplifted feet
Under the May's whole Heaven of blue;
Or whether on the sofa you,
No grown up person being by,
Do some soft corner occupy;
Take you this volume in your hands
And enter into other lands,
For lo! (as children feign) suppose
You, hunting in the garden rows,
Or in the lumbered attic, or
The cellar - a nail-studded door
And dark, descending stairway found
That led to kingdoms underground:
There standing, you should hear with ease
Strange birds a-singing, or the trees
Swing in big robber woods, or bells
On many fairy citadels:

There passing through (a step or so -
Neither mamma nor nurse need know!)
From your nice nurseries you would pass,
Like Alice through the Looking-Glass
Or Gerda following Little Ray,
To wondrous countries far away.
Well, and just so this volume can
Transport each little maid or man
Presto from where they live away
Where other children used to play.
As from the house your mother sees
You playing round the garden trees,
So you may see if you but look
Through the windows of this book
Another child far, far away
And in another garden play.
But do not think you can at all,
By knocking on the window, call
That child to hear you.  He intent
Is still on his play-business bent.
He does not hear, he will not look,
Nor yet be lured out of this book.
For long ago, the truth to say,
He has grown up and gone away;
And it is but a child of air
That lingers in the garden there.

Robert Louis Stevenson

Women in the Workforce

2005-08-26T11:37:00.000-07:00

Now is as good a time as any to state that I do not necessarily agree with everything stated in the links I now have in the right hand column of this blog. Usually I list links because I think the blog or website makes interesting points that people don't usually think of or they have a good ability to piss people off. Such is the case with blogger and science fiction auther, Vox Day. In his WND column, Why women's rights are wrong, he (again) caused the hordes of rabid feminists to swarm down upon him by asserting that women in the workforce have caused real wages to decline and reduced the birthrate. He later asserted that women should not have the right to vote, but I'll address that later as this is already going to be a rather lengthy post.
Disappointingly, very few of the women who responded to these claims actually addressed the two main arguments (listed above). They have instead contented themselves to mock and belittle him as well as themselves:

"Jesus....for a woman....I just made this guy look like an idiot. I better get back in the kitchen. What are these shoes doing on my feet?"

What a loser! Oh yes, because my only, most important goal in life is to get married to some guy like you who'd keep me pregnant and in the kitchen and stupid until I either died in childbirth or just got too old. Because honestly, I can't even IMAGINE a better, more fulfilling life than that. Please...

Hey, I dislike wearing shoes in the house, so I find myself not only barefoot, but very often in the kitchen. This has not yet made me pregnant, nor stupid.
In any case, I've decided to take it upon myself to address the issue of women working outside the home.

First of all, the picture of the middle class housewife of the 1950s was just that: "of the 1950s." Previously, the middle class (and thus the majority of most women) did not have the wealth nor the time to dedicate their lives entirely to maintaining a home and socializing. Rather, they were more likely to be working along side their husbands to create economic value and earn income to keep themselves afloat. They ran farms together and various "cottage industries." It was well accepted and expected that a woman who married a baker, butcher, or tailor would become "the baker's wife" and serve customers behind the counter, or help him baste shirts and sew. Until the 1920s, most clothing was made within the household; it was less expensive than buying ready made clothes and, until washing machines were ivented, a great amount of time was spent making and maintainng the family's clothing alone. Combine that with food production (very often involving caring for chicken and cows) and cleaning the house (no vacuums or cleaning solutions), and you have accounted for most of women (and men's) time.
Up until the 1950s, only upper class women could really be said to be homemakers and socializers: they "made" (managesd) the home while servants did the work. Their husbands took on the full burden of providing the income, but also benefited from the immense social contacts provided by their wives, which resulted in more business opportunities...and then more income.

Only later, thanks to advances brought on by the transition from the industrial age to the information age, did the 1950s middle class homemaker come into existance. Clothing became cheaper to buy than to make, washers and dryers became less expensive and more efficient, and the number of middle class families in the United STates increased dramatically thanks to the post-World War II economic boom. Vacuum cleaners meant that rugs and carpets no longer had to be beaten. Convenience food (McDonalds and TV dinners) meant meals no longer ahad t o be made from scratch. Schooling became mandatory and the norm for children from age 5 to age 18 for the first time in American history. The rise of large corporations with a highly specialized workforce meant that women could not work alongside their husbands and help create economic value within the home as they had earlier on.
THe result? Women no longer felt like they had anything to do. Schools took the children, company's took the men, restaurants took the dinner, and technology took the cleaning.
Just as some men are illsuited for idleness, so are some women; that the middle class housewife quickly became bored with her situation is the only conclusion I can reach, and she rapidly concluded that the grass is not only greener on the other side of the hill, but that it grows faster, too.
By an unhappy coincidence, this impression was aided and encouraged by socialist-feminists, such as Gloria Feinstein and Andrea Dawkins, who had never had children or families. They not only promised that careers were the answer to these women's boredom, but that thhey were proof of what a career could do. And so, lured by the promise of rejoining their husbands and no longer being left on the sidelines, they began to work. It was not a case, as Cardozo states, of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater: both had already been taken from her, one by the schools and the other by modern conveniences, such as indoor plumbing.
Then something odd happened: theUS made its first switch from elite culture to popular culture. The women's lib movement made having a job en vogue. Suddenly, it was cool to pretend that you had to work out of economic necessity; by this time women working had been reduced to the unfortunate lot of immigrant women and those women whose husbands were too drunk to take care of a family. So, upper class women who had never had to do a day's work in their lives before, suddenly got jobs. They didn't need the money any more than their middle class counterparts did; rather "they worked primarily for the psychic rewards with the money a secondary factor (Cardozo, 44)." In other words, they worked to make themselves feel needed.

I believe this would have happened with or without socialist-feminism deriding "women's work" since the amount of time spent on housework had decreased dramatically. However, I think that women would have entered the workforce with completely different expectations. Instead of expecting it to bring them happiness and for their job to become the cornerstone of their lives, they would have thought of it merely as something to do to keep them occupied and to become a way to fill the empty days while their children were at school and their husbands at work.

The other impact of feminism was to urge all women, married, unmarried, with babies, older children or no children at all to work. It was billed as the one-size-fits-all Road to Happiness and Enlightenment. So women who could work, did work.
The result of this is exactly as Vox Day asserted: the supply of workers increased while the demand remained constant. The price of workers fell.
However, vox also asserts that this was due to the fact that women were already domestic consumers and did not increase the level of consumption. This is false. While women entering the workforce did not increase domestic consumption as rapidly as immigrants entering the workforce would have, the did increase it. Suddenly, they needed work clothes, second cars became necessities, day-cares became necessities. More and more foods were bought pre-made, boxed, or eaten out. Since families now had two-incomes available, families began to spend more by demanding and buying bigger houses and more items that would have been considered luxaries or unnecessary by previous generations. A look at household debt levels in the US today, 30-40 years after the events I describe occured, shows that two-income households are definitely not saving the second income.
The results of this increased consumption are obvious: domestic demand for products such as cars, clothing, shoes, daycare and large houses is higher than in previous areas. This stimulated more demand for workers in these industries, which created more jobs, which created more wages. The sum result of women in the workforce on wages? Negligible, especially considering women's earlier presence, working as teachers, nurses, servants, telephone operators, and helping their husbands at their jobs.

Nowadays, it is largely assumed that all girls will grow up to be women who will hae careers and who will work. The socialist-feminist derisiion of homemakers and housework has become so entrenched that it no longer need be described as socialist-feminist. It is simply mainstream.
All of this belies evidence that the number of women opting to be stay-at-home moms and giving up careers is on the rise. The US birthrate is actually the highest among western nations and at 2.0 live births per woman, approaches the replacement rate of 2.1. Oh, for want of 1/10th of a child!

Why this sudden change? Many women have suddenly realized that the feminists who declared working fulltime and raising a family to be a piece of cake were lying: none of them had familes nor a corporate career. Rather, as feminists, writers and activists, their "jobs" were flexible and capable of being tailored to fit the whims of the individual woman. Traditional male-path careers are the exact opposite: rigorous hours in the office with lots of overtime in order to "get ahead" and constant competition.
Unlike men, most women find it impossible to keep their careers at the center of their lives. To be more blunt, most women have difficulty keepong any one thing at the center of their attention. Even while writing this, I have changed locations twice, shut the windows, helped my sister with my nephew, talked on the phonee and thought that maybe doing my homework might be a more productive use of my time.
Furthermore, without the feminists, I doubt women would have accepted the male career pattern of rigorous work hours, stress, and competition. Indeed, the work pattern emerging today among women is much more realistic: entrepreneuership (women are starting more companies in the US than men now and already own 30% of them), working-from-home, flextime, partime, all are possible. With more women staying at home or working only part-tiem while their children are in school, an optimist might say that society has reached a happy balance between the two and it is one that works well for the women who have a psychological need to work, or have bought into the socialist-feminst idea that children are a waste of time and staying at home will make you stupid.
It is also helpful to point out htat few men nowadays expect or even want their wives to stay at home. Being the sole provider was just as unusual for them when it happened in the 1950s as it was for women and they too have accepted the socialist-feminist views that women have. But this problem is easier to solve: men generally want their wives to be happy. They watched the discontented housewives go into the workforce and are now watching them as they head back out. It's probably easier than a divorce, right? And who among us can find a concrete definition of happiness that fits everyone?

So, what is the net effect of women working? Real wages fell, consumption rose by a smaller amount than they would have with immigrants...but really not a whole lot. Yes, family bonds were weakened, but the foundation for this was built when children began attending school full-time, not when women started working. The birthrate has fallen, but so have methods to control pregnancies, and technological advances have caused the infant mortality rate to rise, meaning fewer children are necessary.
Do I think women should work? I think it's up to the individual woman. Certainly it is important that they develop skills; if a woman does not work and her husband dies, it is not going to be a good situation for her or her family if she cannot find a job that pays well.
Simply put: women must be responsible for their decisions and they must think for themselves. Do not work because you think your life would be worthless otherwise. Do not work because you think you would go crazy if you had to be around your children 24 hours a day (1, you won't have to, 2, if you can't stand 'em, don't have 'em.). Do not work if you would rather be doing something else instead.
When I informed my family of my decision not to work, the response was largely negative: "I don't think you could ever be happy doing that" came from my father (despite the fact he had supported my decision to homeschool future children 100%. Who did he think was going to homeschool them? The dogs?). "Just wait until you have kids" and "Then why are you bothering with school" came from my sister. The most positive reaction was from my mother: "It's a difficult decision to make." My mother became a stay-at-home-mom not because it was what she wanted, but because it was what her religion told her was the only acceptable route for a woman to take.
I am not religious, and so I did not make this decision because "god wants me to," but because I can think of nothing more silly than to pay someone else to raise my children so that I can work. I actually enjoy being around children, as much as I do being around other human beings and sometimes more so.
My only wish is that society would stop swinging from one extreme to another and find itself a happy balance. You have no idea how much easier my decision would have been to make if someone had told me, throughout my schooling, that staying at home was an acceptable choice to make, but it literally did not occur to me. No one mentioned it. It's derided by all but a few religious people (not the best role model for an agnostic).
However, where public schools lack the information, most books have it. For anyone interested in more information on this, I recommend the book "Sequencing" by Arlene Cardozo, and any book by John Holt. The first offers a strategic method of arranging one's career to accomadate childrearing, while the other explains the nature of children.

I'll address the issue of women voting, which Vox also raises, in another post.

Kansas Education Officials Swamped with Petitions for FSM

2005-08-24T16:41:00.000-07:00

Since the State Education Board ruled that biology and science classes should include "other theories" besides evolution (obviously hinting at ID), their offices have been swamped by others who want to make sure that their creation theory is also included:

Board member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat, whose district includes Lawrence, said he has received more than 500 e-mails from supporters of FSM.

And what is FSM? Why, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, of course!

“I’m sure you realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory,” writes Bobby Henderson, a Corvallis, Ore., resident whose Web site, www.venganza.org, is part FSM tribute and part job search.

“It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” he wrote to the education board.

Henderson did not return a telephone call for comment. He says in his letter that it is disrespectful to teach about the FSM without wearing “full pirate regalia.”

But you can't put one past the Education officials. They caught right on:

“Clearly, these are just supreme satirists. What they are doing is pointing out that there is no more sense to intelligent design than there is to a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Wagnon said.

But what about the Hindu theory of creation? What about the Old Turtle theory of creation (from Stephen King)? What about Buddhism? Shinto? All the other religions? The Native American theories? The Aztec theories? Or the Greek and Roman theories?

The fact is there is only so much time in schools. We already waste enough of it teaching bullshit like "Democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility" instead of what we should teach (reading, writing and math) to the point where there are many high schoolers who can't read.
Where exactly do we draw the line? Do we try to make schools the place were people learn everything about every single group of people different from their own...or how to think so that they can actually understand why those differences came to be, why they matter or if they even do?

The School at Home Movement

2005-08-22T04:45:00.000-07:00

It's always interesting to browse around the internet and see the different interpretations of "homeschooling" people come up with. I find myself sitting all the way at the unschooling end of the spectrum, which holds that learning should be self-guided by the children and they should learn what interests them, not what others think they need to know. Then there are the ones who think that homeschooling is school, but at home. These are the people who bring in the desks, the blackboards (well, whiteboards now) and become teacher and parent to their children. People like these:

The Doctors have a one-room schoolhouse -- a room that the family built above the garage originally as a place for the kids to hang out.

"And then we decided to homeschool, and that's a perfect place. They can hang out in the basement or some other place," Doctor says of her children, ages 15, 14, 8 and 5.

The room is papered with educational and Scriptural posters and a timeline of history where the children are sent to chart whatever they're learning about.

Having a separate room "helps the entire family. When they're there, it's school," Doctor said...

She considers Tom to be the principal, bringing him into the equation when necessary. He might have had to be called in at least once, when Becky caught the children passing notes. When she hijacked one, it read, "I love you Mom." This is what makes homeschooling fun

Erm, her kids were caught passing notes. At home. While studying. Good lord, is this home or a prison camp? I rather thought that the point of homeschooling was to give kids a more relaxed atmosphere, where they would be allowed to interact with the real world every day, not locked up in the attic with a textbook forbidden to talk. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but really! Ah well, it works for them, right?

Antwerp Tea Party

2005-08-22T04:37:00.000-07:00

The European Union Trade Commission has something against China, namely the fact that Europe's retailers like purchasing their textile products from there instead of within the EU. So they've cut off all imports:

Alisdair Gray, spokesman for the British Retail Consortium trade association, estimates the value of the goods being held at Europe's ports at €800 million. That includes 59 million Chinese-made pullovers, "enough to keep everyone in France warm," he says, and 16 million pairs of trousers, all waiting to enter the European market.

And what are the European retailers doing about it? Well, storming the ships, warehouses and cargo plans to get the products they ordered and paid for, and their consumers are demanding.

Haha, sorry, no, just kidding. Actually, they're just sitting there:

"It is such a mess really, and there's nothing I can do," he adds. "I've been trying to push politicians. I've been on national radio to push for something to change. I hope there are bigger companies that can push this more forcefully."
So far, however, large retailers largely have been silent, fearing to tarnish their image with either suppliers or customers.

I don't think petitioning is going to get the politican's attention. They are after one thing: power, and they get more of it by restricting trade than by allowing free trade.

But suppose the Eurocrats decide to abolish all tariffs and let all Chinese (and other country) imports in. What will happen? Well, the textile industry in Europe will probably be doomed, but it already is if it can't survive without protectionism. That would be the cost. The benefits, however, would be that the clothing costs would fall, European consumers would be able to take that savings and put their money elsewhere, either investing it, or buying more consumer products, which would (in the long run) create more jobs at the shops where they buy things and at the businesses where the products are made and imported.

How exactly do they lose?

Ponzi Schemes

2005-08-20T09:47:00.000-07:00

Scambuster's decided to list the Top 10 Internet hoaxes and Ponzi Schemes came up as number one:

Named after Charles Ponzi, known as the father of investor schemes, Ponzi scams work by promising very high returns to investors. They use money from new investors to pay previous investors. This leads to excellent testimonials -- and everything goes very well for investors... for a brief period of time. However, the scheme inevitably collapses, leaving the vast majority of investors poorer.

Hmm...that sounds familiar. A program that uses money from later investors to pay off earlier investors, and is basically doomed to collapse.

Social Security, anyone?

You can read the rest of the hoaxes by clicking here

When an 8th Grade Education Was Enough

2005-08-16T12:02:00.000-07:00

I think most Americans would probably agree that our schools have been "dumbed down," but this email I received pretty much seals the issue for good, with super glue:

Remember when grandparents and great-grandparents stated that they onlyhad an 8th grade education? Well, check this out. Could any of us havepassed the 8th grade in 1895?

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, Kansas, USA. It
was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey
Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by
the Salina Journal.

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895 Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of,
"lie, "play," and "run."
5. Define case; Illustrate each case.
6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you
understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many
bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at
50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for or tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary
levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104
for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20
per meter?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of
which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles es of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn,
and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800,
1849, 1865.

Orthography (Time, one hour) Do we even know what this is??

1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph,
subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.' (HUH?)
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions
under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi,
dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8 Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name
the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell,
rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane,
fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation
by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)

1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba,
Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same
latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the
sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the
earth.

Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete. Gives the saying "he
only had an 8th grade education" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?! Also
shows you how poor our education system has become... and, NO! I don't
have the answers.

So, were people smarter then or have the schools just gotten worse?
Hat-tip: Matt B. Thanks! :)

That about sums up that issue.

2005-08-12T17:40:00.000-07:00

From the ifeminist message boards:

Sex on TV is very dangerous. They are usually a few feet off of the floor and if you fall, you can break your tail.

Why My Kids Won't Attend Public School, Reason #4,382

2005-08-11T11:11:00.000-07:00

Student-Teacher Sex

If I really have to explain this one to you, you need more info about the world than just why public schools are bad.

Quite frankly, I don't plan on sending my kids to school so they can "nail" some hot teacher, or some teacher can nail them. This has been happening more and more frequently as of lately and statistics show that children are more, not less, likely to be sexually abused at day care centers, churches and public schools than while under the care of their natural parents.

Yet, whenever a parent abuses their child, they were "homeschooling them."

Why My Kids Won't Attend Public School, Reason #4,381

2005-08-10T13:51:00.000-07:00

Special Interest Groups Taking Control of Education

From D.A.R.E, to feminists, and now to creationists (or as they like to be called nowadays, "Intelligent Designers, er, intelligent designists? ANyway, ID-ers), there has hardly been a time when our public schools have not been the main instrument for groups who want to forward an agenda. Afterall, you'd have to go to a prison or juvenile detention center to find a like group of people similarly incarcerated and without the ability to opt out of listening what you have to say.

According to this article,

"We think this is a great development ... for the academic freedom of students," said John West, senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design theory.

Right. The only difference is now that, unlike before, whenreligious students were forced to learn about evolution, more secularly minded students will be forced to learn about creationism. Now everyone gets to have their time wasted! Hooray! I was never all that much bothered by learning about evolution in school, being areligious. But damn does this remind me of the countless hours that were stolen away from me listening to the teacher or "Guest Speaker" rabbit on about safe sex, staying in school and Don't Use Drugs. Or, even worse, The Prom King and Queen Candidate Parade.

Intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as products of a considered intent as opposed to a process of natural selection...

The new science standards would not eliminate the teaching of evolution entirely, nor would they require that religious views, also known as creationism, be taught, but it would encourage teachers to discuss various viewpoints and eliminate core evolution theory as required curriculum.

Sooo....what exactly has changed? Not a whole lot. After the first time the State School Board ruled against evolution, I noted no difference between how evolution was taught in biology before it and how it was taught afterwards. The really christian-y students still thought it was rubbish, the biology teachers still covered it, the non-religious students didn't mind learning it.

Perhaps the main goal of the Kansas Board of Education is not to rule against or for evolution/creationism, nor to improve the academic freedom of its students (try writing an essay in school deriding the public school's constant whining for more money...), but rather to prove the existance of de-evolution by going back and forth on the same meaningless issue, wasting countless dollars edjumakating the young.

The end lesson? If you want your kid to really learn about evolution, put them in a private secular school or homeschool them. If you want them to learn about creationism, put them in a private religious school or homeschool them. Don't use public school to enforce your vision of "academic freedom."

State Tax Information

2005-08-08T16:12:00.000-07:00

So, planning on moving out of Kansas? Or, even, planning on staying in Kansas? How about taking a look and seeing all the different taxes they have in all the different states?

Kansas has a $0.24 gas tax...so if you wanna know why gas is so expensive, remember: tax is INCLUDED. Don't buy liquor here either: there's a $2.50 tax on spirits, $0.30 tax on wine, and $0.18 tax on beer. This doesn't include the 5.3% state sales tax. But don't worry, if you live in Wichita, it's more like 9% anyway.

Compare this to New Hampshire where there is no sales tax, no spirits tax, no wine tax, a $0.30 beer tax, $0.52 cigarette tax, and $0.18 gas tax. Yup, I plan to save :)

Woah, I agree:

2005-08-05T03:27:00.000-07:00

"I'm occasionally asked why I don't date or whether my culture accepts only arranged marriages. I reply by explaining my personal view, which is that dating couples act in a way that only married couples should. The kind of relationship they share should exist only where there is a commitment, or else the relationship becomes meaningless. If or when I date, it will be in pursuit of a companion with whom I can spend the rest of my life. Then the love that will exist in that marriage can be far more valued, appreciated and respected by both partners."

This was written for Time magazine by a 13-year old muslim boy, trying to explain why he would not date as young as some of his peers are. The funny thing is that I find myself agreeing, not with the arranged marriage part, but with the fact that the purpose of dating is to find someone with whom you can spend your whole life. Why waste your time dating and getting to know someone on romantic or intimate level when you know all they're ever going to be is an "easy screw"? It seems rather silly to me.
Oh, and I got this from Homeschoolng Revolution blog

2005-08-03T15:11:00.000-07:00

An email from my sister:
HISTORY TEST

Please pause a moment, reflect back,
and take the following multiple
choice test. The events are actual cuts from past
history. They actually happened!!!

Do you remember?

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were
kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

3.During the 1980's a number of Americans were
 kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked
  and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered
  and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

6.In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens
 and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers
 was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

7.In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

9.In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
 were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention
  from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

10.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked;
two were used as missiles to take out the World
Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed
into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted
and crashed by the passengers.Thousands of people
were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

11.In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan
against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped
   and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

13. In London, twice in two weeks inJuly 2005,
a series of bombs, four which detonated killing
56 civilians, four which failed,were placed by:
a.  American Idol contestants
b.  Karl Rove
c.  The Peoria, IL Little League baseball team
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
  the ages of 17 and 40

Nope, .........I really don't see a pattern here
to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone,
particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport
security screeners will no longer be allowed to
profile certain people.
They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old
women, little kids, airline pilots with proper
identification, secret agents who are members of the
President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen
with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and
former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males
between the ages 17 and 40 alone because of profiling.

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the
Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with
Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense,
feel doubly ashamed of themselves - if they have
any such sense.

Come on people wake up!!!

Americans Wake Up

2005-08-03T11:45:00.000-07:00

As bad as the Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court ruling was, it seems that it was just the thing to get Americans to wake up to the effects of eminent domain abuse:

In Connecticut, where the Supreme Court case originated, a Quinnipiac University poll shows just how much the eminent-domain issue resonates. By an 11-to-1 margin, those surveyed said they opposed the taking of private property for private uses, even if it is for the public economic good. According to the poll, 89% of those surveyed were against condemnations for private economic development, compared with 8% for them. Douglas Schwartz, head of the poll, says he has never seen such a lopsided margin on any issue he has polled.

Before the ruling, Americans never noticed the abuse, they just noticed the new Wal-Marts, arenas, and shopping malls that resulted. Now, they're finally rising in defense of their own property.
Remember, government cannot create economic growth better or more efficiently than the private sector. What governments really want to do when they seize private property to give to other private entities is not great jobs, or make the economy grow, but to increase their personal power. Don't let them tell you otherwise.

CAFTA, Unemployment, and the American Economy

2005-07-30T12:12:00.000-07:00

It seems like the passage of CAFTA has caused quite a stir in the libertarian world. You know, the segment of hte population that is against government interference and pro-free trade. I can understand how some would be upset: it's ironic to have to regulate "free trade." Free trade is free trade and the US can trade freely with everyone without having to negotiate a trade agreement. All we have to do is say, "Hey, we're going to get rid of all measures that restrict trade." It does not have to be bilateral, as some believe. By trading freely with the whole world, we benefit. Most libertarians acknowledge this. Through trade, be it regulated trade or free trade, we help developing countries develop. This is a GOOD THING.
Then I read the following comments by fellow libertarians:"

"Lawmakers and the White House have stooped pretty low to sell the unpopular treaty. Some claimed it would cut down on illegal immigration (Has NAFTA done that?) and others said that it is a matter of national security. (Say what?)
As of this writing, it looks like this legislation will pass and American manfacturing, once an economic powerhouse of this great country, will take a beating. (Over the past 5 years the U.S. has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs.) The outsourcing marches on.

Well, as they say, what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. FREE TRADE IS RIGHT. This libertarian is sounding surprisingly protectionist--we should protect Americans from those dang foreigners whose sole desire is to steal our jobs and impoverish our country.
Not true at all. The U.S. might have lost manufacturing jobs, but it gained service jobs. What is currently going on in the American economy is nothing more than a restructuring. Unlike most Guatemalans, Americans tend to have high levels of education. We can do highly skilled jobs. Why should we be making hinges if Guatemalans can do that, and for cheaper? Let us make computer chips, airplanes and the like. Our economy and their economy will be better off.
As for the claim that NAFTA and CAFTA would/will reduce illegal immigration, such claims are hard to validate: how can you prove that a Mexican did not cross the border into the US illegally because NAFTA was passed? Go interview every Mexican? Even that would not produce results.
But the truth is the reason so many Mexicans (and others) are entering our country the only way they can (illegally) is because our economy is sounder and it is less corrupt. The fact that millions of people are doing whatever they can to get into the US, where they will work the worst jobs and live on the fringes of society, is just a sign of how bad the countries they are coming from must be.
It is also a sign of how bad our visa laws are, if people who would have ordinarily passed through Ellis Island in the early 20th century must now do so illegally. If you have nothing and you hope to enter the US, forget about it.
CAFTA (and NAFTA) is not the problem. If they stop illegal immigration, it will be because they have stimulated economic development south of the border and taking the worst jobs in the US is no longer better than staying in their homeland.

As for the higher unemployment the blogger notes, I find it hard to believe that anyone in the US stays unemployed for any amount of time. The fact is, there are ALWAYS jobs out there. These jobs may not be the best jobs or the highest paying, but most of the time they pay better than nothing and they give you something to do.
For example, I work on the Flow Team (logistics) at Target. Currently, both my Target and the Super Target out East are short. The SuperTarget has 18 people on its flow team--out of 29. That's 11 jobs there, and damn near 40 hours a week, too. It pays $7.50 an hour, wiht $.50 shift differential before 5:30 am. Now, the so-called "poverty threshold" for a single American, under 65, is $9, 827.00. (for othe groups, go here). The income from this job at Target is annually $14,544 a year. That is $6,000 over the poverty threshold!
Yet, somehow, our Flow Team is short and the other Flow Team is short. We keep interviewing people and they keep not showing up. What's up with that? These are the same people who claim to be unemployed. Well, you know, not being unemployed involves WORKING. Working involves showing up.
Unlike other countries, the US does not suffer from 10-20% unemployment and it does not take an act of god to get a job that will pay the bills (as long as you live frugaly). It constantly baffles me why there are unemployed people living off of welfare. Welfare doesn't pay that much, especially if you're single. They probably won't pay anything at all. You have to at least have a kid or something. You earn a LOT more by working a simple low-level job anywhere than being on government assistance. NOt only that, but you're gaining experience and skills that can give you the opportunity to advance your career. It's a stepping stone. Too many people look at low-level jobs and think, "what a waste of time, just flipping-burgers." Not so. It's the first rung on the ladder of success (sorry, really bad metaphor and extremely cheesy, but true.) If you thrust opportunity away with both hands, you can do nothing but expect your life to be a failure.

And the best thing about the Flow Team? It has to be done in store, so there is no chance of it being outsourced because of CAFTA or any other regulated trade measure :)

The Inward Morning

2005-07-25T18:03:00.000-07:00

Packed in my mind lie all the clothes

Which outward nature wears,

And in its fasion's hourly change

It all things else repairs

In vain I look for change abroad,

And can no difference find,

Till som new ray of peace uncalled

Illumes my inmost mind.

What is it gilds the trees and clouds

And paints the heavens so gay,

But yonder fast-abiding light

With its unchanging ray?

Lo, when the sun streams through the wood,

Upon a winter's morn,

Where'er his silent beams intrude

The murky night is gone.

How could the patient pine have known

The morning breeze would come,

Or humble flowers anticipate

The insect's noonday hum,-

Till the new light with morning cheer

From far streamed through the aisles,

And nimbly told the forest trees

For many stretching miles?

I've heard within my inmost soul

Such cheerful news,

In the horizon of my mind

Have seen such orient hues,

As in the twilight of the dawn,

When the first awake,

Are heard within some silent wood,

Where they the small twigs break,

Or in the eastern skies are seen,

Before the sun appears,

The harbingers of summer heats

Which from afar he bears.

Henry David Thoreau

A Day in Summation

2005-07-24T17:29:00.000-07:00

For a birthday, today hasn't been too bad for me. It had it's ups and downs:

I got a raise at work and will now be making $8/hr at my psychology job. Hurra! This means that I make somewhere around $7.80/hr on average. Sure, it's not as much as it could be, but considering my status as a college student, I'm pleased with it. Plus, both of my jobs are fairly interesting and keep me busy. If I made twice as much and were given nothing to do (as is the case with a friend of mine) I would probably quit, or try to convince the company that they really didn't need to employ me.

-The boyfriend returned from his absence and we chatted today, which was nice. We made an attempt at using the webcams, though that didn't work so well because of my internet problems (see below).

-My host mom called today and we had a nice conversation. It was surprising at first because she started off in English: "Hello, can I please speak to Rochelle?" I knew it was her from her voice (and accent), but I was so startled I didn't know whether or not I should speak English or German to her. :) My host parents are currently learning English for their month-long trip to Australia in 2006. How awesome is that? I'd love to go to Australia.
Anyway, we had a nice conversation, catching up on what was going on in various places, my studies, specifically my study abroad. In short, they're really looking forward to me coming back there and reiterated the fact that if I wanted to, I could live with them or in my host sister's apartment in Magdeburg to save money. She also mentioned the possibility of helping find me an internship if I would be interested in this so we could make sure that my study abroad would be worth it, and using her ever present practicality, she insisted that I need to look at the pluses and the minuses, where I wanted to be in my career and if my study abroad didn't help me at all, I should find something else to do.
It was a good conversation and I got to speak German again, or rather, attempt to. My host mother is really what I would consider to be a second mother to me, the true sign of a good host family :)

The bad bits:
-We have a truck tomorrow. Damn! I just worked 3 days in a row, now I have to work another 2. THat really bites. Even worse is the fact I have class tomorrow, but I figure I better get used to it: I'll be working mornings and going to class come fall, so this can be a practice session. On the bright side, I'll get paid more.
-My sister was cranky. She's porbably just stressed because her husband is out of town, but seriously: yelling at everyone is not the way to handle that. The kids then got cranky, too, so there was a lot of screaming and yelling in the day, which I really dislike.
-And my internet has been on the fritz the entire day, from the moment I woke up to, well, now. About every 15 minutes it turns off and then I have to unplug the router power and replug it in and it almost immediately starts up again. What the hell is up with that?

But, as I said, a good day overall. We've finally hit the dog days of summer. It's damn near 8pm and still 95 degrees outside, and humid. Ugh. Kansas, thy name is hell in high summer. I'm going to attempt to brave the heat and go jump on the trampoline for a bit. Bad move? Could be, but I've got to take a chance.

Christain Sex Roles

2005-07-22T13:36:00.000-07:00

Being a homeschooling advocate means getting to come into contact with the slightly more, shall we say, fundamentalist segments of society. Take, for example, these homeschooling supplies, which revolve around "training our daughters to be keepers of the home."
It gets worse:

This remarkable curriculum teaches our daughters not only Godly character, but also many of the almost "lost arts" of homemaking...What it is--a 7 year program with day-by-day lesson plans to teach Christian homemaking skills, designed to enable young women to enter adulthood with godly character and homemaking skills so they will be able to serve God as keepers at home whether single or married...Courses include: Godly Womanhood, Sewing, Cooking, Caring For the Sick and Injured, Childbearing & Breastfeeding, Caring for Elderly & Comforting Those Who Mourn, Making a House a Home, Family Celebrations, Gardening, Family Finances, Home Management, Braiding Rugs, Making Greeting Cards, Hospitality, Child Development, Child Training, Flower Arranging, Knitting, Crocheting, Embroidery, Cross-Stitch, Basketry, Home Business, Soapmaking & Candlemaking, and Raising Animals!

For your personal entertainment, I will bash this homeschooling curriculum on three levels: first on an economic level, secondly on a gender level, and lastly, on a religious level.

Ironically enough, this curriculum promises "to emphasize on acquiring necessary skills and information to live simply and well on one income." They never mention that it is in no way simple, or efficient to spend your own income buying basket making supplies, spending hours learning to make baskets and throwing away the mistakes when you could easily enough go to Wal-mart and buy a professionally made basket for $5 and use the additional time to, say, start up an errand running service for the neighbors who work full-time and need someone else to get their groceries.
This curriculum contradicts one of the basic ideas of economics, which I like harp on all the time at fancy dinner parties: YOU GAIN BY DOING WHAT YOU HAVE A COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AT DOING!
Having said that, I sincerly doubt that any single American has a comparitive advantage at Braiding Rugs, Making Greeting Cards, Flower Arranging, Knitting, Crocheting, Embroidery, Cross-Stitch, Basketry, Soapmaking & Candlemaking. The poor Guatemalan that can turn out shirts at $0.50 a whack is going to win every time against the American Housewife who has to spend the money on gas to drive to Cloth World, then spend $20 buying the cloth, then the yarn, then throwing away the mistakes, then the time...it just goes on and on.
IT IS NOT WORTH IT TO LEARN ANY OF THESE TRADES! If it were worth it, we would all know them by now.

Secondly, I sincerly question the role of women in learning these trades. Of course, we must all cook at some time in our lives. Why is it, then, that this curriculum assumes that females are the only ones who will be cooking? Because it's traditional?
Reality says that the majority of professional chefs are not female, but male. Why should we force girls who would rather build into the kitchen, while driving boys who would rather cook out to build?
The purpose of homeschooling is not to mold your children into what you think they should be (that is what SCHOOLS do), but to allow your children to mold themselves into who THEY would want to be. This is done by presenting a large number of activities and materials at their disposal. The child who wants to learn how to weave baskets or braid rugs can do so if he wants to, not because it is godly, or makes him/her a good housewife. Only on this level does this curriculum have real merit, but I'm afraid many boys would be turned off by it's more than obvious female slant.

Lastly, why does this curriculum assume that it is only Christians who need to know how to cook, live "simply and well," braid rugs and make candles? In their messed up little world, do Hindus not eat? Do they not need candles? If anything, they need both food and candles more than we: 1) to reduce starvation in India and 2) to make up for the fact that many vilages in India do not have a steady supply of electricity.
It is very religious-centric to assume that simply running a good household is a Christian thing to do and what God wants you to do. Would God want you to dedicate your life to running a good household and braiding rugs if it made you terribly unhappy and then murder all your children, a la Andrea Yates? I doubt it.
As any stable believer would tell you, God is like most parents: he wants his children to be happy. If braiding rugs or cooking is not your thing, don't think he's going to strike you down dead for not doing it. That's bullshit.

As I am not a believer, I want me to be happy. From my experience, cross-stitching is interesting for onlye the first 10 minutes you do it...beyond that, I've never finished one and I think I would run away if lived in an environment where it was expected of me so that I might do my "godly" or "wifely" duty.

It's a Funny Joke!

2005-07-20T18:19:00.000-07:00

I came across this in the Ifeminist.com forums:

What kind of person has to pay for sex?
A buysexual.

Haha! Wow. I love puns :)

Why Homeschooling Continues to Grow

2005-07-18T07:40:00.000-07:00

From TCRecord.org:

Homeschooling, like other grass-roots movements of the twentieth century, is largely a middle-American endeavor. Ponder this description of the 'typical' family: "…they are more likely than other students to live with two or more siblings in a two-parent family, with one parent working outside the home. Parents of homeschoolers are, on average, better educated than other parents - a greater percentage have college degrees - though their incomes are about the same. Like most parents, the vast majority of those who homeschool their children earn less than $50,000, and many earn less than $25,000" (“Homeschooling Here to Stay,” 2003).

But in an age of unprecedented technological innovation and mobility, one fact is clear: It’s relatively easy and cost-effective for a youngster to bypass institutionalized schooling and receive a well-rounded education. Online classes, homeschool cooperatives, tutors, internships, volunteer work, travel, home businesses, hobbies, sabbaticals, even the great outdoors - these serve as gateways to the examined, enriched life.

After reading this article, it's hard to believe homeschooling wouldn't grow. If it allows your children to spend more time with you, allows them to get a better education, to run businesses, to go to schools like Harvard (if they so desire), why would anyone send their kids to public schools?
Oh, that's right. Because public school is normal...and socially acceptable. Wouldn't want to do the right thing for our kids by offending anyone, would we?

Harry, the Pensieve and Dumbledore

2005-07-16T21:01:00.000-07:00

It seems right and fitting to me. Once you've finished the Half-blood Prince, let me know how you think.

Memory

MY childhood's home I see again,: And sadden with the view;
And still, as memory crowds my brain,: There's pleasure in it, too.
O memory! thou midway world: 'Twixt earth and paradise,
Where things decayed and loved ones lost: In dreamy shadows rise,
And, freed from all that's earthly, vile,: Seem hallowed, pure and bright,
Like scenes in some enchanted isle: All bathed in liquid light.
As dusky mountains please the eye: When twilight chases day;
As bugle notes that, passing by,: In distance die away;
As, leaving some grand waterfall,: We, lingering, list its roar-
So memory will hallow all: We've known but know no more.
Near twenty years have passed away: Since here I bid farewll
To woods and fields, and scenes of play,: And playmates loved so well.
Where many were, but few remain: Of old familiar things,
But seeing them to mind again: The lost and absent brings.
The friends I left that parting day,: How changed, as time has sped!
Young childhood grown, strong manhood gray;: And half of all are dead.
I hear the loved survivors tell: How nought from death could save,
Till every sound appear a knell: And every spot a grave.
I range the fields with pensive tread,: And pace the hollow rooms,
And feel (companion of the dead): I'm living in the tombs.; Abraham Lincoln

Intolerant Tolerance

2005-07-15T05:02:00.000-07:00

From the Newspeak category:

GRATING DANE: A Danish court found Aage Bjerre guilty of discrimination Tuesday, and he will spend eight days in jail for refusing to serve French and German customers in his pizza shop on Denmark's Fanoe island. Mr. Bjerre instituted the ban in 2003 to protest France and Germany's opposition to U.S.-led efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The initial response in tolerant Denmark included rampant vandalism against his pizzeria, now sold. Mr. Bjerre told AP Tuesday that while he chose jail over a $900 fine, "eight days is a small price to pay when American soldiers go to Iraq and risk their limbs and lives."

So, it's not the Danes that are tolerant, but the Danish government...and even they are only tolerant of certain kinds of people and obviously not those who believe that they have the right to decide who has access to their private property.

My Favorite Books

2005-07-13T07:29:00.000-07:00

One of the most difficult questions that has been posed to me is "What is your favorite book?" How do you go about choosing a favorite book? Most often I opt for the books I've read the most (either, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or any one book of the Harry Potter series), but this amount to too many books. I have this nasty habit of rereading books until I have them memorized or can quote from them. However, after much thought and deliberation, I think I can finally answer that question.
My favorite book (or books, as once again it's a series) is The Little House books, by Laura Ingalls Wilder.
First of all, I can't begin to tell you how many times I've read these books. I know I read them all starting in 2nd grade, when we had to read Little House on the Prarie for class. I know that my sister's boxed set fell apart while I was reading it (although several copies had already been ruined during the Great Basement Flood before I was born). I remember taping the copies as best as I could and finally giving up once individual pages began fluttering out from the binders. After that, I relied on library editions, which were never the same and they were hard to get ahold of, being constantly checked out by others, not to mention smeared with the grime of other borrowers.
I remember wanting to write Laura Ingalls Wilder after reading all of her books and seeing the poster on my teacher's door, showing her mailbox filled with letters. Then my teacher told me she was dead and the poster was an old one. Way to give out accurate information!
After that I read books about the LIttle House series, collections that traced the routes of the Ingalls family historically and corrected errors Laura made writing the books, or more likely, literary collections. These include the Ingalls' early move to Missouri, the death of the only son born to the family and several return moves to Wisconsin (where Laura first went to school).
I tried reading the books written by Rogert McBride, that covered Ma's youth and Rose's youth, but I could never get interested in them. They didn't have the same charm and struck me as cheap rip offs designed to make money off of the original series. Who cares about those? Just gimme the originals and I'm happy.
Of course, then there are more disillusioning reports that the books weren't 100% written by Laura anyway, and her daughter Rose helped the process along. Rose Wilder Lane was a journalist and moved from Missouri to San Francisco and was on the helm of the early Feminist movement, traveling to Europe, and writing extensively on liberty, the free market, and how the heavily controlled societies of early 19th century Europe contrast with those in the US. One of her articles can be found in Freedom, Feminism, and the State, which features articles written by individual feminists, compiled by Wendy McElroy.

More than anything, I think would like to own these books, preferably hardcover, so that once again I could have the joy of reading one after the other and then starting over again, much as I would now read Harry Potter. I can't think of any other books that would complete my 'library.'

The Missing Joy

2005-07-10T11:20:00.000-07:00

I simply must recommend this article. It is such an eye-opener and says things about a million times better than I possibly could, not to mention the fact that it's written by "experts." You can use the login: Username: Ramblinblogger Password:bloggity.
I would like to note that most of the writers and women in this article seem to think that in order to be a good mom, you have to be perfect. This is not the case at all. You don't need to be the perfect saint in order to stay home with your children, or to work full time and thus make the most out of your time with your children. The most important thing is TO BE YOU. Kids can see through phoniness. Constantly pretending to be happy or enthusiastic when you're not will teach children that these emotions are never real, or worse, that it's not okay to feel negative emotions. Be honest with yourself, be honest with others, and that includes children.

Feminism and Socialism

2005-07-08T07:00:00.000-07:00

"So far as feminism seeks to adjust [woman’s] legal position to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances, so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of socialism. For it is a characteristic of socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavor, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature."

~ Ludwig von Mises in Socialism

The Brits, the Terrorist Attacks, and Tea

2005-07-08T03:46:00.000-07:00

From Opinionjournal.com:

An assertion was made yesterday on the Web site of an al Qaeda affiliate claiming responsibility for the terrorist bombings in London: "Britain is now burning with fear."

This is not true; and it cannot ever be true, because it is alien to the British character to "burn." And even if ardor were not so damned un-British, "fear" would never make for kindling in Britannia. Some nations are too stoical, too suspicious of disarray, to panic or wilt in the face of hostility.

The Objectivist View of Love

2005-07-06T17:13:00.000-07:00

Compare this to the notion that love is completely random, something you have no control over, is impossible to find and succeed at except for a select few, and will most likely disappear with time.

"I will tell you something you ought to have been able to figure out for yourself, though most never do. If you ever find the woman you cannot live without, one whose very existence, once you find her, makes life worth living, one with whom all your goals and aspirations are either shared or mean nothing to you, one that is your happiness, and without whom you could never know happiness again, then you will know why sex with anyone else is both a waste (however pleasurable) and a source of unhappiness.

"Most do not understand what true romantic love is, the integration of value and emotion embodied in the existence of another that makes that one both the fulfillment and purpose of one's own existence. When one's values are both satisfied and realized in another, that one becomes the purpose of one's own existence, because the one loved becomes necessary to the accomplishment of one's own values, aspirations, and happiness. One's lover is both the source of the power that enables one's own achievement, and is the reward for that achievement.

"Do most find that? Never; but most never look for that in the first place. They do not believe it is possible. Their tawdry souls do not believe one's highest values are achievable in this world, they settle for the squalid and commonplace."

When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man?

2005-07-06T07:22:00.000-07:00

It's comforting to know that the fight against the individual and for the collective is not a new fight. As Thoreau's quote from above shows, it has been going on for at least...150 years. If you look at even older quotes, it's easy to tell that as long as man has existed, there have been individuals and those who would say "you belong in a group."
Pray tell, which group do I belong to?

I'm female. Does that make me a Feminist? Not in the sense of NOW, or other organizations. Put me in a room with a dozen feminists, and one of us is likely to get lynched (me). I am a feminist in that I believe that women have the right to own their bodies, their property, and their children (to a point), but I do not believe that women have the right to do this to the exclusion of men. I do not believe that women need additional protection or help from men or the federal government. There goes VAWA, Title IX, and any sort of female "affirmative action" program institutions like to use when they claim they're "pro-government." If anything, I'm more of an individualist feminist.
But that's more like saying "Everyone deserves the same rights!" so it probably doesn't count.

I'm definitely agree with the Libertarians. In fact, I'm a due-paying member. Buuut, according to some libertarians, you can't be a real libertarian if you think that US Troops should stay in Iraq until the job is done, you're not a libertarian if you think that there are certain taxes the government should collect (or that the government needs to tax at all), or if you think that the death penalty is A-OK.

I'm white, but the only organization I could get membership in for that is not one I (or even former members) am all that keen to join. Besides, there is nothing more irrational or stupid to join an organization based on race. It's not exactly something you had a lot of control over. If one of your parents had been different, you wouldn't have membership at all.

I don't believe in God...perhaps that makes me an athiest. The only problem with that one is that I much prefer the term "agnostic" to describe myself. First of all, it's a lot less confrontative and secondly, most athiests I know are extremely obnxious people who run around trying to convert people to athiesm. How exactly does that make them better than Christians, if they make believing in no God their scientific equivalent of believing in a God or many gods? I much prefer agnosticism. It basically says you're not sure or you don't care. Problem with that is that it makes it really difficult to find membership in a group where everyone basically sits there and goes "Yea, I really don't care about that whole God issue" "Me neither." "nor I."
On the plus side, at least they'd get out early :)

So, if I cannot be someone else's definition of a feminist, or a libertarian, or an athiest...then let me be an individual! Let me choose the labels I put on myself and let me define them. If we all let others define who we are for us, we might not like the definitions...or the labels.

It's perfectly fine to declare yourself a member of a group, or identify with one. But do not let those groups define you, or define yourself by those groups.

Happy Independence Day!!

2005-07-04T02:52:00.000-07:00

Yay! It's the Fourth of July! Barbeque time! Fireworks Time! Freedom from the evil British time! And Poetry time (hah, fooled ya!)

Liberty Tree

IN a chariot of light from the regions of day,: The Goddess of Liberty came;
Ten thousand celestials directed the way,: And thither conducted the dame,
This fair budding branch, from the garden above,: Where millions with millions agree;
She bro't in her hand, as a pledge of her love,: The plant she call'd Liberty Tree.
This celestial exotic struck deep in the ground,: Like a native it flourish'd and bore;
The fame of its fruit, drew the nations around,: To seek out its peaceable shore.
Unmindful of names or distinction they came,: For freemen like brothers agree:
With one sprit endow'd, they one friendship pursued,: And their temple was Liberty Tree.
Beneath this fair branch, like the patriarchs of old,: Their bread, in contentment they eat;
Unwearied with trouble, of silver or gold,: Or the cares of the grand and the great.
With timber and tar, they old England supplied,: Supported her power on the seas;
Her battles they fought, without having a groat,: For the honor of Liberty Tree.
But hear, O ye swains, ('tis a tale the most profane): How all they tyrannical powers,
King, Commons, and Lords are uniting amain,: To cut down this guardian of ours;
From the east to the west, blow the trumpet to arms,: Thro' the land let the sound of it flee,
Let the far and the near, -all unite with a cheer,: In defense of our Liberty Tree.; Thomas Paine

The Free-market is a lot like a blender...

2005-07-03T12:24:00.000-07:00

Blenders are known for making their horrible obnoxious noise and a household appliance company decided they'd do something about it and very inexpensively added a part that made the blender completely silent. Unfortunately, no one would buy it because they didn't think it would work.

American Woman Whimp!

2005-07-03T02:02:00.000-07:00

Okay, I admit it: I watched the BTK Confession...just like everyone else in Wichita. Only unlike them, I didn't watch it on network television, I watched it on foxnews.com (we made foxnews! Go us!)...and I didn't tell anyone about it, until now at least. I usually try to avoid watching that kind of thing because it strikes me as some kind of mongering and who want to listen to some pervert discribe why and how he killed 10 people just so he can get off on it?

Well, I did get something else out of it besides complete and udder disgust.
Alright, in the confession, BTK repeatedly told his victims that he "had a sexual problem" and "needed to tie them up" and then these women decided "duuur...okay. Sounds good to me. I know that if someone tells me that they just need to have sex with me, that's all they'll do and I'll be damn skippy okay."

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE WOMEN???

It's extremely sad that they got murdered, but after listening to how they agreed to be tied up, I more or less think they had it coming. Don't get me wrong, a lot of them did fight back, but (I forget which ones), several of them just smoked a cigarette and then more or less had the attitude "let's get this over with." Hint: you're supposed to smoke the cigarette after you have sex. Not before.

It wouldn't be so bad if this weren't what women (and people in general) were told to do when someone accosts them and says, "I want your purse/wallet/a little bit of sex." Oh, just hand it over. Your life is more important.

I wonder if this is what any women were thinking? "If I say no, he might kill me." Well, damn. If you're tied up and helpless, he just might kill you anyway. Only in this senario, you'll be completely unable to fight.

We discussed this a bit at the last LP meeting (er get together) and, to my credit, I think I shocked a lot of the guys there by asserting that regardless of the situation, you should fight back. Heck, I would even say you have a moral obligation to fight back. It's your stuff! Even if it's just your wallet or your purse, do you have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to have to cancel all your credit cards, get a new drivers license, a new student card, new pictures of all your adorable nephews?

Okay, I don't; but I my sister has lost her wallet and purse several times and it's a pain in the ass. It's even more of a pain in the ass when you were mugged. Case in point: a girl in my Art of Theater class was mugged at gunpoint by some guy in the parking lot outside of her boyfriend's apartment. The dude made it off with not only her purse, but 2 bags of dirty laundry she was taking to wash and her bookbag, which had most of her textbooks in it. Yes, admittedly he did have a gun and it was good she was unharmed. But you should have seen her the one time she came to class afterwards. She looked terrible....all shaken up, she didn't have any of her things, and her property rights had just been violated and at gunpoint, too. I felt extremely bad for her and shortly after, she never came to class again. She was from a small town in northern Oklahoma and I imagine her parents told her that Wichita was far too dangerous and no more college for her (where else are they going to send her, though? OKC? Tulsa? Yea, those are soo much safer). But I also couldn't help but thinking as I looked at her "Why didn't you fight back?" See, I have this theory that goes something like "If someone really wanted to kill you instead of just stealing your purse/wallet/bookbags/whatever, he would just kill you outright and then steal the stuff. But when someone just wants you purse, they aren't going to kill you. This has to do with the murder one law. If you kill someone during hte execution of another crime (say, robbery), everyone involved will immediately be charged with first degree murder, which can result in the death sentence or life in prison. This is a far cry from a year or whatever you get for mugging someone. Very few thieves are going to want that. So if you fight, or if you "accidently take a while," they might just run away. Hell, pretend you're deaf "WHAT DID YOU SAY? YOU WANT MY PURSE? I'M A LITTLE HARD OF HEARING!" The last thing these types of people want is to get caught and each second longer the crime lasts, the stronger the chance someone else will wander by and see what's going on, the less chance it will succeed.

Am I really saying that everyone should fight back, regardless of whether or not the attacker is armed with a gun or knife? YES. Absolutely. This might have something to do with horrible hollywood movies, but no one really seems to understand the simple fact that it takes a lot to kill a human. Kevin Bright, whose sister was murdered by Dennis Rader (formerly known as BTK), ran out of the house with two gunshot wounds, including one to the head, and other injuries. Another young woman ran from this field next to the Big Ditch near the Sedgwick County Zoo all the way to these apartment complexes with a bullet lodged in her head after she, her fiance and two friends were repeatedly raped and then shot by the Carr Brothers.

The important thing? They were wounded, but they fought back...and they survived.

Some of the women BTK attacked did fight back, and they still died, so it's not like this is a guaranteed way to assure you'll live or escaped unharmed. But if a murderer is going to tell the story of your death in front of a court room, would you rather him say "She smoked a ciagarette and then said, 'let's get this over with'" or "She fought back and I had to work really hard to bring her down." I know I prefer the latter.

And here's an article by Doug Giles on the same topic.

For those of you who are wondering, I took the title of this post from a story one of my mother's cousins told about giving birth in Saudi Arabia (her husband was stationed on an American base there) and how the only english words the Saudi doctor knew was "American woman whimp!"

VAWA and Phil Hartman

2005-07-01T11:15:00.000-07:00

I used to watch Newsradio all the time when it was really big and I totally remember the episode where everyone in the office came in after having been from Bill's funeral expressing their surprise that he had died so suddenly of a heart attack. That surprised me too. Bill, played by Phil Hartman, ahd always been one of my favorite characters. So when they said he was dead, I just assumed that the actor/comedian had moved on to bigger and better things, which is what happens a lot of sitcoms. Imagine my shock when my parents told me, no, his wife had shot him. This might be a little late, but this is discussed in a article on lewrockwell.com, which is very relevant considering VAWA is up for reauthorization:

Despite the good senators' reassurances, VAWA-funded organizations routinely discriminate against men seeking help. Ten VAWA-funded women's shelters in Los Angeles were recently sued for refusing a male victim help. Rather than offering to stop their blatant discrimination, they went to court to defend their right to continue the discrimination.

Considering the attitudes of many shelter staffers, this is not surprising. Although the U.S. Dept. of Justice reports that 36% of all people physically assaulted by their intimate partner are men (835,000 men annually), many battered women's advocates insist that only 5% of victims are male.

In a Boston Globe interview about battered men, a director of the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, dismissively quipped, "Sometimes it snows in Florida ... but we don't make public policy around it."

Columnist Cathy Young notes a case in her files that "speaks volumes about most advocates' view of female violence. Brenda C. was admitted to a shelter after being arrested for assaulting her husband (during a divorce) and ordered out of their home. A letter to her attorney from a shelter counselor gave a fairly accurate account of what happened: In an argument, 'Mrs. C. grabbed Mr. C. by his necktie (and) he pushed her away. Mrs. C. then punched his face and her nail cut his neck.'" The shelter's assessment? "'Physical abuse' of Brenda by her husband."

Marriage as an Economic Union

2005-06-30T18:41:00.000-07:00

Okay, I was perusing the internet and found this, Price Theory: The Economics of Love and Marriage. Quite an interesting read. What stood out to me most was this paragraph on division of labor:

One way of looking at marriage is as a rather odd sort of package deal, an exchange in which the two parties agree to share income, housing, sexual favors, and a collection of productive activities such as cooking meals, cleaning house, washing dishes, and rearing children. Seen from this standpoint, the motivation for marriage is, in part, the existence of economies of scale in production--it is easier to cook one meal for two people than two meals each for one person--and, in part, the advantage of division of labor

Ah ha, did I not point this out earlier? Actually, the article goes into a lot more depth on this and starts talking about bi-polar monopolies and the like. But most interesting to me is the natural effects that occur when couples seize to divide their labor and attack each task individually--working, housekeeping, etc--which is to break up one of the main advantages of marriage...and basically create a dis-economy of scale.

My favorite quote at this point: "So far in this chapter I have said nothing about love, which is widely believed to have some connection with marriage."

Unjust Laws

2005-06-30T10:55:00.000-07:00

“Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?”
--Henry David Thoreau

Ha-Neu

2005-06-29T18:17:00.000-07:00

From the German Wikipedia (and this is particularly funny as I had a friend who lived in Halle when she was a foreign exchange student):

Halle-Neustadt, Mostly built in the 1960s Halle-Neustadt lies just to the East of Halle. A classic example of how mean, state sponsored housing, on a huge scale, combined with brutalist architecture and "one-size-fits-all" social engineering failed to achieve its aims – but did convice most of the people that lived there that moving to another city was a good idea. Halle-Neustadt is sometimes referred to as "Hanoi" – in an ironic play on words referring to the heavily bombed capital of Vietnam (Ha-Neu: abbreviation for Halle-Neustadt – German pronunciation: hanoi).

BTK Suspect Dennis Rader Pleads Guilty

2005-06-27T07:31:00.000-07:00

Poor Wichita. Everytime we think, "Now this will put us in the national spotlight!" someone has to go and screw it up. See, the BTK trial was going to be our Trial of the Century, our moment to put us in the history books for something other than cattle and airplanes. But no. The only thing it has really gone and proved is that we're such nice people, even our serial killers feel guilty when they do something wrong and admit their crimes. Now we have to cancel the "BTK Trial" T-shirts, balloons, and souvenir hats.
Damn.
Actually, I'm really glad that we're not going to have a trial: it gives Wichita the opportunity to just get on with life and continue being our friendly selves. Even better is the fact that Wichita tax payers, who are already going to get the bootie-poke with the arena tax in July and the school funding increase tax later on, won't have to pay for his trial.
Thanks, Rader! You're an asshole for killing people, but I for one am glad that you found religion and pleaded guilty so that we don't have to watch your trial like every one did with Ted Bundy, the Green River Killer and a whole bunch of other psychos.
Of course, knowing that he can't get the death sentence was probably a big motivator. At this point, I'm not even sure if he's up for the Hard 40.

More Finland Pics

2005-06-27T06:45:00.000-07:00

Here we have the River Aura, which runs right through Turku, and also right by the Cathedral. On days when it's nice out (that is, warmer than 40F), everyone goes down to the river banks, sits there, drinks beer, and tries to see who can get so drunk, they fall into the river and drown. As it was, when I was there, it wasn't that warm so you can only see a few people out there drinking beer. Usually these bums roam around, too, and collect your beer bottles so they can get money for returning it. That is, if the drinkers don't throw the bottles into the river. I wonde which is worse: drowning in the river, or having to swim in it.

Up and down both banks of River Aura are these boats that don't go anywhere because they're restaurants. On this day, they where having some sort of contest where all the students in Turku try to drink one beer at each boat-restaurant. Who ever does it gets some prize money, along with the eternal admiration and envy for his beer drinking prowess. No one has managed it yet. If you look closely, you'll see a group of students making their rounds. But wait! What are they wearing? I'm glad you asked...

They're wearing this. Well, okay, so they're not all wearing the red ones, but the concept is the same. In Finland, university students are mocked by everyone by being forced to wear these really dorky jumpsuits most people would wear when painting one's house. They don't have to wear them all the time, but when they're making drinking rounds or other university-student type things, they wear them. Each different major has a different color. Red is for poli-sci, white is for engineering (I think), yellow is for something else, black is for something...you get the idea. Finnish students are fortunately allowed to mutilate their costumes and usually sew a ton of patches onto them so that they look "cool." No word yet on whether this has actually worked, but I imagine if convicts where allowed to do the same with their orange jumpsuits, they wouldn't mind wearing them, either.

Finland Pics!

2005-06-26T21:05:00.000-07:00

Okay, now that Blogger has this new feature, I can upload some pictures! yay! So, at long last, Finland pictures!

Alright, a natural place to start is Helsinki (Helsingfors in Swedish) and here you can see some of the tracks at the main Helsinki trainstation (I am strongly resisting the urge to put this in German...). This is also the only picture I took of Helsinki, so as far as we're concerned, all of Helsinki is a large train station and you're not missing out on anything. Moving right along to Turku, which for the purposes of this blog, is a lot more fascinating.

And here's Turku. And just to make Sure that you know I wasn't lying about going to Finland, this picture should erase all doubts: you can very clearly see the finnish flag flying. They have these days in Finland where you have to put up the flag and my first day in Turku was one of them. No one had any idea why the flags were up (okay, Lasse didn't have any idea why the flags were up), but they were.
And that big old looking thing is the Turku Cathedral, which was Catholic at one point in time until the Finns (or more likely, their Swedish overlords) decided that Catholics suck, except for the drinking part, and became Lutheran. So now it's Lutheran. And it's old. So snap click.

Speaking of Lutherans, some Finns are really happy to be Lutheran. Or at least, Christian. So happy that they stand in the street all day and preach at you, something that isn't really all that unusual for an American to come across. This was a bit odd for me because I never saw it happening in Germany, but there they were. This is actually the second day I ran into them. The first day I didnt' take a picture, but the second day I did and one of the ladies standing out there handing out flyers approached me and said, in only slightly accented English, "Maybe you would like a flyer to go with your picture." Accute embarrassment on the part of the American... For the Finnish impaired (that is, most of the world), the sign says "Jesus Christ is..." and then some stuff that I can't understand. I assume it's something like "Coming to take you away, haha," or "your savior."
Wierdly enough, on this day they were preaching in German and I completely missed it. Lasse had to point it out to me because I'd gotten so use to not understanding my surroundings that I'd stopped paying attnetion to it. But sure enough, I could understand. That gave me a tickle of a thrill :) Some people the Finns...they speak a language no one else does, so to make it easier on the rest of us, they learn everyone else's language.

My bed is calling to me now. So I'll put up more pics later.

German Jokes

2005-06-26T12:49:00.000-07:00

I love Germany and Germans...but one of the problems with them is, as Xenophobe's Guide puts it, "Germans take their humor very seriously. It is not a joking matter...The Germans' humour does not translate very well. Most German jokes when translated into English are no funnier than the average till receipt. Learn a bit of German, and you'll soon come to realize that there is a riche stream of humour running through German life. But their humour is largely a matter of context. There is a time and a place for being funny and for laughing. Ordnung decrees that humour is not the oil that makes the days run smoothly."

This probably explains why I got an email from my sister entitled "German jokes" :

How many electricians does it take to change a light
bulb?
One.

What's the difference between a nurse and a bowling
ball?
A nurse is someone trained in the medical profession
whilst a bowling ball is a heavy, spherical object
used in a recreational context.

A man walks into a pub.
He is an alcoholic whose drink problem is destroying
his family.

Knock, knock.
Who's there?
The police. I'm afraid there's been an accident. Your
husband is in hospital.

Two men are sitting in a pub.
One man turns to the other and says: 'Last night I saw
lots of strange men coming in and out of your wife's
house.'
The other man replies: 'Yes, she has become a
prostitute to subsidise her drug habit.'

Did you hear about the blonde who jumped out off a
bridge?
She was clinically depressed and took her own life
because of her terribly low self-esteem.

Why do undertakers wear ties?
Because their profession is very serious, and it is
important that their appearance has a degree of
gravitas.

Why do women fake orgasms?
Because they want to give men the impression that they
have climaxed.

Why are there no aspirin in the jungle?
Because it would not be financially viable to attempt
to sell pharmaceuticals in the largely unpopulated
rainforest.

Two cows are in a field. Suddenly, from behind a bush,
a rabbit leaps out and runs away.
One cow looks round a bit, eats some grass and then
wanders off.

Now for one in German (an East German joke unfortunately):

Ein Amerikaner sieht zur Messezeit in Leipzig eine Lange Schlange vor einem Lebensmittelladen. "Bei uns kann man ohne weiteres alles kaufen," sagt er.
"Das war früher bei uns auch so. Da sehen Sie mal, wie weit die USA zurückgeblieben ist."

(tr.: An American in Leipzig sees a long line in fron of a grocery store at lunch time. "In America, one can go shopping without all this," he says.
An Leipziger replies, "That's how it was here earlier, too. Now you see how far behind the US is...")

Marriage Through Time

2005-06-26T12:22:00.000-07:00

This article, which I found at ifeminist.com, paints a really good portrait of marriage throughout human history. Probably the most interesting thing I got out of it is that there never has been one constant definition of marriage. Until the rennaissance, marriage was thought of as an economic union. You (or your family, if female) picked your mate based on what land her family owned, or what beneficial political alliances could be made. It's interesting to consider all that Henry VIII gained by marrying all his wives, in addition to the long-sought after son. In anycase, it's a good read.

Get One For Your Kitchen Now!

2005-06-25T13:43:00.000-07:00

My sister sent me this e-mail called "Ladies' Kitchen Accessory":

Cute, eh? But imagine the outrage if that were a female with the knives getting stabbed into her...I guess that would just be domestic violence then, which we know men are never the victims of.

Reviewing "Working Mother"

2005-06-24T16:10:00.000-07:00

While cleaning the office at work, I came across a rather interesting magazine entitled "Working Mother." Working Mother is a monthly magazine that is apparently geared towards thre goals: 1) Allieving working mothers of their guilt ("Be Happy, Not Guilty: by CNN's Soledad O'Brien"), 2) Giving working mothers tips on how to be Super In Every Area and 3) Diversity.
I wonder about that third one. Maybe it's just a monthly thing, but half this magazine seemed dedicated to promoting diversity and "reaching out" and talking about how wonderful it is to be friends with people of "other races." Nothing against that, but honestly, is it less racist or more racist to brag about how your reaching out to people who "look different" ? The particular article I'm referring to is called "Girlfriends: The best work perk of all? It might just be the cross-cultural connections you make with some wonderful women co-workers." Er...what? I thought it was something more like "getting away from your kids, your husband, getting to sit around and complain about the aforementioned people while getting paid, and smashing the patriarchy."
But no. According to this magazine, if you weren't at work, you would only hang out with people who look like you, remain completely ignorant about other cultures and, presumably, be racist. Alright. I dig it. Making friends at work is an awesome thing. I do it, too, and the people are nice and friendly.

Now, moving along to another article on the "Best Companies for Multi-cultural Women." Wow, can I put that on my resume? "Multi-cultural. Will pimp ancestry for work." The worst thing about this article is that it assumes that some companies have naturally hostile atmospheres for the women of "diverse backgrounds" (read: not white). In order to make this list, the magazine asked "companies from across the country [to provide] us with detailed information--including the number of women of color employed and hired in 2004 and the number who hold top positions." Okay, note to self: when filling out applications, categorically refuse to give out both ancestry and sex. Dress asexually and insist on being a "pacific islander." "This year's eight Best Companies..are remarkably devoted to the recruitment, support and advancement of multicultural women." I wonder what would happen if I decided to go out and survey the best companies for Mono-cultural men. Mainly I just wonder how long it would take until I heard from Al Sharpton, the ACLU, and NOW. No, wait, I'm female. NOW would probably just state how tragic it is to witness another victim of mysogeny.
"More than 2,000 people have gathered at our conference and town halls to explore issues that women of color face on the job." Wow. What issues do they face? KKK meetings held in the afterwork hours? Lynchings? I dunno man. Corporate America seems like one of the most dull, boring, and non-eventful places women of color (wait, how is it that being colorful is associated with being multicultural? Someone whose Dad is German and Mom is Irish would belong to more than one cultural group, yet be a classic whitey.) can find. Maybe the man issue they face is just that: white men in suits are damn dull. I feel a fiesta coming on...

Okay, so now that we've dealt with the pressing needs of multicultural, colored (er...females of color), working moms, let's move on to relief of guilt. And, boy, you might want to duck.
First of all, what exactly entitles working mothers to feel guilt-free? Why is it the first thing a working mom will do is declare that she thinks she is doing the right thing and that all of society is against her? Is this a form of projection? It sure must be because nowadays, I can't think of something that has been more accepted and praised than working mothers. It's the idea of the Woman Who Can Do Everything--work 40 hour weeks, keep the house clean, spend "quality time" with the kids and husband, work out to keep in shape, everything. And yet--they're so defensive. Suggest that maybe 6 weeks is a bit young for them to drop their baby off in day care and continue their career and all of a sudden, "You think I'm a bad person, don't you!!?"
That is the guilt talking. No one needs to accuse them of being a bad person---they already feel it themselves. They already feel guilty that they are obligated to work and to have a successful career while being a good wife, mother and housekeeper. The rich ones are lucky--they can hire a maid, but few are the women that can afford a full-time nanny for the kids and mistress for the husband.
If anything, it's women who choose NOT to have a career and to be full-time wives, mothers and housekeepers that get the disdain of society and of their working peers. "How could you waste your life like that?" "I would be so bored without my job." "I couldn't stand spending the whole day with just kids around---there would be no good conversation!" These are the women who are apparently enslaved by men and are unfree--yet it't not they that feel guilty, but the one's who are "liberated."
The simple truth is that most guilt has a cause, just like all choices have consequences. If you choose to work and have children, you're going to end up sacrificing time with your family. You simply can't have everything--you can't spend 40 hours at work each week and expect to have 40 extra hours tacked onto the week to spend with family. For some women, they're fine with this and they make it work and it's successful and that's great. But for the women who feel guilty and need to be told to ignore their guilt and that they're doing the right thing, heads up!
You might be doing the right thing for their cause, but you aren't doing the right thing for yourself. If you feel guilty because you missed your child sitting up, or your husband has to sacrifice his career goals to babysit the kids, or that the house is constantly messy, or that you never have enough time, then you've made the wrong choice.
To pretend that there is only one right option out there for all women has done nothing more than divide women into two heavily armed camps that spend the majority of their time not concentrating on work or home, but on how wrong the other side is--that and publishing magazines designed to justify their decisions, absolve guilt, and make the other side look bad.

A case in point is from an article about Aurora, a director of global marketing for HP, who is a successful career woman and mother. "Her children, Mila, 4, and Liam, 2, are particularly protective of that time with Mom and Dad, especially when Aurora is running late nad trying to send off one last email from her laptop. 'Liam has become quite good at saying, "No lap. No lap."' she says." Only a truly dedicated career mom could turn her 2 year old's plea for more time with his mother into an example of how much he values the time she actually spends with him.

All in all, "Working Mothers" is a bit of a hack-job magazine, that seems to consistently strive to talk about how great diversity is for working women (they even manage to talk about Aurora's mixed-race heritage, because that's relevant) and how working women should all be given medals. Alright, if you say so. But when half of their kids end up on Ritalin because they "talk too much" and "demand too much attention," don't come whining to me.
As I said, choices have consequences.

Supreme Court Denies Property Rights

2005-06-23T11:34:00.000-07:00

Just this past semester, I wrote a paper for my Business Law class on abuses of Eminent domain, an issue which has been in the news for quite some time now. As I was writing it, the supreme court had agreed to hear a case from New London regarding homes that were going to be seized in order to to build an industrial complex for some business that wanted to come in. The basic question the Supreme Court was supposed to answer was, "Can government seize your home and sell it to private business interests?' The answer, apparently, is yes:

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

That would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that city officials seem to declare houses blighted at their own impunity. Apparently if your house isn't brand new and just needs a new paint job, it's blighted. This is extremely bad and I wonder how long it will be until everyone realizes just how bad. For those of you who are just as lucky to live in Kansas as I am, hah hah, You might be interested in knowing that Kansas has one of the worst records when it comes to eminent domain abuse for states its population size. In comparison, there have been no cases of eminent domain abuse in New Hampshire. They passed a statute outlawing the use of eminent domain for "economic development" in 1980.

Thoreau is Pro-Homeschooling

2005-06-22T15:41:00.000-07:00

I've finally gotten around to weaving my way through "Walden" and "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau and--what do you know!--He's an unschooler:

How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying the experiement of living? Methinks this would exercise their minds as much as mathematics. If I wished a boy to know something about the arts and sciences, for instance, I would not pursue the common course, which is to merely send him into the neighborhood of some professor, where any thing is professed and practised but the art of life;--to survey the world through a telescope or a microscope, and never with his natural eye; to study chemistry, and not learn how his bread is made, or mechanics, and not learn how it is earned; to discover new satellites to Neptune, and not detect the motes in his eyes, or to what vagabond he is a satellite himself; or to be devoured by the monsters that swarm all around him, while contemplating the mosters in a drop of vinegar. Which would have advanced the most at the end of a month,--the boy who made his own jackknife from the ore which he had dug and smelted, reading as much as would be necessary for this, --or the boy who had atteneded the lectures on metallurgy at the Institute in the mean while, and had received a Robers' penknife from his father? Which would be most likely to cut his fingers? (p. 44

He then goes on to critique the higher educational system quite a bit (and this being the one at Cambridge College (aka Harvard)! Hilarious!

PCA Resolution Fails to Pass

2005-06-19T13:05:00.000-07:00

I nearly forgot to mention this, but the Presbyterian Church in America did not pass the resolution recommending that parents pull their students out of government schools and either send them to private christian schools or homeschool them. Really, the chance that this would pass was a lot slimmer than the chance that the Southern Baptist resolution would---the Southern Baptists at least made it into more of a campaign and had the Alliance for the Separation of School and State supporting them.
But at least it gets the idea out there, floating around and just waiting for someone to pick it up. Perhaps some parents who had never thought twice allowing the government to educate their children (while heaven forbid it should clothe them or provide them healthcare) will look at the education their children are being given more closely.

America Needs A Strong Europe

2005-06-19T12:35:00.000-07:00

When the European Constitution was voted down by th te Dutch and French, Americans cheered. When the Euro went down against the dollar, Americans cheered. They said, we remembered smugly, that one day the European Unio would rival the United States in terms of economic power and population. The Euro would replace the dollar as the world-wide reserve currency, leaving the dollar to look elsewhere for value. But they were wrong, we say, as analysts note Europe's increasing decay. Their economies are growing at rates most Americans call a recession. T heir birth rates equal a dying population--and an old one. Their unemployment is crushing--and so are their taxes. This, Americans say with voices filled with schadenfreude, is the final triumph of the American Way of Life.
But all of this skips over the vital point and the reason why Europe's failure to grow has everyone paying attention, why we need an economically sound Europe, why we need the open boarders and single currency the European Union provides:
America Needs a Strong Europe.
We knew this well enough after the Second World War and dedicated billions of dollars on top of what we had spent liberating it to rebuild it. Although it might seem counterproductive to do so (my English teacher in Germany compared this nation building policy to a child knocking over a tower of blocks, only have to rebuild it again.), since it would not only cost the taxpayers money, but create "competition." Rather, the Marshall Plan and all following economic aid was part of a very simple calculation: Poor Europeans living in rubble need to buy the products Americans produce. Poor Europeans living in rubble can't afford to buy American products. Solution? Make it so that they can--and if we could get some of that French wine, that'd be great, too.
The rebirth of Europe's economy gave something other than invading each other to keep the Europeans busy--they were creating wealth, prosperity and freedom for themselves. The beginnings of the European Union only served to further this prosperity by getting rid of the tariffs and obstructions that prevented goods from crossing boarders. As Frederic Bastiat said, "if goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." And so they traded: Germany quickly became one of the largest economies in the world and both Europe and the United States benefited from this economic rebirth.
However, there was another influence more powerful than free trade that eventually managed to stop the Wirtschaftswunder dead in its tracks. The rise of the welfare state, a component of nearly every EU nation, did not affect the economic growth much in the beginning, but once the economy experienced a slow down and recession in the 1970s and 1980s, most of Europe's growth died and could not be revived. Since then, the European Economic model has been filled not with growth, but with long-term unemployment and stagnation. Italy's economy shrunk last year by .5%. Germany's growth rate was high--at 1.5%. The only country in the EU to escape teh stagnation was Ireland and its 2005 estimated growth rate of 5% is a direct result of the taxes by the Irish government---something the European mainland swears it cannot afford to do.
Averaged out for the EU, the GDP growth in 2005 will be somewhere around 2% and compared to other economic blocs worldwide, the EU ranked dead last for total 10-year economic growth. If these growth rates do not improve, only one thing will happen: the EU will shrink in relationship to the rest of the world. It will not advance, but continue to grow poorer. It will not be able to afford to produce many of the goods it trades with the US now and nor will it be able to afford to buy any of the goods the US produces.
Some say that the US can easily afford to sell its goods elsewhere--Europe is only a drop in teh bucket--but it represents the richest and most highly developed countries in the world right now. India and China are decades away from reaching the point were every citizen can afford a coke, or have a television in their household, or even electricity.
If the European Union does not grow, then what use was the Marshall Plan? It was not supplied so that Europe could become a welfare queen. Is Europe really ready to sacrifice its relevancy in order to protect inefficient socialist welfare states?
There is a popular misconception that capitalism is an American creation since we've been so successful at it, but that could not be farther from the truth. We stole it from the English and such thinkers as Adam Smith. The term "laizzez-faire" is a French one--and so is Frederic Bastiat. Even the absolute monarchs of France had a policy of letting the economy do what it does best: trade.
In Germany, birthplace of Engels and Marx, the Hansa League in the port cities traded from London, Scandanavia and all the way over to the Baltics.
Farther back in history, the Roman network of roads enabled trade (and soldiers...) to prosper throughout the empire.
These roots lay deep in Europe's history and all Europe needs to do is shed off its more recent 200-year experiment with socialism and rediscover that capitalism is European.
For both America and the world need a economically srong Europe.
Copyright 2005

Poetry Time!

2005-06-18T19:44:00.000-07:00

One of the saddest effects of school is that very few people appreciate poetry nowadays. They hate it because "they don't understand it" or "it's silly" and "a waste of time." What's to understand? It's a poem! You read it as much for the meaning as the words as the feelings they convey...which is why you read it outloud in order to feel how they sound. Meaning, or even the briefest understanding only comes out after you've read it at least 5 times, but this is no absolute guide. There are poems that I've read 30 times and I still have yet to catch more than a glimpse of what it's about. But that's what I love about poetry; there are so many shades of meanings that swirl around all the feelings...the struggle to understand them in school in order to get that "good grade" does nothing more than kill it, really.
And so, I present, "Crossing the Bar" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson:

Crossing the Bar

Sunset and evening star,
And one clear call for me!
And may there be no moaning of the bar,
When I put out to sea,
But such a tide as moving seems asleep,
Too full for sound or foam,
When that which drew from out the boundless deep
Turns again home.
Twilight and evening bell,
And after that the dark!
And may there be no sadness of farewell;
When I embark;
For tho' from out our bourne of Time and Place
The flood may bear me far,
I hope to see my pilot face to face
When I have crossed the bar.: Alfred, Lord Tennyson

For my 21st Birthday....

2005-06-18T17:19:00.000-07:00

I would like nothing more than Linux. Specifically, SuSe Linux Kernel. As soon as I get back home and get on my own computer, I'm going to download the free trial and see how I like it, but it looks pretty good to me. It comes with games, an Office-like series of word processors, spreadsheet application, and not-evil generic powerpoint. And a chat system that lets you chat on pretty much all of the messaging clients, which will be handy. Then I won't have to have two programs running on my computer constantly.
However, this does cost $99.95, which isn't cheap...I better drop a few hints around the family to make sure they know this is what I want. I hope they send you a whole kit that way I can also install it on my laptop when I get one. Yay! Once I have linux, I can officially call myself a computer nerd. MUHAHAHAHA

Why I Love Christians

2005-06-15T07:40:00.000-07:00

Last year, the Southern Baptists made news with their attempt to pass a resolution at their national congress urging all members of the sect to take their kids out of public schools. Now the Presbytarian Church of America has joined up:

Whereas, The public school system does not offer a Christian education, but officially claims to be "neutral" with regard to Christ, a position that Christ Himself said was impossible (Luke 11:23), and
Whereas, The public schools are by law humanistic and secular in their instruction, and as a result the attending children receive an education without positive reference to the Triune God...
Therefore, be it resolved that the 33rd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America encourages all her officers and members to remove their children from the public schools and see to it that they receive a thoroughly Christian education, for the glory of God and the good of Christ's church.

However, this shouldn't be confused with the Presbytarian Church USA, from which the Presbytarian Church in America split in the 1970s over doctrine and is therefore more conservative. We'll know by next week whether or not it passes.

Odd how it takes "religious nuts" to be the first to act on what we've known for a long tme: American schools are bad. Their reasons might be different than mine, but the conclusion is the same.

Hug those kids

2005-06-15T07:34:00.000-07:00

The more I see of this, the more convinced I get that the day my kids go to public school will be the day I die:

Last spring, a sixth-grade Montgomery County girl was thrown down in the back of her school bus by several older boys who, the girl said, grabbed her breasts and buttocks and feigned sex acts.

In December, a 6-year-old Frederick County girl was allegedly fondled by a middle-schooler while riding a bus to her gifted student program. Her mother said she didn't learn of the incident until May, when the driver told her.
Two months ago, an 11-year-old girl was allegedly attacked by two girls and three boys during a bus ride home from her elementary school, south of Richmond. The group, the girl said, held her down, groped her and penetrated her with an object.

Some of the perpetrators have been punished, while others have merely been transferred to other schools...the typical way of "passing the buck" in the US. What I want to know, however, is why any of these parents still put their kids on the school bus...or why they make their kids go back to the same schools where the administration's concern was not how to punish the molestors or keep children safe, but how to keep it quiet so that no one would know.
After I was attacked, I went back to the area only once...and only because I was made to. The idea of going back there again is just to painful and frightening to contemplate and I was 16. Yet these children must return to the scenes where they were attacked on a daily basis...and even face their attackers.

I don't wonder any more why kids accuse their parents of hating them.

Amnesty Watch

2005-06-13T17:40:00.000-07:00

Palestine has just reinstated its death penalty, BBC News reports:

Four men who had confessed to murders in a Gaza court were killed on Sunday - three by hanging, one by firing squad...Mr Abbas signed the order on Saturday, interior ministry spokesman Tawfiq Abu Housa said.
"There is a new policy of enforcing the law to face and fight the chaos and lawlessness in the Palestinian territories," Mr Housa said. Until Sunday, nine death sentences had been carried out since the formation of the Palestinian Authority in 1994 - out of 70 imposed by the courts, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.

Fascinating. Now, just for fun, and because I'm a little suspicious of bias, but I'm going to watch Amnesty International to see if they issue a statement condemning the Palestinian Death penalty. Barring that, I'm going to watch for any comment on the issue period. Hat tip: The Best of the Web Today

Canada Rules Health Care Waiting Lists Unconstitutional

2005-06-13T06:09:00.000-07:00

For years, American leftists have held Canada's state-run, "sinlge payer" health-care system as a hallmark of How Health Care Ought To Be. I hope they read the latest ruling from the Canadian Supreme Court, which rules that:

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week...The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance might be constitutional in circumstances where health-care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, [but] is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."

Canada, Cuba, and North Korea are the only countries in the world that forbid the operation of private health insurance. Even France allows it (and private clinics), probably because if they didn't there is no way anyone would be able to get any healthcare at all. They'd just sit in line all their lives.

Some people look at socialized healthcare and think, "would that I had it." These people could not be more wrong. First of all, "single payer" healthcare is not a single payer. Everyone in the country pays for it and they pay in the form of taxes. You pay every time your neighbor has a baby. You pay everytime s/he breaks a leg...the bottom line is, YOU PAY.

Perhaps the best quote from this article, which sums up what I'm trying to say, is:

The larger lesson here is that health care isn't immune from the laws of economics. Politicians can't wave a wand and provide equal coverage for all merely by declaring medical care to be a "right," in the word that is currently popular on the American left.

Exactly, and this is why it's so vitally important that everyone understand how economics works. If you don't, then you will continue to believe that the only reason healthcare is so expensive is because those selfish doctors earn so much money.

Pay me no mind, just blowing off steam.

2005-06-13T05:13:00.000-07:00

1. Why is the soft drink industry so profitable?
Because of its connections with the Illuminati, which not only support and underwrite everything Pepsi does, but ensure that it has the ability to provide all the green creatures (Irishmen) on Mars with soft drinks. Coca-Cola, on the other hand, is completely supported by the mormon church, which puts little signals into every can of coke to make people want to convert and then convert their dead ancestors. The scientologists tried to steal coke from the mormons, of course, after noticing its effectiveness converting new members. But this failed. Because the little evil bugs that crawl on your skin can't survive in carbonation.

2. Compare the economics of the concentrate business to the bottling business: why is the profitability so different? Why do concentrate producers want to vertically integrate into bottling?
The concentrate business is very complex, involving small little people ("Umpa Lumpas") who spend their whole days and lives mixing together the necessary ingrediants to make Coca Cola. They do this because of the evil peoople who live in their former homeland. So they need a lot of housing, which are very expensive to come up with. So concentrate producers have to pay a lot of money in order to make their concentrate.
Bottling is even worse, since the bottlers have to travel far and wide in order to find the trees that grow bottles on them. Harvesting these bottles is even worse as the leaves are very prickly and can cut you if you're not careful. So be careful! Then they have to imploy mosquitos, who use their sucker things to blow air into the water (which is then carbonated) and then they put it into the concentrate mix to make soda. Elephants are used to fill the bottles. You can only imagine how much the upkeep of all the animals cost you!
If it weren't for this, I'm sure pop would be free.

3. How has the competition between Pepsi and Coke affected the industry's profit?
It hasn't. Didn't you read number 1? Since Pepsi and coke are supported by the illuminati and mormons respectively, they don't need profits. They will always have money. Don't trust them!

*sigh* sad to say...although a lot of the conclusions reached are almost as illogical, the actual writing style is about 10x better than the norm in my group :(

"It's impossible to work in a group when you're omniscient."

2005-06-11T16:53:00.000-07:00

50 points if you can name that quote (who said it, where it's from and even the episode title and number, if you're ambitious) and use proper punctuation.

Remember, guys: It's they're, their and there; two, too, and to. They all have different meanings, so unless you're foreign, please don't confuse them.

Worst States in the US to Live In

2005-06-11T14:27:00.000-07:00

An article on LewRockwell.com lists the worst US states to live in, based on one criterion: their gun laws: the number, the type..that sort of thing. It seems to be a pretty good litmus test, judging from the results. I thought that the paragraph on New Jersey was particularly good:

New Jerseyans sometimes complain about the state's reputation as a less than desirable place to live, but few places offer such an unappealing combination of high cost of living, excessive taxes, traffic jams and hatred of individual liberty.

Hah, this reminds me of the billboards that started popping up in New Jersey, talking about what a horrible place it is to do business. I've never been there myself, so I can't say...but my what a repuatation! I'd much rather have people think I'm from a flat, boring, hick state than from there.

A Call For Quotes

2005-06-11T10:53:00.000-07:00

I'm not a religious person and I think that's obvious. However, I am interested in religion. And therefore, I ask all of you who have a clue about religion to submit any quotes from the Bible (I'm keeping it small first; other religions can come later) that espose libertarian views. That means individual responsibility, small-government, and doing no harm.

Some to start out with:

Gal. 4:13-14: "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom in to an opportunity for the flesh, but through love, serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement 'You shall love your neighbor
as yourself.'"

The Parable of the Talents
"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more.But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? ²⁷Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. ²⁹For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. ³⁰And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
1 Samuel 8:10-18
Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who
were asking him for a king. He said,
“This is what the king who will reign over you will do:
He will take your sons and make them serve with his
chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his
chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of
thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to
plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others
to make weapons of war and equipment for his
chariots.
He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks
and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards
and olive groves and give them to his attendants.
He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage
and give it to his officials and attendants.
Your menservants and maidservants and the best of
your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.
He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves
will become his slaves.
When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the
king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you
in that day.”

This one, interestingly enough, was quoted at length by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, "Common Sense" to provide reasons why the American colonists should break away from the British monarchy and establish a republic.

Acts 22:27-29: Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

Proverbs 29:2-2: When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

James 1:25: But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Pslams 119:124 Deliver me from the oppression of man: so will I keep thy precepts.

Ezekiel 46:18 Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession: that my people be not scattered every man from his possession.

There's one against the estate tax!

Genesis 34:21 These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for, behold, the land is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.

Even God is for open borders :)

This is just a beginning! See if you can find more!

2005-06-11T10:02:00.000-07:00

From Friday's Wall Street Journal:

Under the Chinese aircraft-purchasing system, an airline negotiates with a manufacturer such as Boeing Co., of Chicago, or its European rival, Airbus, and then draws up a wish list of jets that it submits to the Civil Aviation Administration of China, or CAAC. Officials there scrutinize the request and refer it to a ministry-level agency for final approval.

Even a straightforward purchase can take months, sometimes years, and airline executives say they often get approval for far fewer planes than they asked for.

Now, I live in Wichita--the so-called Air Capital of the World. It's oh so tempting to imagine how China loosening up its airplane acquisition regulations would boost Wichita's economy. All major aircraft companies are located here--even airbus has a design office (which I really just think is a way to spy on other companies)--and the orders that would flow through to Boeing from a booming Chinese Air Transportation industry would give this city the boost it needs to finish recovering from the post 9/11 slump.

Step away from the simulation...

2005-06-08T20:18:00.000-07:00

I should have gotten a doctor's note to get me out of participating in the simulated business for Mgmt 681. Not because I want to get out of it or that it's dangerous to my health, but simply because I have been known in the past to quickly form unhealthy addictions to simulations.

When I first got my slimly little hands of a copy of SimCity (the first version? The second verion? I can't remember it), I started playing the game and I was hooked. "Why won't they move to my city? Move to my city, damn it!" "Oooh, intercity commerce!" "Quite your bitching about the traffic--I have subway stops and bus stations on each corner!" "Why won't my airport develop?" "Ack, aliens! NOOOOOO!!!" I played and played and played with hours ellapsing without glancing at the clock (it's highly unfortunate that the Sim brand games block the clock so as far as I was concerned, I hadn't been playing long).

When we got the Sims, it was nearly as bad. Nearly only because I quickly became frustrated with the limited architectural choices for my Sims houses. What if they want a basement? Or a third story? Why do I have to waste so much space with the stairs? The final straw came when my character simply couldn't make any more friends because of time constraints to advance in her job and her husband caught on fire while grilling and died. That sucked. And I, depressed with the fact that my Sims life did not seem to be advancing quite as well as my own, quit.

I've been relatively Simulation-free for 2-3 years now. Until now. I just played the Mike's Bikes simulation for 4 hours straight and for a period of time, was actually doing pretty well. I just seem to lack the ability to streamline my business after I make the complete switch from the Adventurer segment to the Leisure segment. I had it going well for two or three rollovers...and then I went back to the first rollover to see if I couldn't make things better...and lost it. Whoops. So now I'm trying to figure out why my product was so successful the first time, but has been so miserable every other times.. It ain't easy, guys. I finally wrenched myself away to shower and am forbidding any more play tonight.

Why the hell didn't they give us this when we first became business students? We could have been playing wit....er, I mean "strategizing" and "becoming better business managers" for YEARS! YEARS, I tell you!

Don't let this happen to you. Please, get help now.

2005-06-03T14:01:00.000-07:00

It's hard being a woman. Day end and day out, nothing but hard dreary work: first at the office, where we struggle against the puplic patriarchy when our bosses insist that we "go make coffe" and then at home when we have to take care of "whiney little brats," aka, children, and cook and clean house for the private patriarchy (aka, husband). Well, don't worry, women! Throw off your shackles of oppression and become liberated and empowered, for God IS female!
Yes, indeed. Although you can't get the top spot at the office because you're femal, don't worry, gals. We got the top spot in existence!

Seriously, now. What a bunch of bull. They switch all the "He spake's" to "She spake's" and I'm supposed to feel liberated? I'm so glad none of my money goes to NOW. Quite frankly, I'd rather have it LATER.

General impressions about Finland.

2005-05-30T09:25:00.000-07:00

1. It is really really light there in the summer. The day I left, it got dark at like 11:30 or so and was light again at like 3am. This only gets worse in June and July. Then of course in winter it's the same way, only you only have light a few hours a day and not at all in December and January.

2. Finns are way less anal than Germans. In fact, their more like Americans culturally than Germans. For example, Germans have to sort their trash. So do Finns. Germans actually do it, though, while Finns just through everything in the bin that goes for the rest of the trash. When the cross walk is red, but there are no cars coming, Finns actually cross the street if it's clear instead of waiting for the Almighty Ampelmaennchen to tell them it's okay and they can cross. Utilities don't require you to sell your first born to the government-owned utility monopolies like they do in Germany. Go ahead! Take a 30 minute shower! It's cheap! Go ahead, leave the lights on when you aren't using them! It's not that expensive. They also aren't that anal about Ordnung. So I liked it :)

3. Finland is a lot more internationalized than the US. This is because there are so few of them and they have spent most of their history being dominated by their neighbors, Sweden and Russia. Today their working on being dominated by the EU. I wonder if I could safely categorize Finland as the sub when it comes to sado-masochistic politics?

4. Finns can recognize a foreigner a mile away, which means that any time I tried to buy something and pretend I spoke Finnish, they would switch to English. Sometimes they only did this after Lasse started to translate, but still, their really good at it. Finland is easily to get around in if you don't speak Finnish, basically because most of them do speak English. The only problem is that they're jsut like everyone else who has learned a foreign language: pretty embarrassed about speaking it in case they make a mistake, so they will probably only say what they have to.

5. Finns use umlauts a lot more than German does. They sprinkle them in to at least every other word.

6. Finns are more nationalistic than the Germans are, but also in a different way than Americans are. Americans are proud of the US because we're all immigrants. We know darn well that our anscestors didn't have to come here and are happy they did. Finns are nationalistic because they're proud of the way they have avoided being taken over by foreign powers for the last 90-some years. I'm pretty sure Finland was the only country boardering the Soviet Union that was not in the Soviet bloc. That takes some guts. Then there are the nationalistic Finns that are nationalistic because they dislike everyone else, including Russians, Swedes, Gypsies, anyone from Africa and that sort of thing.

7. Gas is expensive there as it is all over Europe, yet Finlands public transportation system is rather lacking. The train tracks are limited and the trians running on them are fairly old, especially in comparison to Germany, where you can get pretty much everywhere by train and the trains are nearly all brand spanking new.

8. Finland has about 50 more different kinds of berries than the US does and they grow basically everywhere. I would list them, but I don't know what their called. They have this certain type of berry that only grows up in the marshes in the northern part of the country, which is really good and hard to find, other berries that only grow in marshes, but all over the country, then berries that only...well, you get the idea.

9. Finns eat a lot of liqourice and I don't know why, but it's everywhere and it's really quite sad :(

I hate the TSA.

2005-05-30T08:59:00.000-07:00

...and I would have said something to that effect yesterday when I arrived home had I not been so god-awful tired. I'd been up since 1:30pm Finnish time, Saturday...or 5:30am American time and it was terrible. I can't sleep while traveling because I'm part of me has this constant desire to make sure everything is going how it should be going and that sort of thing. Any sleep I got was half sleep.

The travelling was fairly uneventful, except in Amsterdam when I was going through the New and Improved Intense Gate Security for Travellers Heading to the US. This is where they take each individual up and begin to question them. Mine went:
"Do you have any electronics on you?"
I thought about this and the only thing I came up with was my MP3 player. "My MP3 player."
"Where are you coming from?"
"Helsinki."
"Why were you there?"
"To visit a friend."
"How long have you known this friend?"
"7 months or so."
"How did you meet?"
"On the internet..." Extreme embarrassment on my part. I hate telling people that I met someone online, but this was a wrong answer anyway as the questioner started to freak out.
"Did you stay with this person?"
"Yes."
"Was he Finnish?"
"Yes."
"What was the last name."
"Uh...Let's see if I can actually say it. Pitkaniemi."
"Was this the first time you met?"
"No, we met once before."
"Did your friend give you any gifts to carry onto the plane?"
I tried not to laugh. Obviously they didn't know him! "No."
"Are you sure because having met on the internet."
"No, he didn't give me any gifts. The only gifts I have in my suitcase are ones I bought for my family."
She took me over to the X-Ray machine, where I put my jacket and backpack through. And they looked at it carefully while my questioner talked to them in Dutch, explaining about how I had said there was only an MP3 player in there, but looking at my backpack...
They took it out and began to search through it, finally coming across my camera, which I had forgotten about. Whoops. I blame being tired and the fact that I hadn't used it in like 2 days. After a while, you forget it's there. Then they found my calculator...which I never really count as being electronic anyway. It's like a high-tech abacus, really. But whatever. Obviously these devices can't blow up an airplane.
But this isn't how they took it. According to what I got out of their conversation, if I had ommitted several electronic devises, Lord only knows what I forgot about in my suitcase. Not to mention the fact that my passport showed I had been to Morocco...4 years ago. So she took my baggage claim recept and I sat there for a while while she did _____ and I knew that they were going to go search through my suitcase. This was extremely irritating to me because it had already been searched through on the way to Europe by the Brave TSA Lads and Lasses. Finally they came back and gave me my tickets, but didn't say anything else to me so I continued to sit there starring blackly in front of me in a lack-of-sleep-induced-haze until one of the guys at the X-ray machines told me that if I had my tickets I could leave. So I did, hoping that they didn't decide to blow up my suitcase.

When I got home and opened my suitcase, I discovered that they had given my suitcase a very thorough search and had opened the jelly I had bought, which caused a sticky residue to spill around it, opened my shampoo and conditioner, and failed to shut both of those properly. THis wouldn't have been such a big deal if they hadn't also failed to shut the large ziplock bag that I had put my shampoo, conditioner and bodywash in in case of such an occurrance. So I got shampoo and conditioner all over mythings. Further more, they went through my toiletries bag, took out my razor and didn't put it back. Thanks guys! It would have been wonderful had I cut myself on it while cleaning out my suitcase.

This irritates me in more way then one. First of all, it's a good thing that they recognized the red flags and acted on it. Meeting someone online can be a dangerous thing. HOWEVER, nowadays, it is really quite common and she would have had more cause to be concerned had this been the first time we met, had I been coming from Israel, Iran...any other country that is known for active terrorism against the US. Finland is not exactly what you would call a hotbed of terrorism, so it makes little sense to freak out about someone returning from there. Second of all, it would have been nice had they actually told me they were going to search my suitcase. It is MINE, afterall, and they would do well to treat their customers as customers instead of criminals. Thirdly, after searching through the suitcase, they should take more care to put things back as they found it so that things do not spill, break, or are otherwise ruined. I had books around my shampoo and conditioner. I don't mind so much if hair products spill on clothes, but books...it just ruins them. The TSA actually broke my brother-in-laws digital camera searching through his suitcase on a flight from Las Vegas to Wichita. Did he get compensated? Are you kidding me? This is a GOVERNMENTAL program, where you're considered guilty until proven innocent.

I think I'll write a complaint letter to the TSA and Northwest Airlines, starting out my complementing them on actually having some sort of system of redflags set up and then bashign them for it being so blunt instead of fine-tuned.

I was going to write up some impressions of Finland, but I Think I'll do that in another post since this one is rather long.

And now about Finland

2005-05-27T01:39:00.000-07:00

Man, I suck at actually writing about Finland. So now a short update. We left yesterday for Pori, which is north of Turku and smaller as well. We arrived around 11pm, so I havent seen much of the city yet, except for the boyfriend s parents house, which is nice and painted yellow. The shade of yellow is the kind of shade that you typically only see in ghetto houses, or otherwise not at all in the US. I first noted that it was okay to paint houses in this color in Germany, but apparently its true for all of the US. FREAKY! ;). No, really, I like the greater freedom...being able to paint your house purple without the neighbors picketing it is an awesome thing.

Yesterday I made a last desperate attempt to buy souvineirs (sp?) for the family back home, but it died due to two problems: 1) Finland isnt exactly tourist central, unlike Germany or Paris, and this is doubley true for Turku. 2) Vague ideas of what the family would appreciate from here. Maybe I could go up to Lapland and kidnap a reindeer? Would that be appreciated? I think they might just have to be content with the fact that I'm back home, although some how, I can't see that... ;).

Anyway, I'll attempt to do little daily reviews or something or at least final impressions of Finland when I get home.

Belgian Experiment

2005-05-26T04:01:00.000-07:00

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Villa Tinto, House of Pleasure, is a pioneering example of a widening European drive to legalize prostitution, while combating the crime and violence it fosters -- including the explosion in human trafficking in recent years. The brothel opened in January, with the help of the Antwerp city council, the police and the prostitutes themselves as part of a "tolerance zone," begun in 2001. The Belgian government views the three-block area as a test case as it considers national legalization -- a move to wrest prostitution from the control of organized criminals and bring in some lost tax revenue.

This is, contrary to popular belief, a good thing. Not only will legalized prostitution give women back the control of their bodies from a time when it was controlled by pimps, who made women pay them to sell sex, and the government, who routinely tells women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Rather than stating how this is a bad thing and exemplifies European's utter lack of moral values, I think that this is a particularly good move forward. Obviously prostitution has not gone away although it has been made illegal and even more obvious is the fact that prostitutes have been extremely hurt by laws that make it illegal, since it puts them under the exclusive jurisdiction of their pimps. If their pimps abuse them and they turn to police, the police will arrest them. Only by making it completely legal will Europe (and by extension, the United State), be able to get rid of the abuses still found in the system.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

2005-05-22T09:09:00.000-07:00

The Federal Government recently provided Vermont with a grant to promote the use of seatbelts on billboards. Unfortunately, Vermont fobides billboards...so they built them in the middle of New Hampshire and Massachusettes. Best quote:

Did Johnson consider giving the money back? “Briefly,” she admitted. “But if..

But if...you give money back when you can't use it, little kittens get killed? The budget deficit might not be so great? We might (god forbid) get a tax cut? Well, shucks. That can't happen. Meanwhile, New Hampshirites will continue to exercise their right to choose, while being constantly reminded that their neighbors haven't the same right.