Misconceptions

I've blogged about logic errors in the past, and some of what I'm going to post about today I may have posted in the past, but not in as much detail.
I had someone tell me once "You can't play 'Taps' on a bugle. I know because I play the cornet, and a cornet is just like a bugle, except that it has valves. I can play 'Taps' on the cornet, but I have to use the valves, so you can't really play 'Taps' on the bugle." I asked him if he was aware that 'Taps' was written for the bugle, and he said he was, but that it was fake. It seems to me that either he was very confused, or a whole bunch of bugle players are...
I had a school project once that involved a team of students planning a theoretical medical clinic for a low-income neighborhood. I think we came up with some reasonable guesstimates for how big a facility we would need, how big the staff should be, etc. The rub came when we were trying to establish a salary for the doctor. I felt that we might be able to coax a civic-minded doctor into working at this clinic for $60,000. One of my teammates told me I was being extravagant, "My mother is a nurse, and she only makes $18,000." "That's because she's a nurse. We're talking about a doctor." "It's the same thing. Nurses have to go through just as much training as doctors do." "Then why aren't they doctors?" Eventually I was overruled, and we ended up getting a good grade, even though the teacher couldn't understand how we thought we could get a doctor on board for only $18,000 (she liked the rest of it, though).
I also had a classmate tell me that secretaries are the most important part of any big business. She knew this because her mom was a secretary. They do all the real work. I can understand that, to some extent, she's right. A good secretary takes care of a lot of details, so that the executive doesn't have to be bothered with them. A good secretary types, and files, and can find things later when they need them. The executive makes decisions. To be honest, there are probably a lot of secretaries out there that have been in the business long enough that they could make better decisions, just based on experience. But that isn't what they were hired to do. Maybe somebody smart should check out his secretarial staff for smart people next time he needs a new executive. I'm not holding my breath, though, and I don't think you should either.

Just Some Stuff

Normally I don't post to my blog on Saturdays, but I didn't post yesterday, so I will post today.

There is a big box store near my parents' house that has an underground parking garage, at least some of which is under the store. I find this particularly interesting, because most of the stores in the chain don't have that feature, including the one close to my house, which is less than a ear older. This is a nice feature, because the sun doesn't heat up the car's interior while one is shopping, rain doesn't come in through a partially open window, and it decreases the amount of land that the store needs,as well. There are also emergency lights in the parking garage. My dad discovered today that he can light the emergency lights with the remote for his car alarm. Apparently the design of the emergency lights included a remote test feature, so that the owner can test the batteries without climbing a ladder and pushing a button, and the signal from the car alarm remote is similar enough to serve the same function. Perhaps I shouldn't advertise that fact, because now all kinds of people are going to want to check to see if their car alarm remote can activate emergency lights. Some of these people may find that they can, and run down the batteries of the emergency lights. Hopefully not so much that the lights don't work when they need to.

Airport Security

Today was my first experience with Airport Security in awhile. Today was the first time that I was asked to remove my shoes. Apparently that's standard procedure for everyone, now. I thought I had flown since Richard Ried, but perhaps not.

I think they've adjusted the sensitivity on the metal detectors since the last time I flew, too. I took everything out of my pockets that I thought might cause a problem, and still ended up setting off the alarm. Fortunately, I had gotten to the airport well in advance, like they tell you to. I don't usually. The first time I flew after 9-11 I get there way in advance and ended up sitting at the gate for what seemed like an eternity. For a long time after that I pretty much gaffed off the be there two hours before flight time rule. This time I didn't, and I still wound up sitting at the gate for a long time, but at least I wasn't anxious that I was going to miss my flight having to go through all that rigmarole at security.

The airplane had XM satellite radio. I'm not sure if that's a promotional deal (hey, we'll let you have XM radio on airplanes for a reduced rate, because a lot of people will try it and decide to buy it for themselves); if it isn't, it should be. I visited a website once that was supposed to let you try out XM radio--get a sense of what XM had to offer--I was completely and totally underwhelmed. Being able to actually listen to it on the plane was much better. To be honest, I'm still not really inclined to spring for it, but I'm closer to it than I was.

In a way, it's ironic. One of the reasons that I was considering XM radio is because I do occasionally drive cross-country, and I hate having to find a new radio station every so often. With satellite radio, you can tune in to a station at your front door, and still be listening to that station 800 miles down the road. Of course, I got to try out XM radio because this time I flew instead of making the long drive.

Stumblings

I was reading yesterday about the "echo chamber" phenomenon--wherein something in the news strikes people's imagination, and, suddenly, there's mention of it in everybody's blog. The blog that I read that in advised that one wait a couple of weeks before including any current news in one's blog, and also not reading the news until after the blog is posted.

I'm not entirely sure that I like that advice, but I certainly don't want this blog to get lost in a crowd of blogs all echoing the current news. On the other hand, it's not really like I have a whole lot of original thoughts...

I've been accused of being creative many times in my life, and I'm not sure why. I don't think that I'm particularly creative. If somebody gives me an idea, I can run with it, and sometimes make something of it, but I really don't have too many ideas on my own.

So, today's ramblings may be more like stumblings. My big news is that i am flying out tomorrow to visit family. I originally grew up about 800 miles from where I live now. I have driven the route many times, and I have flown it a few times. My parents get onto me about my driving: when I'm driving that kind of a distance, my focus is on getting from point A to point B as quickly as possible. I don't want to spend the night somewhere along the way if I don't have to (and I don't). They like to take it easy, stop about halfway, find some interesting things to see along the way... I can appreciate that, but for me, this isn't a sightseeing trip. Maybe one of these days I will go sightseeing. Probably not anytime soon. In any case, gas prices being what they are, and airfare deals here and there, why spend the money on gas if you can fly for about the same or less--especially if you aren't planning on doing any sightseeing anyway?

New Clothes

I was reading about this new idea: the butt cam. The idea is that this camera is mounted inside the dressing room at a high-end fashion store, with a viewing screen, so that you can try on expensive jeans, and see how you look from behind. In some ways that seems like a good idea (although the paranoid part of my brain wants to know who else can see what I see when I'm checking out my butt), and it certainly seems like it should eliminate that pesky question, "Does this dress make me look fat?"
It won't, of course. That question is unavoidable. The thing is, men like things to be simple. If you ask me, "Is the ceiling white?" I can answer yes, if it is, or no, if it's not. Even men understand, however, that the fat question is not what it seems. If it were, the answer would be easy: "No, the dress does not make you look fat." What the wearer is really asking is, "Do I look fat in this dress?" except, of course, that she's framing the question in such a way that I'm supposed to believe that if she does look fat, it's the dress's fault. So I am now expected to evaluate the way that you look in that dress , and find a tactful way of suggesting that maybe that dress isn't something you should buy if it doesn't hide the extra pounds that you have put on. I am also expected to do this in less than twelve microseconds, since any hesitation longer than that is enough to hurt your feelings, since, in your mind, I should have been able to answer 'no' instantly. Of course, if the extra pounds are just in your imagination, then my job would seem to be easy, but I'm still going to try to figure out why you're even asking me this.

I read something the other night that gave me some insight into the problem. In the September Reader's Digest, somebody wrote that women think they are fat if they can't fit into the jeans they wore in high school; men think they are fat if they can't fit into a foreign car. The bottom line is, women tend to be very insecure about their own appearance (years ago, it occurred to me that I should have gotten into women's hair-care products. Between black women buying relaxers to straighten their naturally curly hair, and white women buying home perm kits to curl their naturally straight hair, there is a fortune to be made!). This can be hard for men to understand. Don't misunderstand me, I know that some women are not at all insecure, and some men are very insecure, but generally, women need that reassurance that they are attractive, and men don't.

So, now we're getting deeper into this question: women ask this question wanting to be reassured that we still find them attractive. For some reason, the fact that we have not kicked them to the curb and gone out in search of a prettier companion isn't enough. When you stop to consider, eating disorders are almost exclusively female problems. Every once in a while, you hear about a teenage boy with anorexia nervosa, but that's very unusual. If a guy gets an eating disorder, it's that he eats fast food at every meal and has his first heart attack before he graduates high school...

The real irony is that women have long joked about the fragile male ego. To some extent, they're right; men do tend to have fragile egos. Just not nearly as fragile as women do.

Inflation

Looks like the federal government has increased the minimum wage. Know what that means? More money in my pocket. At least for now. Inflation will, of course, pick up the slack, and, in a month or so, it will mean less money in my pocket. Actually, I haven't worked for minimum wage in an awfully long time. This won't affect my paycheck until after my employers look at the inflation caused by raising the minimum wage and decide to increase my pay accordingly.

I find it somewhat humorous that the Washington Post quotes a Raleigh, NC waitress as applauding the increase, and criticising the Republican Party for blocking the increase for so long. Why is that humorous? Two reasons: First, as a food service worker who gets tips presumably based on her performance (I say presumably because some people feel obligated to leave a tip whether they were satisfied with their service or not, while other people don't leave a tip at all, no matter how good the service was), her minimum wage is considerably less than the rest of us. The federally mandated minimum wage for tipped employees is $2.13 per hour. Second, because the state of North Carolina already has a higher minimum wage legislated at the state level than the federal government's new minimum anyway (a tipped employee in the state of North Carolina is entitled to at least $2.43 per hour).

The bottom line is, people who are at or near minimum wage always look at it as a good thing when the minimum wage goes up, and, in all fairness, for them it is, at least in the short term. What they don't see is that, in the long term, since people making low wages just got a government mandated pay raise across the board, the costs of doing business also go up. Do you really think that large corporations are going to take a big chunk of their profits and give it to the people who stack boxes or clean the toilets? No, of course not; they're going to raise prices to make up for the extra money that they now must give to their lower tier workers. Do you really think that anything you buy doesn't have some minimum wage employees in the chain of delivery somewhere? So as wages go up, prices go up, which means that inflation has wiped out whatever extra money you just earned.

I do understand: Having the minimum wage increased feels like a raise, especially if you're actually working for minimum wage. Having extra money in your pocket makes you feel better, until you get to the store and find out that you can't buy any more than you could before. Then you want another raise...

To some extent, that's common to us all: I often wish that I was making enough money to support myself in the manner in which I would like to become accustomed, but whenever I get a raise, my lifestyle desires suddenly become more expensive. Trying to make up the difference by earning more money just makes you want more things. We, as a people need to learn to live with less than what we want, or maybe just train ourselves to want less. Something like that.

In other news, the quote of the week: "Everyone should be angry." I know I'm angry. It amazes me that some people think that they are, or the church is, exempt from the laws of this country. There are times when the law of God supersedes the laws of man, but this is not one of those times. "Oh, she shouldn't have to be separated from her son." Nobody's telling her that she should be separated from her son (that would be child abandonment, wouldn't it?). She should take her son with her, and then use her son's citizenship to try to get a visa to come to the United States legally. I understand that Jesus commanded us to be good neighbors, and we should be. Surely one of the many kind people that she has interacted with during her illegal stay would have enough compassion to be willing to sponsor her for a visa. That would be a neighborly thing to do--helping her break the law is not.

British-American Relations (sort of)

I haven't gotten any comments lately--I wonder if anyone is actually reading this... Oh, well, I will blog away, anyway.

I was just reading about a proposed Harry Potter theme park in Florida. Apparently Disney was in talks with J. K. Rowling, but she has very specific ideas about how this theme park should be, and they decided that her ideas would force them to charge about $600 admission per person. So now Universal Studios is working on it. It's not clear whether UP was able to talk dollars and sense to JKR or whether they just have other ways of bringing the cost down, but, in any case, they apparently have a deal going.
Mentioned in the article is a comment that back in the 80's, Disney tried to get another British author, P. L. Travers (what is it with British authors using their first two initials?), to let them do a sequel to Mary Poppins. One of the reasons that they never did was that Travers didn't like Dick Van Dyke as Bert. News flash: Most Brits didn't like Dick Van Dyke as Bert. The British slang expression for a really bad, fake cockney accent is, in fact, 'a Van Dyke.' Don't misunderstand me, Dick Van Dyke is a very capable dancer/comedian/actor, and his accent in the movie was good enough for American audiences, just not the British.
It seems odd to me, it's almost as though there were a rule in Hollywood that British actors are not allowed to play British leading men in American movies. Think about it: Who is the best known British character in an American film franchise? That would be either James Bond or Robin Hood. Of all the actors who have played Bond, which ones were the most popular? Sean Connery (who is Scottish) and Pierce Brosnan (who is Irish). Of all the actors who have played Robin Hood (at least as the title role in Hollywood made movies) only Barrie Ingham ('A Challenge for Robin Hood'), Cary Elwes (Mel Brooks' 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights'), and Brain Bedford (Disney's animated Robin Hood) are British (although Richard Greene played Robin in a TV series, and Michael Praed played Robin in a made-for-TV movie, and a TV series) (When I started listing British Robin Hoods, I didn't think there were his many--but, there are a whole lot more that aren't: Errol Flynn, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Kevin Costner...) (Actually, the British casting of Robin Hood tips considerably the other way when Robin Hood is a supporting character in the various versions of 'Ivanhoe'). Incidentally, Sean Connery also played Robin Hood in 'Robin and Marion.' Val Kilmer played British do-gooder Simon Templar in 'the Saint.' Of course, there are some exceptions: Roger Moore (who, incidentally played the Saint in England [and also had a speaking role in Val Kilmer's movie]) was the actor that succeeded Sean Connery in the Bond films. Michael York has played a few British characters in his time, and, of course, Basil Rathbone is the best-known Sherlock Holmes. Also, Daniel Radcliffe, of Harry Potter fame, is British.
So, we come full circle. I started out talking about Harry Potter, and I end up talking about Harry Potter.