Content
A multi-author blog with a range of opinions on news, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and life
by
John Krehbiel on
30 July 2010
Now that the gusher is plugged (we hope) the big question seems to be; “Where is all that oil?”
I have (purely on guesswork) an answer in several parts.
First, much of the volume estimate, as I understand it, was based on video of the leak itself. Apparently they can’t easily tell how much of that is methane and other gasses.
Number two, the oil is relatively light, the Gulf is pretty warm, and much of the liquid may have evaporated by now.
And C, initial estimates of the impact of some disaster are always exaggerated. Unfortunately, that leads many to say that the disaster never was one anyway.
Which brings me to the final part of the answer; It’s difficult to tell the spilled oil from Gulf water anyway.
4 comments ::
What do you think?
::
2010-07-30 ::
John Krehbiel
by
Pigweed on
29 July 2010
My wife works with a woman who is always complaining and frequently insulting her coworkers while patting herself on the back for upholding the virtue of “speaking her mind.” Never speaking up can result in you getting pushed around and failing to right a wrong and being exposed to things you find offensive etc. But “speaking your mind” must serve a purpose and is subject to manners and decorum.
And so it is with “I don’t care what people think.” Worrying too much about what people think can stifle creativity and inspiration and spontaneity. But again you cannot entirely disregard “socially acceptable” and “common decency.”
This brings me to the AmeriKilt. I was at a music festival along the Blue Ridge Parkway last weekend. There was a full range of music and a full range of ages from toddlers to aging hippies (or more likely ex-hippies allowing themselves to relive those free-spirited days).
Among the sea of tie-dyes I couldn’t help notice the number of men in both kilts and free-flowing hippie skirts. After elbowing my brother and pointing a dozen times we retired to the beer garden for a local microbrew to discuss the matter.
Initially I snickered and mocked. Then as I sipped and sweated in searing heat I thought how nice a breeze across my wedding tackle would be. Then my only worry became pockets. As you see, the AmeriKilt has an attached man-pouch.
Since I actually like its features, is it some sense of decency that prevents me trying the AmeriKilt or do I lack the courage of these unencumbered men who have thrown off the shackles of convention and embraced the freedom, comfort and perhaps trend-setting AmeriKilt?
What if it reached the acceptability of say, men who wear crocs? Would that give me enough cover? Am I going to let fear of ridicule rule my life and determine my choices?
At what point is “worrying about what people think” the right thing to do? Probably at the AmeriKilt.
6 comments ::
What do you think?
::
2010-07-29 ::
Pigweed
by
Greg Krehbiel on
29 July 2010
It’s old news that states are having budget shortfalls. The latest is that they’ll try to make it up with fees.
I think they could balance their budgets in a year if they enforced the posted speed limits. Not that I think that would be fair, since they’ve basically trained everybody to believe that the “real” speed limit is 10 mph over the one on the sign.
And, of course, I’m not even serious about that, because when you swing at people they duck. IOW, in the face of such enforcement people would change their behavior. Some would slow down. Some would vandalize speed cameras. (I’ve been tempted to do that, and I don’t even speed.)
In any event, it got me wondering about the economic effect of states collecting more money in fines and fees and so forth.
If the state takes $20 out of my pocket, that’s $20 I can’t spend on beer or a ball game or a new shirt. But the state’s going to do something with it. Which use of my $20 is going to do more for the economy?
Some economist somewhere has to have rated different types of spending on their multiplying effect in the economy. For example, spending money on infrastructure has to have a better effect than buying everybody in the state a free sandwich.
So … my question is whether the combined facts of an economic downturn and state budget shortfalls will cause state legislators to start scoring their spending based on its ability to stimulate the economy. IOW, if they were sensible, they’d rank budget priorities (at least in part) by their ability to create jobs or whatever, and they’d rank tax/fine/fee proposals by which sector of the economy they’re pulling money from, and whether that money is better left where it is.
Obviously there’s government spending that does a lot of good and government spending that only does a little good (or none), and obviously the same applies to private spending.
2 comments ::
What do you think?
::
2010-07-29 ::
Greg Krehbiel
by
Greg Krehbiel on
28 July 2010
I was having a little back and forth with some folks in a parallel universe about a position that I would say is defensible (just barely) if you already believe it, but if you didn’t start off believing it (or didn’t have some other reason to believe it) you wouldn’t be very tempted to start.
For example, if you had some independent reason to believe that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals for the whole church, there isn’t a lot to be said to dissuade you. A reasonable defense can be made.
But nobody is going to be reading the various emanations of the popes and notice, “Hey, these two where he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals for the whole church are infallible. Wow!”
In fact, if you didn’t already start with a belief that there has to be a doctrine of Petrine infallibility that works some how some way, you wouldn’t be tempted to come up with all the caveats. Furthermore, if you didn’t already start with such a belief, you’d be tempted to think that all the caveats were a rather poor way to insulate the idea from critical inquiry.
ISTM there are loads of things that are like this. If you already believe it, it’s easy enough to make a respectable defense. E.g., people who have already made up their mind to believe in or disbelieve anthropogenic global warming are not going to have a hard time maintaining that belief. Defending a belief is just too doggone easy.
I think this is a small part of the reason why liberals and conservatives and Baptists and environmentalists all tend to believe a certain set of things. They tend to trust people who are like them, so ideas from thought leaders in their little clique come into their brains with a sort of “right until proven wrong” trajectory. And it’s terribly easy to defend most ideas if you already believe them.
The hard thing is to step outside that bubble and try to look at things as if you’re not already persuaded. And most groups exert various kinds of pressure to keep you from doing so.
“Oh, all those people outside are ” … take your pick — greedy corporate polluters — resisting the Holy Spirit — racists — liberals — homophobes — crazed sex addicts … whatever.
So first you have to believe that it’s possible for someone to disagree for honest reasons. They’re not just making things up to justify their evil ways. Then you have to allow yourself the luxury of looking at things from that perspective. Then you find that you’re not so worried about defending things.
9 comments ::
What do you think?
::
2010-07-28 ::
Greg Krehbiel
by
Greg Krehbiel on
27 July 2010
The story goes that in those evil 1950s, it was the conservatives who were suppressing dissent and trying to control the culture. And there is certainly some justice to the charge. There were laws regulating the content of books and other crazy stuff that was appropriately overturned by the courts.
Conservatives were able to pass these laws and get these restrictions because they held the reins to power.
A little while before that, conservatives even controlled Hollywood — which is almost unthinkable now. You never saw Roy Rogers kiss Dale Evans, but now you can see just about anything you want.
So who has the power nowadays? And who is suppressing dissent?
In order to get tenure, young professors have to suck up to the overwhelmingly liberal faculty. If you don’t, you don’t get hired, and you certainly don’t get tenure.
In order to get a movie published, it has to go through liberal Hollywood producers. And TV shows continually pour liberal political and social views into couch potato brains.
Universities have speech codes to stifle conservatives. Liberal student groups shout down conservative speakers. Liberal teachers’ unions control the government-run schools. Some professions (like psychiatry) have been entirely taken over by liberal ideology, to the point that dissenters can’t get their degrees and can’t get licensed.
I don’t think there’s any question that today it’s the liberals who are stifling dissent and forcing their ideology on the rest of us. When they can’t shut somebody up, they make of charges of racism or simply shout them down.
But there is an exception. Liberals used to have a lock on the news media — and they still have a lock on the “main stream media” — but cable news and talk radio has broken their monopoly. Now you can choose which ideology you want to listen to.
Maybe the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. But I’m not holding my breath. I don’t see any signs that conservatives are going to re-take academia or Hollywood.
2 comments ::
What do you think?
::
2010-07-27 ::
Greg Krehbiel
by
Greg Krehbiel on
26 July 2010
Yesterday I got my koji kin, sake yeast, a big bag of short grain rice, and some (really simple) equipment to steam the rice.
I’m going to try to follow the detailed “how to make sake at home” instructions on this page. (Notice how I got all the appropriate keywords into that link, just to be kind to Mr. Taylor.)
Once I get through a bunch of blasted car-related chores I need to do I will embark on the homebrew sake adventure. Stay tuned.
My first batch will be regular sake, just to see how it all works. (And because I like regular sake.) My wife wants me to make girl-friendly sake — flavored, carbonated stuff. That may be round two.
1 comment ::
What do you think?
::
2010-07-26 ::
Greg Krehbiel
by
Greg Krehbiel on
25 July 2010
50 righteous people in Sodom,
Please save the 50 O Lord,
Oh what a mess,
There’s a few less,
49 righteous people in Sodom
49 righteous people in Sodom,
49 righteous souls,
Don’t strike them down,
Wait … there are around
48 righteous people in Sodom
…
1 comment ::
What do you think?
::
2010-07-25 ::
Greg Krehbiel
by
Craig Gibson on
23 July 2010
Government as usual – heavy-handed and out of touch.
Experts say tarmac delays rule a mistake, but DOT disagrees
6 comments ::
What do you think?
::
2010-07-23 ::
Craig Gibson
by
Craig Gibson on
23 July 2010
Baptists are not known for their dawning of traditional pastoral vestments, but if one looks long and far enough, one will even find a Baptist pastor wearing a clerical collar and encouraging others to do the same. One friend who also read this piece said that if Christians were generally required to wear marks of their faith, the church would either find its ranks thinning or the general moral disposition of the country would markedly improve.
Why are people so good at compartmentalizing their lives? Saying they believe one thing but acting in a manner completely contrary?
1 comment ::
What do you think?
::
2010-07-23 ::
Craig Gibson
