Monday, March 21, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Quick visit to Sonoma State yesterday. I hadn't been to MS only programs before, and I could definitely sense the absence of intensity. Beautiful country, though. Had some good chats with the grad students there, but then of course they'll be gone by the time I'd start. They seem to like me. I wish someone would just send me an offer.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
More of the same
I do like crazy hats, square scarves, and scarves in general.
Yes to wide brim fedoras on women!
The possibilities of the hybrid sweater coat. Is it still technically just a cardigan?
Monday, March 14, 2011
Catching up on the Sartorialist
This I think I could do.
The ribbons are beyond what I could pull off, but I like the romantic disheveled look of it. I want to say the colors are too bright, but my own rain coat is even brighter than hers.
Ooo.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Bows and arrows, oh my
I could see myself carrying a quiver of arrows...
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Red scare, pt.3
One more tidbit.
When Duf Sundheim mentioned that 50% of the income tax collected in California comes from 144,000 individuals, someone hooted and shouted, '...and it's not enough!"
Yes, Mr. Sundheim allowed, globalization has caused a problematic redistribution of wealth. Taxes can be used to compensate for that to some degree. No argument there. But when you're making obscene amounts of money, you don't make that much money every year. So, when half your tax base has wildly variable income, your state budget becomes wildly variable -- especially to predict.
He didn't suggest we shift more of the tax burden to the incomes of the rest of us; he pointed out that thanks to prop 13 our property taxes are pretty out of whack (and I have to say, I agree with him there). Property, unlike income, is pretty stable and has the benefit of being unable to move out of Cayman Islands when it strikes it rich. I don't want to kick little old ladies out of their homes, but the situation is dire. Without more money for education, we're screwing over generations of future Californians. Not to mention the rest of our social services.
When Duf Sundheim mentioned that 50% of the income tax collected in California comes from 144,000 individuals, someone hooted and shouted, '...and it's not enough!"
Yes, Mr. Sundheim allowed, globalization has caused a problematic redistribution of wealth. Taxes can be used to compensate for that to some degree. No argument there. But when you're making obscene amounts of money, you don't make that much money every year. So, when half your tax base has wildly variable income, your state budget becomes wildly variable -- especially to predict.
He didn't suggest we shift more of the tax burden to the incomes of the rest of us; he pointed out that thanks to prop 13 our property taxes are pretty out of whack (and I have to say, I agree with him there). Property, unlike income, is pretty stable and has the benefit of being unable to move out of Cayman Islands when it strikes it rich. I don't want to kick little old ladies out of their homes, but the situation is dire. Without more money for education, we're screwing over generations of future Californians. Not to mention the rest of our social services.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Thank you, Johnny Cash Radio
New music shopping list:
Creedence Clearwater Revival
The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan
The Ink Spots
Marty Robbins
Norman Greenbaum (Spirit in the Sky)
Ray Charles (I've Got a Woman)
Bruce Springsteen
The Animals (House of the Rising Sun)
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Don't think twice, it's alright
Heard this on a Fresh Air interview of Suze Rotalo, Bob Dylan's girlfriend of The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan (1963) fame and fell in love with it.
It ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
It don’t matter, anyhow
An’ it ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
If you don’t know by now
When your rooster crows at the break of dawn
Look out your window and I’ll be gone
You’re the reason I’m trav’lin’ on
Don’t think twice, it’s all right
It ain’t no use in turnin’ on your light, babe
That light I never knowed
An’ it ain’t no use in turnin’ on your light, babe
I’m on the dark side of the road
Still I wish there was somethin’ you would do or say
To try and make me change my mind and stay
We never did too much talkin’ anyway
So don’t think twice, it’s all right
It ain’t no use in callin’ out my name, gal
Like you never did before
It ain’t no use in callin’ out my name, gal
I can’t hear you anymore
I’m a-thinkin’ and a-wond’rin’ all the way down the road
I once loved a woman, a child I’m told
I give her my heart but she wanted my soul
But don’t think twice, it’s all right
I’m walkin’ down that long, lonesome road, babe
Where I’m bound, I can’t tell
But goodbye’s too good a word, babe
So I’ll just say fare thee well
I ain’t sayin’ you treated me unkind
You could have done better but I don’t mind
You just kinda wasted my precious time
But don’t think twice, it’s all right
It ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
It don’t matter, anyhow
An’ it ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
If you don’t know by now
When your rooster crows at the break of dawn
Look out your window and I’ll be gone
You’re the reason I’m trav’lin’ on
Don’t think twice, it’s all right
It ain’t no use in turnin’ on your light, babe
That light I never knowed
An’ it ain’t no use in turnin’ on your light, babe
I’m on the dark side of the road
Still I wish there was somethin’ you would do or say
To try and make me change my mind and stay
We never did too much talkin’ anyway
So don’t think twice, it’s all right
It ain’t no use in callin’ out my name, gal
Like you never did before
It ain’t no use in callin’ out my name, gal
I can’t hear you anymore
I’m a-thinkin’ and a-wond’rin’ all the way down the road
I once loved a woman, a child I’m told
I give her my heart but she wanted my soul
But don’t think twice, it’s all right
I’m walkin’ down that long, lonesome road, babe
Where I’m bound, I can’t tell
But goodbye’s too good a word, babe
So I’ll just say fare thee well
I ain’t sayin’ you treated me unkind
You could have done better but I don’t mind
You just kinda wasted my precious time
But don’t think twice, it’s all right
Friday, March 4, 2011
Red scare, pt. 2
Duf Sundheim was speaking in PoliSci 179 this Wednesday, a class my sister is taking and I am crashing! (Webcast here). Basically he's a big wig in the California Republican Party and presided over it for a few years. He was also a key player in the recall of Gov. Gray Davis and masterminded the election of Schwarzi in his stead. Even more exciting for the crowd of Berkeley undergrads, he is an alumnus of Stanford.
...And yet I found him one of the most reasonable speakers I've heard in that class so far. (I missed a few -- I hear last week's Charles Wiley was awesome). Sundheim talked mostly about education and what's wrong with it in California. I have to admit, I agree that the thought of 80¢ on the dollar spent on education is being paid into pensions for teachers (or professors) who aren't even teaching any more. He mainly stressed the need to conceptualize education in terms of the individual, rather than the institution. I'm not totally clear on what that means, but the idea of focusing more attention on how to get kids what they need out of education, rather than thinking in terms of test scores and The School, seems ok to me. Maybe this is all part of some republican plot for smaller government.
One kid whose parents were teachers mentioned that try as they might, they just couldn't get through to some kids. Is it because they're not good enough at their jobs? Is it the lack of support for education at home? Is it...??? Mr. Sundheim agreed that 80% of the opportunity for education is tied up in a kid's home life. I find the number generous, but the concept not entirely unreasonable. Sure, it makes a big difference if your parents and the people in your life generally value education. I'm more uneasy, though, with the conclusion he draws -- that if a kid doesn't feel inclined to go to college, we should respect that -- craft education around what they actually want to do with their lives. I know we have technical high schools and all that, and I recognize that there are trades and unskilled labor that needs to be done, and we need people able to do them, but the idea of shunting someone that young out of the track to higher education scares me. Am I just biased because that's the way of life I know best? Would classes more immediately useful to employment actually keep them more engaged in school?
I don't know.
...And yet I found him one of the most reasonable speakers I've heard in that class so far. (I missed a few -- I hear last week's Charles Wiley was awesome). Sundheim talked mostly about education and what's wrong with it in California. I have to admit, I agree that the thought of 80¢ on the dollar spent on education is being paid into pensions for teachers (or professors) who aren't even teaching any more. He mainly stressed the need to conceptualize education in terms of the individual, rather than the institution. I'm not totally clear on what that means, but the idea of focusing more attention on how to get kids what they need out of education, rather than thinking in terms of test scores and The School, seems ok to me. Maybe this is all part of some republican plot for smaller government.
One kid whose parents were teachers mentioned that try as they might, they just couldn't get through to some kids. Is it because they're not good enough at their jobs? Is it the lack of support for education at home? Is it...??? Mr. Sundheim agreed that 80% of the opportunity for education is tied up in a kid's home life. I find the number generous, but the concept not entirely unreasonable. Sure, it makes a big difference if your parents and the people in your life generally value education. I'm more uneasy, though, with the conclusion he draws -- that if a kid doesn't feel inclined to go to college, we should respect that -- craft education around what they actually want to do with their lives. I know we have technical high schools and all that, and I recognize that there are trades and unskilled labor that needs to be done, and we need people able to do them, but the idea of shunting someone that young out of the track to higher education scares me. Am I just biased because that's the way of life I know best? Would classes more immediately useful to employment actually keep them more engaged in school?
I don't know.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Red scare, pt. 1
What was otherwise a pleasant trip to Seattle last week was tainted by a chapter in the Microeconomics textbook I've been reading for this online class which discussed the impact of government intervention in the free market. Let's be clear -- I despise this textbook. I find its conversational tone insulting and its presentation of the material one-sided, but I still feel like it's important to know about this stuff, and I do find it interesting.
So we talked about per-unit taxes, price ceilings and price floors. All the examples in the book are of course very pro-market and pro-globalization, but their discussion of minimum wage really gets me. Looking at minimum wage from a supply and demand point of view, we have this (very simplified) example:
The red line shows the supply of labor available for a given wage; the blue line shows the demand for employees within the same wage range. The grey point is the market price for wages -- the point at which the demand for employees matches the supply of labor -- in this example, $5/hour with 5 people employed. The black line marks the price floor for wages at $6/hour set via government legislation -- in this example, slightly higher than the market price for wages. At $6/hour, the supply of jobs (or demand for employees) drops to 4 jobs because employers can't afford five employees at the new rate. However, for $6/hour, 6 people are now willing to work and are interested in employment. This 'creates' a scarcity of jobs -- the gap between the demand for and supply of jobs, also known as the unemployment rate, marked in green.
The book claims that the potential effects of setting a minimum wage include the following:
I think the teenager point is total bull crap, and honestly what business that pays their workers minimum wage is actually bankrolling career-building workshops for their employees? The bit about work conditions can be regulated for separately. Even if it causes the cost of goods to go up, I think paying something closer to the true price for things is more sustainable in the long run. I can see concern about the drop in employment (in my example) from 5 jobs to 4 jobs, but saying minimum wage is responsible for the gap between the 6 people looking for work and the 4 jobs available seems unfair.
I guess what I want is an economic defense of minimum wage. I want something that can speak to the points that these no-regulation economists will bring up in relation to this and other issues of intervention without just getting all hot in the collar about it. I get hot in the collar already!
So we talked about per-unit taxes, price ceilings and price floors. All the examples in the book are of course very pro-market and pro-globalization, but their discussion of minimum wage really gets me. Looking at minimum wage from a supply and demand point of view, we have this (very simplified) example:
The red line shows the supply of labor available for a given wage; the blue line shows the demand for employees within the same wage range. The grey point is the market price for wages -- the point at which the demand for employees matches the supply of labor -- in this example, $5/hour with 5 people employed. The black line marks the price floor for wages at $6/hour set via government legislation -- in this example, slightly higher than the market price for wages. At $6/hour, the supply of jobs (or demand for employees) drops to 4 jobs because employers can't afford five employees at the new rate. However, for $6/hour, 6 people are now willing to work and are interested in employment. This 'creates' a scarcity of jobs -- the gap between the demand for and supply of jobs, also known as the unemployment rate, marked in green.
The book claims that the potential effects of setting a minimum wage include the following:
- an increase in unemployment because firms can't afford to hire as many workers at the higher rate
- worse working conditions and cuts to career-building programs because firms take money from workplace niceities to afford rising labor costs
- buoying the incomes of middle class teenagers who are not relying on their paychecks for subsistence anyway and therefore are not the primary targets of the increase in minimum wage.
I think the teenager point is total bull crap, and honestly what business that pays their workers minimum wage is actually bankrolling career-building workshops for their employees? The bit about work conditions can be regulated for separately. Even if it causes the cost of goods to go up, I think paying something closer to the true price for things is more sustainable in the long run. I can see concern about the drop in employment (in my example) from 5 jobs to 4 jobs, but saying minimum wage is responsible for the gap between the 6 people looking for work and the 4 jobs available seems unfair.
I guess what I want is an economic defense of minimum wage. I want something that can speak to the points that these no-regulation economists will bring up in relation to this and other issues of intervention without just getting all hot in the collar about it. I get hot in the collar already!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
March resolutions
I have been noticing that blog posts have been shall we say few and far between. And I want to change that, so I am setting a new resolution as of this March to try to post a little something to at least one blog each day. May not always be here, but I want to get back in the habit. N'ahm sayin'?
Also,*nerd alert!* the gentleman friend's parents gifted me a snazzy new pedometer, which has inspired me to scientifically track precisely how much exercise I'm getting every day, which is in turn inspiring me to exercise more. Knowledge is power! ... Although I admit much of that extra exercise involves jogging in place while brushing my teeth. Still, I shall work off these extra winter layers by summer!
Also,*nerd alert!* the gentleman friend's parents gifted me a snazzy new pedometer, which has inspired me to scientifically track precisely how much exercise I'm getting every day, which is in turn inspiring me to exercise more. Knowledge is power! ... Although I admit much of that extra exercise involves jogging in place while brushing my teeth. Still, I shall work off these extra winter layers by summer!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Not exactly rocket science
Oooo. I just found the best blog.
I think maybe I want to skip grad school and just read this blog all day.
...Or not.
I think maybe I want to skip grad school and just read this blog all day.
...Or not.
Were you aware of it? vol. 37: Turkish man crashes own funeral
KONYA – Doğan News Agency (DHA) 'Everyone was shocked when they saw me,' says 72-year-old Durmuş Çıplak (pictured). 'Then I learned they had thought I lost my life in an accident. But I am still alive, thanks be to God.' AA photo
'Everyone was shocked when they saw me,' says 72-year-old Durmuş Çıplak (pictured). 'Then I learned they had thought I lost my life in an accident. But I am still alive, thanks be to God.' AA photo
A man returning from a fishing trip in the Central Anatolian province of Konya was surprised to encounter a group of mourners gathering in front of his house for a funeral – his own.
“Everyone was shocked when they saw me,” 72-year-old Durmuş Çıplak told Doğan news agency, or DHA. “Then I learned they had thought I lost my life in an accident. But I am still alive, thanks be to God.”
It was thought that Durmuş Çıplak had died after a cargo truck hit a septuagenarian riding a bike by the side of the road at 10 a.m. on Monday. The person, who was not carrying any identification, was badly wounded and was rushed to hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
People in the surrounding area told police, who were trying to determine the man’s identity, that the dead bicyclist was Durmuş Çıplak.
Ahmet Çıplak, the man’s son, was then called to the morgue to identify the victim. The son identified the body as his father and began carrying the body home for the funeral ceremony when his neighbor called to say his father had just returned from a fishing trip.
The son then returned the unidentified body to the hospital, just as his father came upon the bereaved mourners gathered in front of his house.
The deceased cyclist was eventually identified as 70-year-old retiree Süleyman Bozer. Durmuş Çıplak attended the funeral.
**Courtesy of Hürriyet Daily News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)