My wife and I just returned from a delightful month traveling in Argentina. One thing we discovered that was not so delightful is that Bankers in Argentina are just as bad as everywhere else, particularly in how much they control people's access to their own money and how they profit from routine transactions.
We found that small merchants in Argentina prefer cash over credit cards as payment -- this saves them paying the credit card companies a percentage for each transaction and fees for maintaining a credit processing account. Many of the restaurants and hotels we stayed in were managed by the owners themselves. These operations usually have a small profit margin, so giving 2-4% to a credit card company can really hurt. There is also a certain ... uh, shall we say "flexibility" in reporting cash transactions for tax purposes. Several of our hotels would not accept credit cards at all, and others offered discounts up to 10% for paying in cash. The same was true in many restaurants. I should note that this practice is not confined to Argentina -- we've encountered it with increasing frequency in other countries as well, for example in Belgium and France when we were traveling there a year ago and in Greece this past June. And we've found that it isn't restricted to mom-and-pop retail operations -- even Government-run museums and cultural sites in these countries increasingly refuse credit or debit cards.
The bottom line is that we need cash as we travel. In the old days that meant carrying a wad of traveler's checks (parents, you might have to explain to your kids what these are) and then regularly cashing them at intervals at some bank or currency exchange office, often a time-consuming process. These days traveler's checks are the most expensive and inconvenient way to get cash and we don't carry them any more, or we may take just a small amount as emergency backup funds.
ATM's (MSM's -- "money spitting machines," as we call them) are now the primary way for travelers to get foreign currency, even in the poorest and least developed countries. Of course, both the local bank and your own bank will charge you a fee for each transaction, and these fees have gone up considerably in the last year or so. As I wrote in Bankers' Math, Part Quatre , my bank here in Hawaii, First Hawaiian, recently doubled their fee for a foreign ATM withdrawal to $5.00 per transaction, presumably because the cost of electrons has skyrocketed. To our great irritation we found that all the banks in Argentina charge about $4.00 per ATM transaction, so potentially a traveler in Argentina will pay $9 every time he or she gets money! If you get $100 worth of pesos, that's a 9% surcharge -- rather exorbitant in my humble opinion.
One way to counter this is to withdraw as much as you can. For example, if you take out $500 in foreign currency, the fees will amount to just 1.8% of the transaction, and you will also reduce the number of withdrawals you'll need to make during the trip, lowering the total amount spent in fees.
Ah, but the banker's are on to this strategy!!! They limit the maximum amount of a transaction, and it is clearly to their advantage to keep it low so that you will have to visit the MSM more often. By the way, it isn't your bank that places this limit -- it is the bank that owns the ATM. On our recent trips to Europe and Greece we were able to withdraw $400-500 routinely. However, in Argentina we were limited to $250 at every bank we tried, which amounts to a charge of 3.6%, slightly worse than a credit card fee (as explained below, we do have a strategy for getting around this, but it isn't available to everyone). I wouldn't be surprised if lower limits and higher fees have also been instituted in Europe, but I don't know for sure.
Bankers' Math: lower limits + higher fees = more profit for us!
My wife and I are fortunate enough to qualify for an ATM card from our retirement investment company (Vanguard) that waives the transaction fee, and we also have obtained a Capital One credit card that does not assess foreign transaction fees. For the time being, then, we have held our own against these forms of Bankers' Math. However, our advantages here may be lost at any time because they are under control of .... you guessed it.... Bankers.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
"Call" of the Wild
Once a month my local hiking club organizes a day-hike to some interesting area. Most of the people in the club are "mature" adults -- meaning the real hard-core young adventure types aren't with us. Still, the group consists of mostly fit people who are serious about exercise and enjoying the great outdoors, and the hikes are often in fairly remote and wild places.
Every other month the hike is publicized in the local newspaper and non-members are encouraged to join us. Not long ago one of these public hikes was a trek along an old historic trail that crossed some very difficult and remote terrain. The challenge of the trail and the isolated setting fostered an appreciation of the hardships and simplicity of an earlier time. I was enjoying the scenery and the physical exertion, chatting occasionally and briefly with fellow hikers, but mainly absorbing the uniqueness of the moment as I hiked alone.
From behind me I suddenly heard a very loud voice describing the beauty of the trail and how wonderful the hike was -- not unusual comments to hear but not at a such a startling volume level. When I looked back I saw a newbie talking into a cell phone, apparently so eager to share their experience with the person at the other end that they didn't mind violating the serenity of the group around them.
There are lots of aspects of this we could explore, like the need for norms of etiquette surrounding cell phone use, or the implications for society when the superficiality of technology-mediated relationships makes people desperate to maintain constant contact with others. The aspect I want to focus on, though, is how technology is changing our perception of natural settings and altering the way we interact with nature.
As my example indicates, many natural areas that used to be remote and cut off from easy communication with the outside are now accessible with a quick cell phone call. The access can include sound, still photos, and even video. Besides cell and internet links, gps technology makes navigation a matter of reading an lcd screen instead of paying close attention to the surroundings (I've written before about my own infatuation with gps -- see my blogs of 7/6/09 and 2/14/10).
This technology has made the "wild" seem less forbidding and more amenable to casual human activity, even when this is demonstrably untrue. One result is that people underestimate the risks and dangers that natural environments may pose. Rangers in our National Parks have seen this first hand, according to a recent investigative NYT article. For example, Jackie Skaggs, spokeswoman for Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming reports “Every once in a while we get a call from someone who has gone to the top of a peak, the weather has turned and they are confused about how to get down and they want someone to personally escort them. The answer is that you're up there for the night.” People with cellphones call rangers from mountaintops to request refreshments or a guide; in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, one lost hiker even asked for hot chocolate.
One particularly telling instance of how perceptions of nature have changed is recounted in the same article:
As this example illustrates, technology may be insulating us from the reality of natural dangers and the necessity of relying on our own knowledge, skill, and courage in experiencing nature. We regard nature as an extension of our hi-def televisions, Iphones, and computers -- configurable to our own user preferences and changing interests, and as having an "Undo" button if we make mistakes.
The problem is that nature doesn't always play along.
Every other month the hike is publicized in the local newspaper and non-members are encouraged to join us. Not long ago one of these public hikes was a trek along an old historic trail that crossed some very difficult and remote terrain. The challenge of the trail and the isolated setting fostered an appreciation of the hardships and simplicity of an earlier time. I was enjoying the scenery and the physical exertion, chatting occasionally and briefly with fellow hikers, but mainly absorbing the uniqueness of the moment as I hiked alone.
From behind me I suddenly heard a very loud voice describing the beauty of the trail and how wonderful the hike was -- not unusual comments to hear but not at a such a startling volume level. When I looked back I saw a newbie talking into a cell phone, apparently so eager to share their experience with the person at the other end that they didn't mind violating the serenity of the group around them.
There are lots of aspects of this we could explore, like the need for norms of etiquette surrounding cell phone use, or the implications for society when the superficiality of technology-mediated relationships makes people desperate to maintain constant contact with others. The aspect I want to focus on, though, is how technology is changing our perception of natural settings and altering the way we interact with nature.
As my example indicates, many natural areas that used to be remote and cut off from easy communication with the outside are now accessible with a quick cell phone call. The access can include sound, still photos, and even video. Besides cell and internet links, gps technology makes navigation a matter of reading an lcd screen instead of paying close attention to the surroundings (I've written before about my own infatuation with gps -- see my blogs of 7/6/09 and 2/14/10).
This technology has made the "wild" seem less forbidding and more amenable to casual human activity, even when this is demonstrably untrue. One result is that people underestimate the risks and dangers that natural environments may pose. Rangers in our National Parks have seen this first hand, according to a recent investigative NYT article. For example, Jackie Skaggs, spokeswoman for Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming reports “Every once in a while we get a call from someone who has gone to the top of a peak, the weather has turned and they are confused about how to get down and they want someone to personally escort them. The answer is that you're up there for the night.” People with cellphones call rangers from mountaintops to request refreshments or a guide; in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, one lost hiker even asked for hot chocolate.
One particularly telling instance of how perceptions of nature have changed is recounted in the same article:
"One of the most frustrating new technologies for the parks to deal with, rangers say, are the personal satellite messaging devices that can send out an emergency signal but are not capable of two-way communication. (Globalstar Inc., the manufacturer of SPOT brand devices, says new models allow owners to send a message with the help request.) In some cases, said Keith Lober, the ranger in charge of search and rescue at Yosemite National Park in California, the calls “come from people who don’t need the 911 service, but they take the SPOT and at the first sign of trouble, they hit the panic button.”For me, the telling point in this account is the group leader saying that without the emergency device he would have never attempted the hike. As park rangers have noted, visitors who get into trouble often acknowledge that they have pushed themselves too far because they believe that in a bind, technology can save them.
But without two-way communication, the rangers cannot evaluate the seriousness of the call, so they respond as if it were an emergency.
Last fall, two men with teenage sons pressed the help button on a device they were carrying as they hiked the challenging backcountry of Grand Canyon National Park. Search and rescue sent a helicopter, but the men declined to board, saying they had activated the device because they were short on water.
The group’s leader had hiked the Grand Canyon once before, but the other man had little backpacking experience. Rangers reported that the leader told them that without the device, “we would have never attempted this hike.”
The group activated the device again the next evening. Darkness prevented a park helicopter from flying in, but the Arizona Department of Public Safety sent in a helicopter whose crew could use night vision equipment.
The hikers were found and again refused rescue. They said they had been afraid of dehydration because the local water “tasted salty.” They were provided with water.
Helicopter trips into the park can cost as much as $3,400 an hour, said Maureen Oltrogge, a spokeswoman for Grand Canyon National Park.
So perhaps it is no surprise that when the hikers pressed the button again the following morning, park personnel gave them no choice but to return home. The leader was issued a citation for creating hazardous conditions in the parks."
As this example illustrates, technology may be insulating us from the reality of natural dangers and the necessity of relying on our own knowledge, skill, and courage in experiencing nature. We regard nature as an extension of our hi-def televisions, Iphones, and computers -- configurable to our own user preferences and changing interests, and as having an "Undo" button if we make mistakes.
The problem is that nature doesn't always play along.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Willpower, Diet Coke, and Buddha
Sixteen years ago I quit smoking. It was one of the hardest things I have ever done. For weeks and months during this time I had to exert constant self-control over the urge to resume the habit. A lot of this effort involved being vigilant to events and situations that used to automatically trigger smoking and then willfully blocking the urge to light up a cigarette. It was also necessary to exert control over an emotional response that was evoked by not having access to cigarettes -- a feeling of panic that non-smokers probably can't relate to at all. During this period I was irritable, of course, but also often forgetful, distracted, and downright muddled (even more than usual).
Social Psychologists have focused a great deal of research on the mechanisms of self-control and the consequences of exerting this kind of cognitive effort. Examples of behaviors that have been studied in this context include managing the impression we think we are making on others, suppressing our prejudices and stereotypes, coping with fear of dying, controlling our spending, holding back aggression, and limiting the amount of food or alcohol we ingest (see Galliot et. al, 2007 for references).
A consistent finding in these studies is that self control is a depletable resource. The prominent social psychologist Roy Baumeister summarized this research as follows: "...self-control appear[s] vulnerable to deterioration over time from repeated exertions, resembling a muscle that gets tired. The implication [is] that effortful self-regulation depends on a limited resource that becomes depleted by any acts of self-control, causing subsequent performance even on other self-control tasks to become worse" (Baumeister et. al, 2007). For example, in one study people who exerted self control by eating healthy vegetables instead of more temping chocolate candy and cookies gave up faster on a subsequent frustrating task as compared to people who had not exerted self-control. This depletion phenomenon would certainly account for my irritability and befuddlement during my struggle to quit smoking -- my mind muscle was pooped.
It isn't necessary to invoke a new-agey concept of "psychic energy" to account for these data. The cognitive activity involved in self-control is firmly tied to physiological processes in the brain -- an organ that uses 20% of the body's calories and yet has just 2% of its mass. A major source of energy for the brain is glucose, or blood sugar, which is converted to neurotransmitter chemicals that fuel the brain. A series of recent experiments by Gailliot et. al. (2007) have demonstrated that exerting self control depletes glucose, whereas other kinds of cognitive activity that are more automatic do not, and that lowered levels of glucose result in impaired self control on subsequent tasks. Increasing glucose levels, either by allowing them to rebound naturally or by ingesting glucose rich drinks, was found to restore performance on self-control tasks. An ironic implication of this (untested, as far as I know) is that dieters who drink artificially sweetened soda may lower their blood sugar level and thus may make it harder for themselves to stick to their weight-loss diets.
What I have outlined here is called the Strength Model of Self-Control, and it clearly has a great deal of empirical support. For me the most important thing in the model is not just that self-control or willpower is a depletable resource, but rather that there are ways of developing greater self-control such that depletion is lessened -- an extension of the "muscle" analogy suggested by Baumeister. Research has indicated that...
self-control appears amenable to improvement from psychological interventions, even in adulthood" (Baumeister et. al., 2007)
References
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Vohs, Kathleen D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The Strength Model of Self-Control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 (6): 351-355.
Gailliot, M.T., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Maner, J.K., Plant, E.A., & Tice, D.M., et al. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325–336.
Social Psychologists have focused a great deal of research on the mechanisms of self-control and the consequences of exerting this kind of cognitive effort. Examples of behaviors that have been studied in this context include managing the impression we think we are making on others, suppressing our prejudices and stereotypes, coping with fear of dying, controlling our spending, holding back aggression, and limiting the amount of food or alcohol we ingest (see Galliot et. al, 2007 for references).
A consistent finding in these studies is that self control is a depletable resource. The prominent social psychologist Roy Baumeister summarized this research as follows: "...self-control appear[s] vulnerable to deterioration over time from repeated exertions, resembling a muscle that gets tired. The implication [is] that effortful self-regulation depends on a limited resource that becomes depleted by any acts of self-control, causing subsequent performance even on other self-control tasks to become worse" (Baumeister et. al, 2007). For example, in one study people who exerted self control by eating healthy vegetables instead of more temping chocolate candy and cookies gave up faster on a subsequent frustrating task as compared to people who had not exerted self-control. This depletion phenomenon would certainly account for my irritability and befuddlement during my struggle to quit smoking -- my mind muscle was pooped.
It isn't necessary to invoke a new-agey concept of "psychic energy" to account for these data. The cognitive activity involved in self-control is firmly tied to physiological processes in the brain -- an organ that uses 20% of the body's calories and yet has just 2% of its mass. A major source of energy for the brain is glucose, or blood sugar, which is converted to neurotransmitter chemicals that fuel the brain. A series of recent experiments by Gailliot et. al. (2007) have demonstrated that exerting self control depletes glucose, whereas other kinds of cognitive activity that are more automatic do not, and that lowered levels of glucose result in impaired self control on subsequent tasks. Increasing glucose levels, either by allowing them to rebound naturally or by ingesting glucose rich drinks, was found to restore performance on self-control tasks. An ironic implication of this (untested, as far as I know) is that dieters who drink artificially sweetened soda may lower their blood sugar level and thus may make it harder for themselves to stick to their weight-loss diets.
What I have outlined here is called the Strength Model of Self-Control, and it clearly has a great deal of empirical support. For me the most important thing in the model is not just that self-control or willpower is a depletable resource, but rather that there are ways of developing greater self-control such that depletion is lessened -- an extension of the "muscle" analogy suggested by Baumeister. Research has indicated that...
"...just as exercise can make muscles stronger, there are signs that regular exertions of self-control can improve willpower strength... These improvements typically take the form of resistance to depletion, in the sense that performance at self-control tasks deteriorates at a slower rate. Targeted efforts to control behavior in one area, such as spending money or exercise, lead to improvements in unrelated areas, such as studying or household chores. And daily exercises in self-control, such as improving posture, altering verbal behavior, and using one’s nondominant hand for simple tasks, gradually produce improvements in self-control as measured by laboratory tasks. The finding that these improvements carry over into tasks vastly different from the daily exercises shows that the improvements areThere are other ways of improving self-control not mentioned by Baumeister, including techniques offered by some religious traditions, such as Buddhism, which stresses the development of self control over one's thoughts, perceptions, and emotions through meditation. Whatever the technique, the positive implication is clear: self-control "...appears to facilitate success in life in many spheres, and, crucially, it appears amenable to improvement. Indeed, self-control can be grouped with intelligence among the (rather few) traits that are known to contribute to success in human life across a broad variety of spheres; yet unlike intelligence,
not due to simply increasing skill or acquiring self-efficacy from practice." (Baumeister et. al., 2007)
self-control appears amenable to improvement from psychological interventions, even in adulthood" (Baumeister et. al., 2007)
References
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Vohs, Kathleen D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The Strength Model of Self-Control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 (6): 351-355.
Gailliot, M.T., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Maner, J.K., Plant, E.A., & Tice, D.M., et al. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325–336.
Monday, November 1, 2010
The REAL Lesson From This Election
**We interrupt our regularly scheduled blog with this special election year commentary. In case you miss it this time, the message will be repeated two years from now, though the names of the political parties will likely be reversed.**
This campaign season has seen a lot of chest-thumping and mud-slinging. The Republicans by all accounts are poised to win back most of the congressional seats they lost two years ago, and most likely will take over the House of Representatives.
If this occurs it will not be a mandate to return to the policies and practices of the past, nor will it represent a massive endorsement of the ill-informed, simplistic, extreme views of the Tea Party.
It will be a cry from the electorate to make our government work. I'm writing this just before Election Day, and the most recent polls are very clear -- though the Republicans are going to gain seats in congress, the Republican Party is at historic lows in popularity. Rather than endorsing Republican policies and philosophy, people are desperate for a change that will lead to a sense of stability and progress rather than gridlock and confusion. As Jim Lehrer recently commented, "... polling shows that people also want both sides to work together. They don't want any more gridlock. They don't want any more stalemates. So, if the Republicans take control, they're going to have to work with the Democrats, the Democrats who are already there are going to have to work with the Republicans, or this whole thing isn't going to work."
Polls also indicate a very sobering disconnect between opinion and fact that may make the Republican victory short-lived. According to a recent article in Bloomberg News, "...by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered." But these beliefs are demonstrably wrong:
The real lesson from this election, then, is that in two years the fortunes of a party can change completely. And changes based on mistaken beliefs may be particularly vulnerable to reversal.
This campaign season has seen a lot of chest-thumping and mud-slinging. The Republicans by all accounts are poised to win back most of the congressional seats they lost two years ago, and most likely will take over the House of Representatives.
If this occurs it will not be a mandate to return to the policies and practices of the past, nor will it represent a massive endorsement of the ill-informed, simplistic, extreme views of the Tea Party.
It will be a cry from the electorate to make our government work. I'm writing this just before Election Day, and the most recent polls are very clear -- though the Republicans are going to gain seats in congress, the Republican Party is at historic lows in popularity. Rather than endorsing Republican policies and philosophy, people are desperate for a change that will lead to a sense of stability and progress rather than gridlock and confusion. As Jim Lehrer recently commented, "... polling shows that people also want both sides to work together. They don't want any more gridlock. They don't want any more stalemates. So, if the Republicans take control, they're going to have to work with the Democrats, the Democrats who are already there are going to have to work with the Republicans, or this whole thing isn't going to work."
Polls also indicate a very sobering disconnect between opinion and fact that may make the Republican victory short-lived. According to a recent article in Bloomberg News, "...by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered." But these beliefs are demonstrably wrong:
"The Obama administration has cut taxes — largely for the middle class — by $240 billion since taking office Jan. 20, 2009. A program aimed at families earning less than $150,000 that was contained in the stimulus package lowered the tax burden for 95 percent of working Americans by $116 billion, or about $400 per year for individuals and $800 for married couples. Other measures include breaks for college education, moderate-income families and the unemployed and incentives to promote renewable energy...Still, the poll shows the message hasn’t gotten through to Americans, especially middle-income voters. By 52 percent to 19 percent, likely voters say federal income taxes have gone up for the middle class in the past two years.Both parties are responsible for this confusion -- the Republicans for their successful obfuscation of the facts, and the Democrats for failing to clearly and forcefully communicate the true record.
In an October report to Congress, released as the Troubled Asset Relief Program turned 2 years old, the Treasury said it had recovered most of the $245 billion spent on the Wall Street bank part of the plan and expects to turn a $16 billion profit. But in the poll, 60 percent of respondents say they believe most of the money to the banks is lost, and only 33 percent say most of the funds will be recovered.
Separate from the aid for the Wall Street banks, the Treasury says the payouts for insurers such as New York-based American International Group will end with a small loss on the investment, as will the bailout for automakers. Only assistance to mortgage lenders, projected to reach about $45 billion, won't be repaid, the Treasury says.
The perceptions of voters about the performance of the economy are also at odds with official data.
The recession that began in December 2007 officially ended in June 2009. In the past year, the economy has grown 3 percent, and it is expected to show improvement in the second quarter of this year. A year and a half after stocks hit their post-financial crisis low on March 9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 Index has risen 75 percent, and it's up 15 percent this year.
But voters aren't seeing the better climate: 61 percent of the 1,000 respondents in the poll — which has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points — say the economy is shrinking this year, compared with 33 percent who say it is growing."
The real lesson from this election, then, is that in two years the fortunes of a party can change completely. And changes based on mistaken beliefs may be particularly vulnerable to reversal.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Does God Drink Coors Lite?
The first time I tasted beer I thought it was the most foul, nasty, vile stuff I had ever encountered. I was about 8 years old and had accompanied my mother to a neighbor's house one afternoon. My mother accepted the woman's offer of a beer (much to my astonishment, since I rarely saw my mother drink alcohol of any kind). I must have pestered her for a sip, thinking it must be something really good if they were treating it so special. It was awful.
Fast forward to teenage high school years. Beer was the easiest thing my friends and I could get illegally. It really didn't matter what kind it was or what it tasted like, as long as it would get us drunk.
Fast forward to college days at the University of Colorado. At that time the drinking age was 18 for 3.2 percent beer. Being the local brew, Coors was our favorite, and the subtleties of taste were far less important than cost and availability. It takes a lot of 3.2 beer to have much effect, and we drank gallons. I recall once standing at the urinal in a local bar and the fellow next to me joked, "Why don't we just dump the pitcher in here and cut out the middle man?!"
Fast forward to early career years. We hosted a dinner party for friends in a "gourmet club." Each couple brought a different dish on the the menu, and our role as hosts was to furnish the drinks. The particular menu called for us to have available a variety of interesting, flavorful beers. This clearly did not mean Coors, Miller, or Budweiser. I consulted with the owner of the local beverage shop and let him pick out a bunch of single bottles of beer brands that I had never heard of before. At the party I recall my moment of epiphany when I tried some of these -- they tasted really, really good!!
From then on I realized that beer was in the same category as fine food and wine; it was something with subtlety, complexity, and endless variation. As we traveled the world I would make a point of trying whatever was the local favorite. I discovered that there was good beer nearly everywhere! Tusker's in East Africa, for instance, or Amstel in Germany, or Negra Modelo in Mexico. These were the early days of my budding beer snobbery. More recently I've made pilgrimages to the historic beer capitals of the world -- Czech Republic (where the real Budweiser is, and where "pilsner" beer traces its origins to the city of Pilsen) and Belgium (where Trappist Monks produce truly heavenly brews). In fact these last two countries are where two of my current favorite beers are: Regent Ale, brewed in a tiny town in Bohemia called Cesky Krumlov, and Rochefort Ale from a Trappist monastery in Belgium. These beers have about as much in common with Coors, Budweiser, and Schlitz as a LaFite Rothchild wine has with KoolAid.
I also discovered that there was good beer even in the U.S.! Particularly over the past 15 years or so, small "craft" breweries have sprung up all over the country and some of them have extraordinarily good beer. My favorites seem to be in Colorado and the north central states, but the west coast also has some highly acclaimed craft beers (too "hoppy" for my tastes). My current favorites include the Colorado beers Fat Tire (New Belgium Brewery) and 90 Schillings (Odell's Brewery), Montana's Moose Drool Brown Ale, Michigan's Eliot Ness Ale (Great Lakes Brewery), and Oregon's Dead Guy Red Ale (Rogue Brewery). Feel free to post your own personal list.
Ok, I'm sure that I've left many of you way behind. The message here is that it may take a while to develop a taste for beer, but if you are patient and diligent in your efforts you will be amply rewarded.
Now, to the question "Does God drink Coors Lite?" My answer is maybe. But I bet there is a smile on his face when he drinks a 90 Schillings....
Fast forward to teenage high school years. Beer was the easiest thing my friends and I could get illegally. It really didn't matter what kind it was or what it tasted like, as long as it would get us drunk.
Fast forward to college days at the University of Colorado. At that time the drinking age was 18 for 3.2 percent beer. Being the local brew, Coors was our favorite, and the subtleties of taste were far less important than cost and availability. It takes a lot of 3.2 beer to have much effect, and we drank gallons. I recall once standing at the urinal in a local bar and the fellow next to me joked, "Why don't we just dump the pitcher in here and cut out the middle man?!"
Fast forward to early career years. We hosted a dinner party for friends in a "gourmet club." Each couple brought a different dish on the the menu, and our role as hosts was to furnish the drinks. The particular menu called for us to have available a variety of interesting, flavorful beers. This clearly did not mean Coors, Miller, or Budweiser. I consulted with the owner of the local beverage shop and let him pick out a bunch of single bottles of beer brands that I had never heard of before. At the party I recall my moment of epiphany when I tried some of these -- they tasted really, really good!!
From then on I realized that beer was in the same category as fine food and wine; it was something with subtlety, complexity, and endless variation. As we traveled the world I would make a point of trying whatever was the local favorite. I discovered that there was good beer nearly everywhere! Tusker's in East Africa, for instance, or Amstel in Germany, or Negra Modelo in Mexico. These were the early days of my budding beer snobbery. More recently I've made pilgrimages to the historic beer capitals of the world -- Czech Republic (where the real Budweiser is, and where "pilsner" beer traces its origins to the city of Pilsen) and Belgium (where Trappist Monks produce truly heavenly brews). In fact these last two countries are where two of my current favorite beers are: Regent Ale, brewed in a tiny town in Bohemia called Cesky Krumlov, and Rochefort Ale from a Trappist monastery in Belgium. These beers have about as much in common with Coors, Budweiser, and Schlitz as a LaFite Rothchild wine has with KoolAid.
I also discovered that there was good beer even in the U.S.! Particularly over the past 15 years or so, small "craft" breweries have sprung up all over the country and some of them have extraordinarily good beer. My favorites seem to be in Colorado and the north central states, but the west coast also has some highly acclaimed craft beers (too "hoppy" for my tastes). My current favorites include the Colorado beers Fat Tire (New Belgium Brewery) and 90 Schillings (Odell's Brewery), Montana's Moose Drool Brown Ale, Michigan's Eliot Ness Ale (Great Lakes Brewery), and Oregon's Dead Guy Red Ale (Rogue Brewery). Feel free to post your own personal list.
Ok, I'm sure that I've left many of you way behind. The message here is that it may take a while to develop a taste for beer, but if you are patient and diligent in your efforts you will be amply rewarded.
Now, to the question "Does God drink Coors Lite?" My answer is maybe. But I bet there is a smile on his face when he drinks a 90 Schillings....
Friday, October 1, 2010
Helicopters and Boomerangs
My wife and I have no children, but we're quite familiar with thousands of other peoples' kids from our combined 60+ years of teaching. My wife encountered them at a particularly difficult age (Middle School) when the hormones were beginning to kick in, and I saw them as they made their way through college and were preparing for their entry into the "real" world.
Our teaching careers spanned the period from 1970 to 2000, a time filled with some rather dramatic social/political/technological/economic changes that posed tough challenges for teaching and most certainly for being a parent. And both teaching and parenting seemed to us to get more and more difficult and complex over time. Of course, at the end of a day, we could always go home and have a stiff drink and leave the kids behind. Parents, though, had no such easy escape, and we have come to appreciate how hard it must be for parents in today's society.
Recently I came across a couple of interesting references to current issues involved in parenting. The first is a book by sociologist Margaret K. Nelson, Parenting Out of Control : Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times. The second is a research article by another sociologist, Barbara Hofer, entitled "The Electronic Tether: Parental Regulation, Self-Regulation, and the Role of Technology in College Transitions." Both of these seem to be relevant to two terms in common usage these days: "helicopter parents," which refers to parents that "hover" over their children and are involved in every aspect of their lives, and "boomerang kids," which describes young adults who strike out on their own but then return to their families after a short time.
The Boomerang phenomenon seems to be real and increasing. According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 20 percent of U.S. adults aged 25-34 live with their parents or grandparents in 2008, compared to just 11 percent in 1980, with a recent increase of 1 percent just since 2007, probably associated with the economic downturn. The authors suggest that this trend is due to a number of social and economic factors, including the fact that both men and women marry for the first time about five years later than they did forty years ago: "One byproduct of this cultural shift is that there are more unmarried 20-somethings in the population, many of whom consider their childhood home to be an attractive living situation, especially when a bad economy makes it difficult for them to find jobs or launch careers."
Putting aside the economic factor for a moment, the attractiveness of living with one's parents in adulthood is somewhat puzzling. On the one hand we have a society in which "adult" themes are introduced to children at younger and younger ages and in which they face difficult personal decisions regarding sex, drugs, and alcohol earlier than the older generation did. And in many respects we regard children as more mature at a younger age than our parents regarded us. On the other hand we have increasing numbers of young adults delaying their entry into an independent and socially mature life on their own.
At least some parents seem conflicted about the ability of their offspring to function on their own, as indicated by the research of Nelson and Hofer mentioned above. Hofer's study of college freshmen and sophomores indicates rather clearly that the experience of going off to school is no longer the exercise in independence and freedom that it once was. Many parents maintain close contact with their sons and daughters at college, and involve themselves in academic and personal decisions that used to be left to the students themselves, perhaps with occasional consultation with parents:
The "hovering" of these "helicopter" parents is perhaps well-motivated, but as Hofer's data suggest, it may be having consequences that the parents neither intend nor desire.
Margaret Nelson's research examines hovering in a broader context as one aspect of a style of child rearing frequently adopted by professional middle-class parents. She refers to this style as parenting that
Nelson's analysis makes it more understandable why young adults would find returning home attractive. The intense, intimate, and structuring interactions they have had with their parents all of their lives would be quite comforting and appealing.
I'm not sure what style of parenting I might have adopted, but the characteristics of the style Nelson describes might well have applied to me, both the positive motivations and the unintended negative consequences for my offspring as well as for myself. Of course, without children of my own this is a nice rhetorical exercise.
I think I'll ponder that question more over a stiff drink.......
References:
Hofer, Barbara K. (2008). The Electronic Tether: Parental Regulation, Self-Regulation, and the Role of Technology in College Transitions. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 9-24.
Nelson, Margaret K. (2010) Parenting Out of Control: Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times. New York : New York University Press.
Our teaching careers spanned the period from 1970 to 2000, a time filled with some rather dramatic social/political/technological/economic changes that posed tough challenges for teaching and most certainly for being a parent. And both teaching and parenting seemed to us to get more and more difficult and complex over time. Of course, at the end of a day, we could always go home and have a stiff drink and leave the kids behind. Parents, though, had no such easy escape, and we have come to appreciate how hard it must be for parents in today's society.
Recently I came across a couple of interesting references to current issues involved in parenting. The first is a book by sociologist Margaret K. Nelson, Parenting Out of Control : Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times. The second is a research article by another sociologist, Barbara Hofer, entitled "The Electronic Tether: Parental Regulation, Self-Regulation, and the Role of Technology in College Transitions." Both of these seem to be relevant to two terms in common usage these days: "helicopter parents," which refers to parents that "hover" over their children and are involved in every aspect of their lives, and "boomerang kids," which describes young adults who strike out on their own but then return to their families after a short time.
The Boomerang phenomenon seems to be real and increasing. According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 20 percent of U.S. adults aged 25-34 live with their parents or grandparents in 2008, compared to just 11 percent in 1980, with a recent increase of 1 percent just since 2007, probably associated with the economic downturn. The authors suggest that this trend is due to a number of social and economic factors, including the fact that both men and women marry for the first time about five years later than they did forty years ago: "One byproduct of this cultural shift is that there are more unmarried 20-somethings in the population, many of whom consider their childhood home to be an attractive living situation, especially when a bad economy makes it difficult for them to find jobs or launch careers."
Putting aside the economic factor for a moment, the attractiveness of living with one's parents in adulthood is somewhat puzzling. On the one hand we have a society in which "adult" themes are introduced to children at younger and younger ages and in which they face difficult personal decisions regarding sex, drugs, and alcohol earlier than the older generation did. And in many respects we regard children as more mature at a younger age than our parents regarded us. On the other hand we have increasing numbers of young adults delaying their entry into an independent and socially mature life on their own.
At least some parents seem conflicted about the ability of their offspring to function on their own, as indicated by the research of Nelson and Hofer mentioned above. Hofer's study of college freshmen and sophomores indicates rather clearly that the experience of going off to school is no longer the exercise in independence and freedom that it once was. Many parents maintain close contact with their sons and daughters at college, and involve themselves in academic and personal decisions that used to be left to the students themselves, perhaps with occasional consultation with parents:
"Until fairly recently, when students left home for college, contact with parents was markedly diminished, paving the way for students to make more decisions without parental consultation and to learn to function as emerging adults. With the advent of e-mail, cell phones, text messaging, Skype (software that allows users to make telephone calls over the Internet), and other technological advances, however, it is possible for students to remain in frequent contact with their parents, regardless of the distance between them." (Hofer, 2008).I recall my own college days, when I phoned home maybe once or twice a month, usually to ask for money. In contrast, Hofer found that students in her study communicated with their parents an average of 13 times a week (!) and that this frequency did not decline from freshman to junior year. About half of the contacts were initiated by parents and half by students. Further, both sides seemed satisfied with this level of communication, indicating that students hardly resisted this degree of parental involvement in their lives. Despite this mutual satisfaction, Hofer found that parental regulation of students was not necessarily a good thing: "Such attempts to regulate behavior from afar are negatively related to enthusiasm for learning, to student academic regulation, and to satisfaction both with experience in classes and with the overall college experience." Importantly, students who were better at self-regulation were more likely to have a better relationship with both professors and other students, to have enthusiasm for learning, to be satisfied with their overall college experience, and to have a higher GPA.
The "hovering" of these "helicopter" parents is perhaps well-motivated, but as Hofer's data suggest, it may be having consequences that the parents neither intend nor desire.
Margaret Nelson's research examines hovering in a broader context as one aspect of a style of child rearing frequently adopted by professional middle-class parents. She refers to this style as parenting that
"....includes a lengthy perspective on children’s dependency without a clear launching point for a grown child, a commitment to creating “passionate” people who know how to find a “proper” balance between working hard and having fun, personalized and negotiated guidance in the activities of daily life, respectful responsiveness to children’s individual needs and desires, a belief in boundless potential, ambitious goals for achievement, and an intense engagement with children who in previous generations might have been encouraged to begin the process of separation. Privileged parents also put child rearing front and center: even in the midst of extremely busy lives, they highlight the significance and meaning they find in this activity, and they avoid shortcuts (such as playpens) that could make their job easier. Parents who view themselves as being much alone in the task of raising children and as having sole responsibility for their children’s safety and psychological well-being readily embrace these burdens. "(Nelson, 2010)There are inevitable conflicts for these parents that arise from simultaneously wanting to protect kids from growing up too quickly and yet pushing them to high levels of achievement at a young age: "The latter impulse often leads to treating their children as peers and to claiming that those children can be trusted to make decisions on their own; the former impulse often leads to hovering and to concealed surveillance." The motivation of parents to prepare their children for a complex and uncertain future leads to intensely managing their activities to provide them with a broad array of skills and experiences, enrolling even their very young children in a "dazzling array of 'extracurricular'" activities" and providing them with the latest technological tools. This may in turn require even greater levels of involvement: "Having purchased devices such as cell phones and laptop computers so that their children will not be left behind in the race to the top, and having encouraged their children to participate in scheduled activities from morning to night, elite parents then worry that they have overindulged, overscheduled, and overpressured their children. Some of the hovering they do is thus to keep track of the consequences of patterns of child rearing they have created."
Nelson's analysis makes it more understandable why young adults would find returning home attractive. The intense, intimate, and structuring interactions they have had with their parents all of their lives would be quite comforting and appealing.
I'm not sure what style of parenting I might have adopted, but the characteristics of the style Nelson describes might well have applied to me, both the positive motivations and the unintended negative consequences for my offspring as well as for myself. Of course, without children of my own this is a nice rhetorical exercise.
I think I'll ponder that question more over a stiff drink.......
References:
Hofer, Barbara K. (2008). The Electronic Tether: Parental Regulation, Self-Regulation, and the Role of Technology in College Transitions. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 9-24.
Nelson, Margaret K. (2010) Parenting Out of Control: Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times. New York : New York University Press.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Geckos
We might as well skip to the bottom line here and state the take-home message of this blog: retired people have way too much time on their hands.
That would certainly explain why my wife and I (a former middle school mathematics teacher and a retired professor of Social Psychology) are experts on the behavior and physical traits of a lizard -- specifically Phelsuma laticauda laticauda, otherwise known as the Gold Dust Day Gecko or, thanks to Madison Avenue advertising geniuses, "The Geico Gecko." It would also explain how we could come to identify individual geckos with names like "Stumpy, "Flipper," "Barbie," "King," "Mona," and "Hook."
Still with me? It's going to get worse, so you might want to go do something more productive (unless, of course, you're retired too -- or are a retired wannabe).
There are actually several varieties of geckos in the Hawaiian islands, all of them introduced or alien. The oldest species probably came with the first Polynesian settlers about 1200 years ago, though it might have arrived here independently since gecko eggs are highly resistant to salt water (they're about the size of a small pea and have hard shells) and gecko females can reproduce on their own through pathogenesis if there are no males present.
Two varieties that visitors to Hawaii are most likely to encounter were introduced fairly recently: the Common House Gecko (active at night, has a laughing chirp) in the 1940's and the Gold Dust Day Gecko in the 1970's (active during the day or around light sources at night). The most recent introduction in the '80's is still very rare (in fact, I haven't seen one) -- the Orange-spotted Day Gecko . The ones we know the most about are the Gold Dust Geckos and from here on "Gecko" will refer to this type.
Geckos love to be around humans. Humans, though, are divided in their attitude toward being around geckos. Some find these little guys endearing, cute, and entertaining while others find them repulsive, disgusting and scary. We are most definitely in the Gecko-Lover group, though there are limits to our affection and tolerance. More on that later.
Like their name implies, Gold Dust Geckos have small golden specks on their green backs and in the sunlight these spots really light up. Complimenting the green and gold are red splotches on their heads and backs near their rear legs. The shape and pattern of these splotches turn out to be very distinctive, and they are one way that allows us to recognize one gecko from another. They also are the source of some of the names we have given to different geckos. "Hook," for instance, is a large male with hook-shaped splotch. "Barbie" is a female with two splotches joined together so that they look like bar-bells. (Of course, some of our neighbors have suggested that being this observant of the color splotches on lizards may be regarded as eccentric, slightly demented, or both.)
Besides red, green, and gold, our Gold Dust Geckos have turquoise bands around their eyes and turquoise toes. Males when they are fully mature also have turquoise at the tips of their tails -- aside from the larger size of males, this is the main way you can tell a boy gecko from a girl gecko.
The tails of geckos will fall off if they are attacked by a bird, cat, or irate human. This is a defensive maneuver meant to distract the predator with a wriggling tidbit while the gecko escapes. The tails seem to be detachable in different lengths, and although they grow back in a month or two, there is always a faint line at the detachment location. The regrowth pattern is another characteristic that allows individual identification. For example, our all time favorite gecko was named "Stumpy" because her regrown tail retained a more rounded tip than usual.
We find geckos endearing because they are intelligent, gentle, curious creatures who will respond positively to human kindness. When we eat breakfast on our lanai, we are routinely visited by a number of geckos who seem to enjoy being hand-fed bits of papaya or scrambled eggs. As a side note, we have observed that they treat these two foods quite differently. They gently slick papaya and eat small bits. Pieces of egg, though are snatched and chomped in a manner similar to when they are hunting live insects. (By the way, geckos have no teeth and couldn't hurt you if they tried.) They seldom show up for lunch or dinner, and although we're not sure why this is so, it is perhaps a good thing because our human dinner guests might not share our tolerance for lizards on the table.
Here are a few other things we've learned by careful observation over the years:
So far I've mentioned only our interactions with geckos outside in our garden or on our lanai. But living in Hawaii means living with at least a few geckos inside your house. Unless you keep your house hermetically sealed they can easily infiltrate any screen door or window that you leave open. We leave our doors and windows open all year, all day and night, nearly every day because the weather is so pleasant. In fact, our house has no central heating or air conditioning so closing it up doesn't really make much sense.
Having geckos live in your house is good in that flying insects like mosquitoes are a main part of their diet. However, what goes in comes out, and cleaning up gecko poop can get old real quick (see my related blog, "Cleaning Up Poop In Paradise"). The dilemma is how to maintain this at a "reasonable" level. Many people adopt the "search and destroy" approach, killing any gecko they can with a fly swatter or a shot of insecticide. Others adopt a "let it fly" approach, which means they save money on mosquito repellent but spend a fortune on cleaning supplies.
Our approach involves a "catch and release" program, and has resulted in us becoming very expert at catching geckos and relocating them outside. Catching a gecko isn't easy because they are very fast and can be quite adept at finding nooks and crannies where you can't get at them without destroying your furnishings. However, we have learned how to turn their traits to our advantage and with a little teamwork, we are very successful. The trick is to use the gecko's behavior against it. For instance, they are fast but they don't have much stamina. Armed with a couple of furniture dusters, we can often run a gecko back and forth until it tires enough to allow one of us to gently pick it up and hold securely in our hand. By the way, we know when they are ready for pickup because they turn dark. This process can be hastened if we can get them onto carpet, because it is difficult for them to run and they quickly tire out.
Over the years we've learned their likely defensive strategies and we can even use these against them. For example, one strategy is to run toward the largest vertical surface -- which might be one of us. Another is to hide underneath the nearest object -- which might be one of our feet. Often they will take refuge inside one of the dusters, which of course plays right into our hands.
We relocate our house geckos far down the street in some suitable bushy habitat. We learned early on that we had to take them quite some distance away or else they would return (perhaps their territorial attachment kicking in). This means that our approach to gecko control is not only humane, it also has the benefit of providing us with exercise. It also benefits our neighbors by entertaining them with our frequent relocation trips!
Well, there is still more gecko knowledge and wisdom I could impart, but I'm sure that by now you've learned much, much more than you ever wanted to know about geckos. As for me, I'm thinking of starting a twitter feed for geckos, or maybe a Facebook page for our favorite geckos, more maybe apply for a grant to study the potential uses of gecko poop............... I'll keep you posted.
That would certainly explain why my wife and I (a former middle school mathematics teacher and a retired professor of Social Psychology) are experts on the behavior and physical traits of a lizard -- specifically Phelsuma laticauda laticauda, otherwise known as the Gold Dust Day Gecko or, thanks to Madison Avenue advertising geniuses, "The Geico Gecko." It would also explain how we could come to identify individual geckos with names like "Stumpy, "Flipper," "Barbie," "King," "Mona," and "Hook."
Still with me? It's going to get worse, so you might want to go do something more productive (unless, of course, you're retired too -- or are a retired wannabe).
There are actually several varieties of geckos in the Hawaiian islands, all of them introduced or alien. The oldest species probably came with the first Polynesian settlers about 1200 years ago, though it might have arrived here independently since gecko eggs are highly resistant to salt water (they're about the size of a small pea and have hard shells) and gecko females can reproduce on their own through pathogenesis if there are no males present.
Two varieties that visitors to Hawaii are most likely to encounter were introduced fairly recently: the Common House Gecko (active at night, has a laughing chirp) in the 1940's and the Gold Dust Day Gecko in the 1970's (active during the day or around light sources at night). The most recent introduction in the '80's is still very rare (in fact, I haven't seen one) -- the Orange-spotted Day Gecko . The ones we know the most about are the Gold Dust Geckos and from here on "Gecko" will refer to this type.
Geckos love to be around humans. Humans, though, are divided in their attitude toward being around geckos. Some find these little guys endearing, cute, and entertaining while others find them repulsive, disgusting and scary. We are most definitely in the Gecko-Lover group, though there are limits to our affection and tolerance. More on that later.
 |
| Stumpy enjoying some papaya juice. |
Besides red, green, and gold, our Gold Dust Geckos have turquoise bands around their eyes and turquoise toes. Males when they are fully mature also have turquoise at the tips of their tails -- aside from the larger size of males, this is the main way you can tell a boy gecko from a girl gecko.
The tails of geckos will fall off if they are attacked by a bird, cat, or irate human. This is a defensive maneuver meant to distract the predator with a wriggling tidbit while the gecko escapes. The tails seem to be detachable in different lengths, and although they grow back in a month or two, there is always a faint line at the detachment location. The regrowth pattern is another characteristic that allows individual identification. For example, our all time favorite gecko was named "Stumpy" because her regrown tail retained a more rounded tip than usual.
 |
| Hmmm. Pearl or gecko egg??? |
Here are a few other things we've learned by careful observation over the years:
- They are very territorial. The same geckos are always in the same areas, and they will defend their territory against other geckos. Sizes of territories vary from a six-foot section on an outside balcony to a wall in a room.
- They pair off. A male may have one to three exclusive consorts who take up residence in the same territory. "Hook" and "Mona" have been a pair on our lanai for around two years, for example.
- They can live a long time. I read somewhere that in captivity geckos can live 12 years or more. Our oldest was at least 5 or 6 years old when he disappeared one day. He was a resident on our lanai when we moved in and was already mature. He lived in the same territory and visited the outdoor breakfast table nearly every day for 5 years. We named him King Gecko because he was the largest we had seen, and he still holds that record.
- They have distinct personalities. If you are someone who puts geckos in the same category as cockroaches or rats, you may find this difficult to swallow. But we swear there are consistent individual differences among our favorite geckos. Some are calm and mellow, others are divas. Some like to "hang out" with humans even if they aren't being fed, others are more materialistic. Some are bold and take risks, others are timid and wimpy. I admit I'm violating my scientific training with this blatant display of anthropomorphizing, but I think mine is more defensible than, say, Disney's Lion King.
- No suction cups or sticky feet. Contrary to popular belief, the gecko's ability to climb vertical surfaces and even walk upside down isn't because their feet are sticky or their toes have suction cups. The truth is much more amazing: their toes are covered with thousands of tiny hairs that adhere to even the smoothest surface because of something called van der Waals forces. They adjust the amount of adhesion by bending their toes backwards (i.e. up) away from the surface for less or putting them directly on the surface for more. When we see them walking flat on our table their toes are curled upward, which is kind of cute. A more thorough explanation is in a recent Scientific American article here.
- Being a baby gecko is dangerous. In their native Madagascar, baby geckos are totally on their own and face numerous predators as soon as they emerge from the egg. Here in Hawaii they have only a few enemies: birds, cats, mongoose, humans, and....adult geckos who will eat them if they can catch them.
- Geckos poop in the same spot and do it dangling. Geckos are like cats in that they prefer to poop in the same location. Unlike cats, though, they don't cover it up afterward because they let it drop while dangling from an overhang of some kind. By the way, the poop reminds me of parakeet droppings. More than you really wanted to know? Read on.
Having geckos live in your house is good in that flying insects like mosquitoes are a main part of their diet. However, what goes in comes out, and cleaning up gecko poop can get old real quick (see my related blog, "Cleaning Up Poop In Paradise"). The dilemma is how to maintain this at a "reasonable" level. Many people adopt the "search and destroy" approach, killing any gecko they can with a fly swatter or a shot of insecticide. Others adopt a "let it fly" approach, which means they save money on mosquito repellent but spend a fortune on cleaning supplies.
Our approach involves a "catch and release" program, and has resulted in us becoming very expert at catching geckos and relocating them outside. Catching a gecko isn't easy because they are very fast and can be quite adept at finding nooks and crannies where you can't get at them without destroying your furnishings. However, we have learned how to turn their traits to our advantage and with a little teamwork, we are very successful. The trick is to use the gecko's behavior against it. For instance, they are fast but they don't have much stamina. Armed with a couple of furniture dusters, we can often run a gecko back and forth until it tires enough to allow one of us to gently pick it up and hold securely in our hand. By the way, we know when they are ready for pickup because they turn dark. This process can be hastened if we can get them onto carpet, because it is difficult for them to run and they quickly tire out.
Over the years we've learned their likely defensive strategies and we can even use these against them. For example, one strategy is to run toward the largest vertical surface -- which might be one of us. Another is to hide underneath the nearest object -- which might be one of our feet. Often they will take refuge inside one of the dusters, which of course plays right into our hands.
We relocate our house geckos far down the street in some suitable bushy habitat. We learned early on that we had to take them quite some distance away or else they would return (perhaps their territorial attachment kicking in). This means that our approach to gecko control is not only humane, it also has the benefit of providing us with exercise. It also benefits our neighbors by entertaining them with our frequent relocation trips!
Well, there is still more gecko knowledge and wisdom I could impart, but I'm sure that by now you've learned much, much more than you ever wanted to know about geckos. As for me, I'm thinking of starting a twitter feed for geckos, or maybe a Facebook page for our favorite geckos, more maybe apply for a grant to study the potential uses of gecko poop............... I'll keep you posted.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Terminate Me, Please!
**Warning: The following blog may cause hypertension, nausea, and/or strong feelings of indignation. If symptoms persist longer than four hours, too bad.**
Times are tough. As we all know, our economic downturn has led many middle-class Americans to lose their jobs, their retirement savings, and even their homes. Many more are hanging on by a financial thread, their income lowered from forced furloughs and pay cuts.
And don't think that this misery is confined to the middle class. Nosiree! According to a recent report by Forbes financial magazine regarding 2009 CEO salaries:
Or maybe not. According to the same Forbes report, "In total, these 500 executives earned $4 billion in 2009, which averages out to $8 million apiece." (You can see the complete list here. About 1/3 of the average compensation was in the form of exercised stock options.) Though certainly a cut from the average $14 million a few years back, these CEO's are not exactly in the same dire straits that many of their workers find themselves in. A study by UCSC professor G. William Domhoff cites some recent data that breaks this down more finely:
Oh, and although the CEO's have suffered reductions in their direct compensation, during the latest period their retirement benefits (deferred compensation) have actual gone up 23%. Well, that's some solace for them, at least.
It is often argued by those who defend this kind of disparity that CEO compensation is justified by the performance of CEO's in enhancing the profits of their companies, and that their pay is linked to how well the company is doing relative to its peers. Unfortunately that argument doesn't hold water. Data presented in the UCSC paper mentioned above shows that over the past 15 years the increase in CEO compensation is nearly independent of corporate profits, but instead is closely correlated with the stock market as measured by the S&P 500 Index. (The average production worker's pay, which has increased only about 4-5% in the same period, isn't related to either corporate profits or the performance of the stock market.)
A number of other analyses reach the same conclusion regarding the lack of connection between executive pay and performance. A 2010 Business Week article describes the work of compensation consultant Graef Crystal, who examined last year's pay of 271 chief executive officers. His conclusion was that "companies don't pay for performance." According to the article, no matter how he parsed the numbers, Crystal discovered no relationship between shareholder returns and CEO compensation. Another example is an analysis by business columnist Jeffrey Pfeffer, who has himself has served on executive compensation committees. Pfeffer reports two key findings from his research:
For the CEO's we've been talking about, however, termination is often quite lucrative. One specific case in the news most recently is Mark Hurd, the CEO of HP who "stepped down" after a company investigation of sexual harassment charges against him. The harassment allegations were not substantiated, but the company found he had falsified expense account records on numerous occasions to cover up his relationship with the woman involved, who was an independent contractor working with HP. As Hurd admitted when he resigned, "I realized there were instances in which I did not live up to the standards and principles of trust, respect and integrity that I have espoused at HP." He will lose his $24 million a year compensation package, of course. But it may be hard for the average person to feel too sorry for him. Hurd's termination agreement totals about $40 million --12.2 million in cash and the rest in HP stock. Oh yes, and he'll get the government health benefits, for which HP will pay the premiums.
Although Hurd's termination package is considerably higher than the $5.8 million average for CEO's, it isn't nearly as large as some other high-profile cases. As the Kellogg School of Management reported in 2007, Robert Nardelli, the former CEO of Home Depot, received $210 million, Disney’s Michael Ovitz received $140 million (after a mere 14 months on the job), and Conseco’s Stephen Hilbert received $72 million. Hurd did, however, do better than his predecessor at Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina, who received only $21 million when she was terminated.
According to the Kellog report, three reasons why firms grant such lucrative severance packages to CEOs within their initial employment contracts are: (1) to encourage risk-taking, (2) to provide insurance for an incoming executive, and (3) to compensate CEOs for entering into confidentiality agreements. The argument regarding risk taking is that since CEO compensation is 30-50% stock options, a CEO would hesitate to do anything that might drive down the stock price without a guaranteed cash severance package. The insurance angle goes like this: CEO's need to be protected against company downturns not under their control, which of course would lower the stock portion of their annual compensation. The confidentiality compensation argument is that the terminated CEO may be hampered in future jobs because he or she can't use the specific information about a previous company in their new positions -- the severance package compensates for a possible lower salary due to such restrictions.
These arguments seem to me to imply a rather negative view of the average CEO. That is, that CEO's are so attached to their salaries they will only work for companies who remove the negative consequences of risk (both risk resulting from their own actions and from factors not under their control), and who promise to compensate them in advance for possible future jobs where their proprietary knowledge might be relevant. But then BP's Tony Hayward comes to mind, who certainly fulfilled the company's wish for risky behavior. Hayward's severance package is estimated to be around $18 million.
We seem to have created a corporate world where performance and compensation are unrelated at the highest levels of management, and where those at the highest levels reap the rewards of risk and proprietary knowledge but do not suffer the potential downsides.
I've said before that I believe in meritocracy and that someone with a special, unique talent or skill or knowledge that is beneficial to society can be rewarded extravagantly and I don’t mind. But this is something else, and it is something that isn't healthy for either our economic system or for the fabric of our society.
Times are tough. As we all know, our economic downturn has led many middle-class Americans to lose their jobs, their retirement savings, and even their homes. Many more are hanging on by a financial thread, their income lowered from forced furloughs and pay cuts.
And don't think that this misery is confined to the middle class. Nosiree! According to a recent report by Forbes financial magazine regarding 2009 CEO salaries:
For the third consecutive year, the chief executives of the 500 biggest companies in the U.S. (as measured by a composite ranking of sales, profits, assets and market value) took a reduction in total compensation. The latest collective pay cut, 30%, was the biggest of the past three years (11% and 15% declines in the prior two years). This marks the first time in the past 20 years that total compensation declined in three consecutive years.So there you go. These guys are suffering, just like the rest of us.
Or maybe not. According to the same Forbes report, "In total, these 500 executives earned $4 billion in 2009, which averages out to $8 million apiece." (You can see the complete list here. About 1/3 of the average compensation was in the form of exercised stock options.) Though certainly a cut from the average $14 million a few years back, these CEO's are not exactly in the same dire straits that many of their workers find themselves in. A study by UCSC professor G. William Domhoff cites some recent data that breaks this down more finely:
...the median compensation for CEO's in all industries as of early 2010 is $3.9 million; it's $10.6 million for the companies listed in Standard and Poor's 500, and $19.8 million for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average. Since the median worker's pay is about $36,000, then you can quickly calculate that CEOs in general make 100 times as much as the workers, that CEO's of S&P 500 firms make almost 300 times as much, and that CEOs at the Dow-Jones companies make 550 times as much.Thirty years ago top CEO's salaries were 30 times the average worker's. In 1992 that ratio had risen to 82 times the average worker's salary, and in 2004 it was 400 times . Even with the recent economic downturn, top CEO compensation is still 344 times the average worker's salary.
Oh, and although the CEO's have suffered reductions in their direct compensation, during the latest period their retirement benefits (deferred compensation) have actual gone up 23%. Well, that's some solace for them, at least.
It is often argued by those who defend this kind of disparity that CEO compensation is justified by the performance of CEO's in enhancing the profits of their companies, and that their pay is linked to how well the company is doing relative to its peers. Unfortunately that argument doesn't hold water. Data presented in the UCSC paper mentioned above shows that over the past 15 years the increase in CEO compensation is nearly independent of corporate profits, but instead is closely correlated with the stock market as measured by the S&P 500 Index. (The average production worker's pay, which has increased only about 4-5% in the same period, isn't related to either corporate profits or the performance of the stock market.)
A number of other analyses reach the same conclusion regarding the lack of connection between executive pay and performance. A 2010 Business Week article describes the work of compensation consultant Graef Crystal, who examined last year's pay of 271 chief executive officers. His conclusion was that "companies don't pay for performance." According to the article, no matter how he parsed the numbers, Crystal discovered no relationship between shareholder returns and CEO compensation. Another example is an analysis by business columnist Jeffrey Pfeffer, who has himself has served on executive compensation committees. Pfeffer reports two key findings from his research:
First, the relationship between pay and performance is astonishingly small. One meta-analysis found that firm performance accounted for less than 5% of the variation in CEO pay, while company size explained about 40% of the variation. Second, there is no evidence that attempts at reform, such as more disclosure or ensuring that the compensation committees of publicly traded companies are comprised solely of independent directors, has had any effect... The problem: nothing in the process of setting CEO compensation produces a pay-performance link.As disturbing as all this is, there is more to ponder. As we know, many people have lost their jobs as a result of the downturn. The average worker can expect a period of unemployment benefits that are barely enough to live on, and thanks to some recent government interventions, a continuation for a while of health benefits (COBRA) at reduced premiums. Though helpful, this assistance hardly represents a windfall.
For the CEO's we've been talking about, however, termination is often quite lucrative. One specific case in the news most recently is Mark Hurd, the CEO of HP who "stepped down" after a company investigation of sexual harassment charges against him. The harassment allegations were not substantiated, but the company found he had falsified expense account records on numerous occasions to cover up his relationship with the woman involved, who was an independent contractor working with HP. As Hurd admitted when he resigned, "I realized there were instances in which I did not live up to the standards and principles of trust, respect and integrity that I have espoused at HP." He will lose his $24 million a year compensation package, of course. But it may be hard for the average person to feel too sorry for him. Hurd's termination agreement totals about $40 million --12.2 million in cash and the rest in HP stock. Oh yes, and he'll get the government health benefits, for which HP will pay the premiums.
Although Hurd's termination package is considerably higher than the $5.8 million average for CEO's, it isn't nearly as large as some other high-profile cases. As the Kellogg School of Management reported in 2007, Robert Nardelli, the former CEO of Home Depot, received $210 million, Disney’s Michael Ovitz received $140 million (after a mere 14 months on the job), and Conseco’s Stephen Hilbert received $72 million. Hurd did, however, do better than his predecessor at Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina, who received only $21 million when she was terminated.
According to the Kellog report, three reasons why firms grant such lucrative severance packages to CEOs within their initial employment contracts are: (1) to encourage risk-taking, (2) to provide insurance for an incoming executive, and (3) to compensate CEOs for entering into confidentiality agreements. The argument regarding risk taking is that since CEO compensation is 30-50% stock options, a CEO would hesitate to do anything that might drive down the stock price without a guaranteed cash severance package. The insurance angle goes like this: CEO's need to be protected against company downturns not under their control, which of course would lower the stock portion of their annual compensation. The confidentiality compensation argument is that the terminated CEO may be hampered in future jobs because he or she can't use the specific information about a previous company in their new positions -- the severance package compensates for a possible lower salary due to such restrictions.
These arguments seem to me to imply a rather negative view of the average CEO. That is, that CEO's are so attached to their salaries they will only work for companies who remove the negative consequences of risk (both risk resulting from their own actions and from factors not under their control), and who promise to compensate them in advance for possible future jobs where their proprietary knowledge might be relevant. But then BP's Tony Hayward comes to mind, who certainly fulfilled the company's wish for risky behavior. Hayward's severance package is estimated to be around $18 million.
We seem to have created a corporate world where performance and compensation are unrelated at the highest levels of management, and where those at the highest levels reap the rewards of risk and proprietary knowledge but do not suffer the potential downsides.
I've said before that I believe in meritocracy and that someone with a special, unique talent or skill or knowledge that is beneficial to society can be rewarded extravagantly and I don’t mind. But this is something else, and it is something that isn't healthy for either our economic system or for the fabric of our society.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Confessions of a Selective Technophile
I was twelve years old when the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik I satellite. The date was October 4, 1957. The news shook the world, which was in the grips of the Cold War, and set off the space race. For me it was mesmerizing and enthralling. I remember lying in bed unable to sleep, listening to the signals from Sputnik being broadcast over the radio as the satellite passed over the U.S. It was incredibly exciting to think that there was an object made by human beings circling the earth miles above my head.
By today's standards Sputnik I was a puny payload -- about the size of a beach ball and weighing 189 pounds. But in those days that was huge, and suggested that the Soviets had powerful rockets that could also launch intercontinental ballistic missiles. Then they upped the anti by launching a second satellite just a month later which was not only heavier by far, it also carried a live passenger -- a dog named Laika. The U.S. had been working on a satellite, but had to rush to get it into orbit. The first attempt in December ended after two seconds with an embarrassing explosion, or as the spin doctors described it, "rapid burning." Success came on January 31, 1958 with the launch of the 31-pound Explorer I.
Fast forward fifty+ years. The U.S. eventually won the Space Race and the Cold War, with some stunning technological achievements along the way, including landing a human on the moon. We all can appreciate the moon landing and other manned missions because of the demonstrable element of danger and our personal identification with the astronauts. But for me some of the unmanned missions illustrate the greatest technological achievements precisely because they were accomplished without humans on board. There are many examples, such as the Mariner 2 probe to Venus, the Lunar Surveyors, the Mars Pathfinder and Mars Rovers, and the remarkable Voyagers I and II, which have been operating for over 33 years and are still communicating from 14 and 17 billion kilometers away.
But the one that still leaves me awestruck is the Galileo mission to Jupiter, mainly because of the difficulties that were overcome during the mission and because the probe was so resilient -- an interplanetary Energizer Bunny that kept going and going no matter what. The Galileo probe was launched in 1989, and took 6 years to arrive at its destination. Several technical problems developed on the way, but engineers managed to overcome them. Once at Jupiter Galileo fulfilled its intended two-year mission, then continued to operate for another six years, far surpassing its design parameters and surviving some of the harshest conditions imaginable from radiation around Jupiter's moons It was intentionally crashed into the planet in 2003, providing valuable scientific data right up to the end.
The scientific achievements of Galileo were very impressive. On the way to Jupiter it flew close to two asteroids, Gaspra and Ida, the first spacecraft to visit an asteroid. Galileo discovered that tiny Ida had an even tinier moon. As it neared its destination, Galileo was able to observe and photograph in great detail the collisions of fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy with Jupiter. During its six years in the Jovian system Galileo discovered strong evidence that Jupiter's moon Europa has a melted saltwater ocean under an ice layer on its surface, and found indications that two other moons, Ganymede and Callisto, have layers of liquid saltwater as well. Other major science results were observations of varied and extensive volcanic processes on the moon Io, measurements of conditions within Jupiter's atmosphere, and discovery of a magnetic field generated by Ganymede.
The problems Galileo faced began early on, when its high-gain antenna failed to open fully. This forced mission engineers to use the low-gain backup antenna, which reduced the data transmission rate to only 8-16 bits per second (sloooowwww), later increased by various work-arounds to a still-glacial 160 bits per second, about 1/1000 of the high-gain speed. This limitation made the data that was returned, especially the approximately 14,000 photos that were sent back, even more impressive. And the signal was transmitted with only 20 watts of power! Another problem that occurred before Galileo reached Jupiter was with the onboard tape recorder (parents, explain to your children that back in the olden days we actually recorded data on long strips of tape....) that stored data for later transmission back to earth. The recorder became stuck in rewind mode and damaged a section of tape near the end. Engineers overcame the rewind problem and instructed the recorder not to use the damaged section of tape. The recorder was also damaged late in the mission by high radiation near the moon Almathea, but this, too was overcome.
Other difficulties from radiation exposure were encountered, but none of them stopped the Bunny:
Ok, you get the idea. To me, the Galileo mission represents an awe-inspiring combination of technological know-how, applied science, ad-hoc problem-solving, and creative ingenuity which provided a close up view of strange new worlds and greatly increased our knowledge of the universe. In this age of news filled with stories of greed, incompetence, political and social strife, environmental degradation, and economic collapse, it is tempting to become misanthropic and conclude that humans are just no damned good. But then we do something like this and through such a wondrous technological expression of the human spirit, raise the possibility that maybe there is a glimmer of hope after all.
By today's standards Sputnik I was a puny payload -- about the size of a beach ball and weighing 189 pounds. But in those days that was huge, and suggested that the Soviets had powerful rockets that could also launch intercontinental ballistic missiles. Then they upped the anti by launching a second satellite just a month later which was not only heavier by far, it also carried a live passenger -- a dog named Laika. The U.S. had been working on a satellite, but had to rush to get it into orbit. The first attempt in December ended after two seconds with an embarrassing explosion, or as the spin doctors described it, "rapid burning." Success came on January 31, 1958 with the launch of the 31-pound Explorer I.
Fast forward fifty+ years. The U.S. eventually won the Space Race and the Cold War, with some stunning technological achievements along the way, including landing a human on the moon. We all can appreciate the moon landing and other manned missions because of the demonstrable element of danger and our personal identification with the astronauts. But for me some of the unmanned missions illustrate the greatest technological achievements precisely because they were accomplished without humans on board. There are many examples, such as the Mariner 2 probe to Venus, the Lunar Surveyors, the Mars Pathfinder and Mars Rovers, and the remarkable Voyagers I and II, which have been operating for over 33 years and are still communicating from 14 and 17 billion kilometers away.
But the one that still leaves me awestruck is the Galileo mission to Jupiter, mainly because of the difficulties that were overcome during the mission and because the probe was so resilient -- an interplanetary Energizer Bunny that kept going and going no matter what. The Galileo probe was launched in 1989, and took 6 years to arrive at its destination. Several technical problems developed on the way, but engineers managed to overcome them. Once at Jupiter Galileo fulfilled its intended two-year mission, then continued to operate for another six years, far surpassing its design parameters and surviving some of the harshest conditions imaginable from radiation around Jupiter's moons It was intentionally crashed into the planet in 2003, providing valuable scientific data right up to the end.
 |
| Galileo Photo of Ice Flows on Europa |
 |
| Galileo Photos of an Active Volcano on Io |
Other difficulties from radiation exposure were encountered, but none of them stopped the Bunny:
The uniquely harsh radiation environment at Jupiter caused over 20 anomalies in addition to the incidents expanded upon above. Despite exceeding its radiation design limit by at least a factor of three, the spacecraft survived all the anomalies. Several of the science instruments suffered increased noise while within about 700,000 km of Jupiter. The quartz crystal used as the frequency reference for the radio suffered permanent frequency shifts with each Jupiter approach. A spin detector failed and the spacecraft gyro output was biased by the radiation environment. The SSI camera began producing totally white images when the spacecraft was hit by the exceptional 'Bastille Day' coronal mass ejection in 2000 and subsequently on close approaches to Jupiter. The most severe effect was a reset of the computers (a CDS despun bus reset) that occurred when the spacecraft was either close to Jupiter or in the region of space magnetically downstream of the Earth. Work-arounds were found for all of these problems. (Wikipedia article on Galileo)
Ok, you get the idea. To me, the Galileo mission represents an awe-inspiring combination of technological know-how, applied science, ad-hoc problem-solving, and creative ingenuity which provided a close up view of strange new worlds and greatly increased our knowledge of the universe. In this age of news filled with stories of greed, incompetence, political and social strife, environmental degradation, and economic collapse, it is tempting to become misanthropic and conclude that humans are just no damned good. But then we do something like this and through such a wondrous technological expression of the human spirit, raise the possibility that maybe there is a glimmer of hope after all.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Greasing Up In Greece
About 35 years ago my wife and I were traveling in Africa. As part of our itinerary we were scheduled to visit Ethiopia, but some internal strife there led us to change our plans at the last moment and spend the time we had allotted in Greece instead. Our improvised itinerary included renting a car and traveling around the Peloponnese Peninsula. At that time we had sites like Delphi and Olympus pretty much to ourselves, despite the fact that we were there during the summer high season. These days these sites are on the standard circuit of dozens of group tours and are visited by thousands of tourists.
For our return to Greece this year we decided to concentrate on the islands since we hadn't seen any on our first trip. We contacted a Greek travel agent who specializes in island hopping packages and booked a custom "tour" for the two of us (hotels, transfers, ferry & plane tickets).
Compared to the extensive planning that goes into many of our trips, this went surprisingly easy. Until Zeus and his buddies decided to challenge us a bit. The Icelandic volcano blew up and threatened to cancel, postpone or reroute international air travel. The Greek economy went into the dumper and the government's economic reforms sparked numerous strikes, some associated with violence, that threatened to make internal travel difficult and perhaps a bit risky. However, we decided to go ahead -- life's an adventure, right? Besides, we've found that the news media (both "mainstream" and "fair and balanced") tend to exaggerate and distort the negative aspects of situations like these. And this turned out to be the case. We found modern Greece to be one of the safest, cleanest, and most travel-friendly places we've visited.
The islands we visited were very different from one another in terms of geography, geology, size, history, social character, and level of tourist activity. Some, like Naxos, Milos, and Crete, have significant economic bases that lessen the importance of tourism and give them a more relaxed and laid-back atmosphere. Others, like Santorini and Mykonos, are almost entirely dominated by tourism. For instance, each morning 2-3 cruise ships arrive in Santorini's harbor and disgorge thousands of passengers who elbow their way through the picturesque main town of Fira for a few hours and then return to the ships for an afternoon departure. The same thing happens on Rhodes and Mykonos. This is clearly one of the downsides of cruise-ship tourism. An upside for those not on the cruise is that after all of those people leave it is very pleasant in the port towns; having a drink in a sidewalk cafe, watching the cruise ships sail off into the Aegean, is a nice way to spend an afternoon.
The Greek mainland oozes with history and with important archeological sites. We were surprised to discover that so do the islands -- even the smallest of them. For example, we spent most of one day on the tiny island of Delos, just a short boat ride from Mykonos. Until around 70 b.c. it was the financial and trading center of the Mediterranean, complete with multiple agoras, temples to not just Greek gods, but those of contemporary powers as well, like Egypt, Italy, Syria, and houses of some very wealthy families. Delos was also considered to be the birthplace of Apollo in Greek mythology. On Milos we hiked to the spot where the famous statue "Venus de Milo" was originally located -- a niche along an avenue to the ancient theater. On Crete we visited Knossos, one of the most famous examples of Minoan civilization. And Rhodes was a major European base for the Knights during the Crusades, not to mention the location of the famed Colossus of Rhodes.
The Greeks take all this history in stride, as do most Europeans in their own countries. Having a connection to a place that goes back several thousand years gives them perspective on current issues that most Americans lack.
One interesting thing we observed is that different islands seem to be favored by different groups of tourists. In general we saw very few Americans, except on the places visited by cruise ships, and of course in Athens. The biggest single group seemed to be northern Europeans, especially Scandinavians, no doubt trying to recover from their sunless winters. The most common language was....English. Since few visitors spoke Greek, the universal translator was the common language most learned a smattering of in school, which used to be French and now is English. At restaurants we would overhear customers haltingly order their meals and then return to their native language. We got along very well because I think the waiters found our English very clear!
Speaking of restaurants, Greece was similar to many other places we have visited where there is little or no tipping: the service was uniformly excellent. This is contrary to the idea that the promise of a good tip is required to motivate a server to do a good job and provide extra personalized service. Nevertheless it is something we've seen time and again on our travels. One interpretation is that the salary for wait staff is substantial enough that people view their work as valued and important, and strive to perform accordingly.
This trip had many of the features that we value in travel: interesting and unique locales, exposure to a different culture and way of life, historical richness, charming architectural character, and the opportunity to observe and interact with other travelers from backgrounds much different from our own. It also reinforced our conclusion that we were fortunate to travel in earlier times, before mass tourism developed the ability to negate the positive experience of these features.
For our return to Greece this year we decided to concentrate on the islands since we hadn't seen any on our first trip. We contacted a Greek travel agent who specializes in island hopping packages and booked a custom "tour" for the two of us (hotels, transfers, ferry & plane tickets).
Compared to the extensive planning that goes into many of our trips, this went surprisingly easy. Until Zeus and his buddies decided to challenge us a bit. The Icelandic volcano blew up and threatened to cancel, postpone or reroute international air travel. The Greek economy went into the dumper and the government's economic reforms sparked numerous strikes, some associated with violence, that threatened to make internal travel difficult and perhaps a bit risky. However, we decided to go ahead -- life's an adventure, right? Besides, we've found that the news media (both "mainstream" and "fair and balanced") tend to exaggerate and distort the negative aspects of situations like these. And this turned out to be the case. We found modern Greece to be one of the safest, cleanest, and most travel-friendly places we've visited.
The islands we visited were very different from one another in terms of geography, geology, size, history, social character, and level of tourist activity. Some, like Naxos, Milos, and Crete, have significant economic bases that lessen the importance of tourism and give them a more relaxed and laid-back atmosphere. Others, like Santorini and Mykonos, are almost entirely dominated by tourism. For instance, each morning 2-3 cruise ships arrive in Santorini's harbor and disgorge thousands of passengers who elbow their way through the picturesque main town of Fira for a few hours and then return to the ships for an afternoon departure. The same thing happens on Rhodes and Mykonos. This is clearly one of the downsides of cruise-ship tourism. An upside for those not on the cruise is that after all of those people leave it is very pleasant in the port towns; having a drink in a sidewalk cafe, watching the cruise ships sail off into the Aegean, is a nice way to spend an afternoon.
The Greek mainland oozes with history and with important archeological sites. We were surprised to discover that so do the islands -- even the smallest of them. For example, we spent most of one day on the tiny island of Delos, just a short boat ride from Mykonos. Until around 70 b.c. it was the financial and trading center of the Mediterranean, complete with multiple agoras, temples to not just Greek gods, but those of contemporary powers as well, like Egypt, Italy, Syria, and houses of some very wealthy families. Delos was also considered to be the birthplace of Apollo in Greek mythology. On Milos we hiked to the spot where the famous statue "Venus de Milo" was originally located -- a niche along an avenue to the ancient theater. On Crete we visited Knossos, one of the most famous examples of Minoan civilization. And Rhodes was a major European base for the Knights during the Crusades, not to mention the location of the famed Colossus of Rhodes.
The Greeks take all this history in stride, as do most Europeans in their own countries. Having a connection to a place that goes back several thousand years gives them perspective on current issues that most Americans lack.
One interesting thing we observed is that different islands seem to be favored by different groups of tourists. In general we saw very few Americans, except on the places visited by cruise ships, and of course in Athens. The biggest single group seemed to be northern Europeans, especially Scandinavians, no doubt trying to recover from their sunless winters. The most common language was....English. Since few visitors spoke Greek, the universal translator was the common language most learned a smattering of in school, which used to be French and now is English. At restaurants we would overhear customers haltingly order their meals and then return to their native language. We got along very well because I think the waiters found our English very clear!
Speaking of restaurants, Greece was similar to many other places we have visited where there is little or no tipping: the service was uniformly excellent. This is contrary to the idea that the promise of a good tip is required to motivate a server to do a good job and provide extra personalized service. Nevertheless it is something we've seen time and again on our travels. One interpretation is that the salary for wait staff is substantial enough that people view their work as valued and important, and strive to perform accordingly.
This trip had many of the features that we value in travel: interesting and unique locales, exposure to a different culture and way of life, historical richness, charming architectural character, and the opportunity to observe and interact with other travelers from backgrounds much different from our own. It also reinforced our conclusion that we were fortunate to travel in earlier times, before mass tourism developed the ability to negate the positive experience of these features.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Two Things That Will Change the World
**Warning: The following blog contains prognostication that exceeds the credentialed informational acumen possessed by the author (i.e., he's blowin' smoke)**
In my last blog we looked at simple inventions with large impacts. This blog will get more complex and more serious. Get a cup of coffee, you may need it.
One of the phenomena I investigated during my working days as a social psychologist was how the internet and the World Wide Web are changing society. I still follow this topic -- old social psychologists never die, they just stop going to departmental meetings -- and it has been fascinating to watch as this technology has become more and more central to our lives and altered our interactions. One of the developments that I correctly predicted ten years ago was the move toward wireless connectivity. I also correctly noted at that time that the cell phone, though not discussed nearly as much as the internet, was also changing society in dramatic ways. What I missed, though, was that the two would be merged to have an even greater impact, a development we are seeing very clearly today.
Unquestionably the internet/cell phone combination has rapidly altered society in fundamental ways and stimulated a lot of debate about whether the changes are good or bad. I predict, though, that there are two scientific fields that will change the world at least as much, and perhaps pose even greater challenges and dilemmas to society over the next 15-20 years: Nanotechnology and Genetic Engineering.
I assume that nearly everyone has heard of these fields from depictions in current entertainment media and in recent splashy news accounts. For example, male Star Trek fans will recall the rather visually intriguing connection of nanotechnology to the character Seven-of-Nine. Michael Crichton readers will recall Prey, which combined nanotechnology with emergent artificial intelligence, and of course Jurassic Park, which explored the deathly downside of genetic engineering. Readers of Neil Stephenson (who wrote Snow Crash, from which I took the title of this blog) will remember his dystopian extrapolation of nanotechnology in Diamond Age. Genetic engineering has been in the news frequently, mainly related to controversies surrounding genetically modified food, stem-cell research, cloning, and the development of "synthetic life."
Nanotechnology involves the creation of very, very small devices, such as carbon tubes 1000 times smaller than a red blood cell. Nano-structures can have some very interesting properties that scientists are only beginning to explore. For instance, carbon nanotubes assembled together into large structures are hundreds of times stronger yet six times lighter than steel. Other nano applications have the capacity to do physical "work," as illustrated by a range of devices called nanopumps, which can pass specific liquids back and forth through a membrane . Coatings composed of certain nanoparticles can alter the characteristics of objects, for example by keeping them cooler or by making them scratch resistant, self-cleaning, or sun resistant. Nanotubes implanted in human tissue can act as energy producing transistors, fueled by the body's biochemistry and thus providing power for nano devices, such as tiny computers, that might be implanted under the skin.
Genetic Engineering refers to the direct manipulation of an organism's characteristics by altering its genetic structure. This also takes place at a very, very small scale and like nanotechnology the consequences are enormous. The key word here is "direct" -- humans have been altering organisms indirectly through intentional selection processes throughout our history. In GE the alteration is carried out at the molecular level and the effects can be quite specific and unlikely to occur naturally. Recent applications include modifying organisms to produce insulin, changing certain food crops to be disease resistant, and altering viruses so that they deliver chemotherapy drugs to cancer cells. Gene therapy, in which genetic abnormalities are corrected by repairing, replacing, or turning off defective genes, is a major development in medical treatment of a number of diseases.
There is also the very real possibility that nanotechnology and genetic engineering may be combined in certain ways. For example, UK researchers have conducted gene therapy in which genes were inserted into cancer cells that caused them to self-destruct. The insertion was carried out by nano particles: The genes were wrapped up in microscopic nano-particles which were taken up by cancer cells, but not their healthy neighbours. Once inside, the genes stimulated production of a protein which destroyed the cancer.
There are both utopian and dystopian views of genetic engineering and nanotechnology, just as there are of the internet. On the utopian side are suggestions that these fields will solve the energy crisis, clean the planet, reverse global warming, solve world hunger, and eliminate disease. On the dystopian side are arguments that we might unknowingly unleash dangerous substances into the environment, poison our food supply, and create a race of genetically vulnerable humans. Judging from history, predictions based on these extremes are unlikely to be correct -- there are always unforeseen consequences of any technology, both positive and negative. But it is clear that the potential applications of these two technologies are so varied and so far-reaching in their possible impacts that they will indeed change the world. Regardless of the specifics, our understanding of what a machine is, what the properties of familiar things are, what it means to be human, and what "life" is and how much it can be and should be controlled and by whom -- these and other fundamental views are about to change profoundly.
In my last blog we looked at simple inventions with large impacts. This blog will get more complex and more serious. Get a cup of coffee, you may need it.
One of the phenomena I investigated during my working days as a social psychologist was how the internet and the World Wide Web are changing society. I still follow this topic -- old social psychologists never die, they just stop going to departmental meetings -- and it has been fascinating to watch as this technology has become more and more central to our lives and altered our interactions. One of the developments that I correctly predicted ten years ago was the move toward wireless connectivity. I also correctly noted at that time that the cell phone, though not discussed nearly as much as the internet, was also changing society in dramatic ways. What I missed, though, was that the two would be merged to have an even greater impact, a development we are seeing very clearly today.
Unquestionably the internet/cell phone combination has rapidly altered society in fundamental ways and stimulated a lot of debate about whether the changes are good or bad. I predict, though, that there are two scientific fields that will change the world at least as much, and perhaps pose even greater challenges and dilemmas to society over the next 15-20 years: Nanotechnology and Genetic Engineering.
I assume that nearly everyone has heard of these fields from depictions in current entertainment media and in recent splashy news accounts. For example, male Star Trek fans will recall the rather visually intriguing connection of nanotechnology to the character Seven-of-Nine. Michael Crichton readers will recall Prey, which combined nanotechnology with emergent artificial intelligence, and of course Jurassic Park, which explored the deathly downside of genetic engineering. Readers of Neil Stephenson (who wrote Snow Crash, from which I took the title of this blog) will remember his dystopian extrapolation of nanotechnology in Diamond Age. Genetic engineering has been in the news frequently, mainly related to controversies surrounding genetically modified food, stem-cell research, cloning, and the development of "synthetic life."
Nanotechnology involves the creation of very, very small devices, such as carbon tubes 1000 times smaller than a red blood cell. Nano-structures can have some very interesting properties that scientists are only beginning to explore. For instance, carbon nanotubes assembled together into large structures are hundreds of times stronger yet six times lighter than steel. Other nano applications have the capacity to do physical "work," as illustrated by a range of devices called nanopumps, which can pass specific liquids back and forth through a membrane . Coatings composed of certain nanoparticles can alter the characteristics of objects, for example by keeping them cooler or by making them scratch resistant, self-cleaning, or sun resistant. Nanotubes implanted in human tissue can act as energy producing transistors, fueled by the body's biochemistry and thus providing power for nano devices, such as tiny computers, that might be implanted under the skin.
Genetic Engineering refers to the direct manipulation of an organism's characteristics by altering its genetic structure. This also takes place at a very, very small scale and like nanotechnology the consequences are enormous. The key word here is "direct" -- humans have been altering organisms indirectly through intentional selection processes throughout our history. In GE the alteration is carried out at the molecular level and the effects can be quite specific and unlikely to occur naturally. Recent applications include modifying organisms to produce insulin, changing certain food crops to be disease resistant, and altering viruses so that they deliver chemotherapy drugs to cancer cells. Gene therapy, in which genetic abnormalities are corrected by repairing, replacing, or turning off defective genes, is a major development in medical treatment of a number of diseases.
There is also the very real possibility that nanotechnology and genetic engineering may be combined in certain ways. For example, UK researchers have conducted gene therapy in which genes were inserted into cancer cells that caused them to self-destruct. The insertion was carried out by nano particles: The genes were wrapped up in microscopic nano-particles which were taken up by cancer cells, but not their healthy neighbours. Once inside, the genes stimulated production of a protein which destroyed the cancer.
There are both utopian and dystopian views of genetic engineering and nanotechnology, just as there are of the internet. On the utopian side are suggestions that these fields will solve the energy crisis, clean the planet, reverse global warming, solve world hunger, and eliminate disease. On the dystopian side are arguments that we might unknowingly unleash dangerous substances into the environment, poison our food supply, and create a race of genetically vulnerable humans. Judging from history, predictions based on these extremes are unlikely to be correct -- there are always unforeseen consequences of any technology, both positive and negative. But it is clear that the potential applications of these two technologies are so varied and so far-reaching in their possible impacts that they will indeed change the world. Regardless of the specifics, our understanding of what a machine is, what the properties of familiar things are, what it means to be human, and what "life" is and how much it can be and should be controlled and by whom -- these and other fundamental views are about to change profoundly.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Duct Tape, Velcro and Cable Ties
I was at a party recently that included really good finger food and some interesting conversation. This was a get-together where people knew each other at a casual level, so the discussions tended to be light and far ranging. It was also a party where the couples were (a) "mature" and (b) had been married a long time, so that after a few minutes the discussion groups tended to be separated by gender.
At one point the group of men I was talking with drifted onto the topic of the wonders of duct tape (now marketed as Duck Tape). We all readily agreed on its usefulness, and several of the men related stories of how they had used it creatively to solve problems. It was pointed out that duct Tape was an example of an invention that was simple yet could be adapted to many uses beyond its original intent (in the case of duct tape, this was to seal ammunition boxes in WWII). Now, of course, its uses range from fashion to car repairs .
The conversation then turned to other inventions that had similar properties, though weren't quite as legendary as duct tape. One was the cable tie, those strips of plastic that have little teeth on one side and a buckle at one end. Pulling the tie through to buckle in a loop locks the strip in place because the buckle has a wedge that engages with the teeth and prevents the strip from moving backward. The simplicity of the design makes these little suckers incredibly cheap and easy to produce. As the name suggests, one of the most popular uses of these is to bundle wires or cables together and/or to secure them to something else. However, just like duct tape, the cable tie has been adapted for many, many other uses, from handcuffing criminals to closing someone's chest after heart surgery.
So here's the challenge: What do you think should be added to a list of the most useful inventions of the last couple of hundred years? I'll start off with Velcro, which -- like duct tape -- has only been around since the '40's. Preference will be given to simple items like these. Maybe in a later blog we can take on nominations for inventions that have most changed society, like the microwave oven. (Also, in my next blog I'll discuss a couple of things that will change everything.....)
Here's the list so far. To make an addition submit a comment (anonymously if you prefer) and I'll add it to the list:
4. springs
5. rubber bands
6. tooth picks
7. paint
8. paper clips
At one point the group of men I was talking with drifted onto the topic of the wonders of duct tape (now marketed as Duck Tape). We all readily agreed on its usefulness, and several of the men related stories of how they had used it creatively to solve problems. It was pointed out that duct Tape was an example of an invention that was simple yet could be adapted to many uses beyond its original intent (in the case of duct tape, this was to seal ammunition boxes in WWII). Now, of course, its uses range from fashion to car repairs .
The conversation then turned to other inventions that had similar properties, though weren't quite as legendary as duct tape. One was the cable tie, those strips of plastic that have little teeth on one side and a buckle at one end. Pulling the tie through to buckle in a loop locks the strip in place because the buckle has a wedge that engages with the teeth and prevents the strip from moving backward. The simplicity of the design makes these little suckers incredibly cheap and easy to produce. As the name suggests, one of the most popular uses of these is to bundle wires or cables together and/or to secure them to something else. However, just like duct tape, the cable tie has been adapted for many, many other uses, from handcuffing criminals to closing someone's chest after heart surgery.
So here's the challenge: What do you think should be added to a list of the most useful inventions of the last couple of hundred years? I'll start off with Velcro, which -- like duct tape -- has only been around since the '40's. Preference will be given to simple items like these. Maybe in a later blog we can take on nominations for inventions that have most changed society, like the microwave oven. (Also, in my next blog I'll discuss a couple of things that will change everything.....)
Here's the list so far. To make an addition submit a comment (anonymously if you prefer) and I'll add it to the list:
- duct tape
- cable ties
- velcro
4. springs
5. rubber bands
6. tooth picks
7. paint
8. paper clips
Monday, May 31, 2010
Does Size (Of Government) Really Matter?
**Warning: The Following Blog May Pose a Choking Hazard to Readers Who Are Fond of Tea**
If you've been reading this blog for awhile, you won't be surprised when I say that I am old enough to remember vividly the Vietnam War era. It was a time of tremendous social and political upheaval in the U.S. Many people of my age deeply distrusted government when it became clear that politicians were lying about the justification for entering the war, and misleading us regarding its course. The conduct of the war included atrocities and tactics that were contradictory to America's claim to being the world's "good guys." Youth culture upset established values and ethics. We were torn by the assassinations of the John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. The arguments about the issues of the day became more and more polarized, with a lot of pressure to identify with extreme positions even if you didn't agree with them -- slogans of the day were things like "You're either with us or against us" "America, love it or leave it" "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem" "If you're not my ally then you're my enemy." It really seemed like the country was coming apart at the seams.
I'm not sure that things are as bad now as they were then, but I think we're getting close. And of course added to today's malaise is the economic melt down and a growing feeling that our financial system can no longer be the source of pride it was once. Just as assumptions about the sanctity of American's fundamental institutions were questioned during the Vietnam era, today we are also questioning the legitimacy of how we generate and distribute wealth. And we are again in an era of extremism, in which our debates on these questions are framed in terms of exclusionary choices that for many of us are unpalatable in both directions -- "X" versus "Y" with no middle ground, where neither "X" nor "Y" truly reflect many people's personal values and beliefs.
The current wave of anti-government sentiment, exemplified by the rise of the "Tea Party" and by the positions of the most vocal conservatives, is frequently cast as a question of how large we want government to be and what level of control we want it to have in our lives. Liberals, progressives, and socialists want big, powerful government that regulates all aspects of our lives. Clear thinking patriots and conservatives want minimal government with little regulatory power.
I think this distinction is overly simplistic in two ways. First, it can be argued that the question is as much about values as it is about size and power. Many conservatives have no qualms endorsing a large and costly military establishment, or spending billions building a fence across our southern border, or allowing governmental intrusion into our private lives in an effort to protect us from terrorists or illegal aliens. Big, powerful, expensive government can be very, very good, as long as it is seen as a manifestation of the "correct" values and priorities.
Second, the distinction is misleading because it characterizes all those who currently have anti-government feelings as having the same conservative philosophical position. As the liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote recently:
Coffee, anyone?
If you've been reading this blog for awhile, you won't be surprised when I say that I am old enough to remember vividly the Vietnam War era. It was a time of tremendous social and political upheaval in the U.S. Many people of my age deeply distrusted government when it became clear that politicians were lying about the justification for entering the war, and misleading us regarding its course. The conduct of the war included atrocities and tactics that were contradictory to America's claim to being the world's "good guys." Youth culture upset established values and ethics. We were torn by the assassinations of the John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. The arguments about the issues of the day became more and more polarized, with a lot of pressure to identify with extreme positions even if you didn't agree with them -- slogans of the day were things like "You're either with us or against us" "America, love it or leave it" "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem" "If you're not my ally then you're my enemy." It really seemed like the country was coming apart at the seams.
I'm not sure that things are as bad now as they were then, but I think we're getting close. And of course added to today's malaise is the economic melt down and a growing feeling that our financial system can no longer be the source of pride it was once. Just as assumptions about the sanctity of American's fundamental institutions were questioned during the Vietnam era, today we are also questioning the legitimacy of how we generate and distribute wealth. And we are again in an era of extremism, in which our debates on these questions are framed in terms of exclusionary choices that for many of us are unpalatable in both directions -- "X" versus "Y" with no middle ground, where neither "X" nor "Y" truly reflect many people's personal values and beliefs.
The current wave of anti-government sentiment, exemplified by the rise of the "Tea Party" and by the positions of the most vocal conservatives, is frequently cast as a question of how large we want government to be and what level of control we want it to have in our lives. Liberals, progressives, and socialists want big, powerful government that regulates all aspects of our lives. Clear thinking patriots and conservatives want minimal government with little regulatory power.
I think this distinction is overly simplistic in two ways. First, it can be argued that the question is as much about values as it is about size and power. Many conservatives have no qualms endorsing a large and costly military establishment, or spending billions building a fence across our southern border, or allowing governmental intrusion into our private lives in an effort to protect us from terrorists or illegal aliens. Big, powerful, expensive government can be very, very good, as long as it is seen as a manifestation of the "correct" values and priorities.
Second, the distinction is misleading because it characterizes all those who currently have anti-government feelings as having the same conservative philosophical position. As the liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote recently:
The more important and dynamic force behind the current disillusionment with government comes instead from those who actually believe it can and should be effective. They do not think that the market is automatically rational or that the government has to be dumb. They are fed up with government not because their ideology or philosophy tells them to be but because they don't think government has been doing a proper job of promoting prosperity, equity and fair-dealing.I readily identify with the group Dionne is referring to, and it is very irritating to be grouped with people like Tim Bridgewater, Sara Palin, and the Tea Partiers because the solutions they offer are fundamentally unpalatable to me. My beliefs about the proper role of government are nicely captured by another quote from Dionne's recent column:
The central tasks of democratic government, after all, typically involve standing up for the many against the few, the less powerful against the more powerful. Government is supposed to make sure that corporations are properly supervised when they turn public resources (the environment in the Gulf of Mexico, say) into private gain. It is charged with protecting those with weaker bargaining positions (coal miners, for example) against the harm that those in stronger bargaining positions might inflict.
Its duty is to keep the private economy running smoothly by preventing fraud, shady dealing and self-interested behavior that threaten the entire system. And yes, it's supposed to keep us safe from physical harm, as it did in New York [the recent attempted terrorist attack in Times Square].I'd add that I want government to approach these tasks efficiently and economically, with minimal intrusion into my private life and with due regard for the civil rights of all Americans. I accept that there are a variety of ways these tasks can be accomplished, and that no one party or individual has all the answers. Solutions to our problems require cooperation, compromise, and coordination among our lawmakers. That is why I am so dismayed to see government in its current dysfunctional state.
Coffee, anyone?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Does Your Pokemon Have Rectitude??
A regular weekly feature in the Washington Post for many years has been Style Invitational, in which readers are challenged to submit clever or humorous entries in several different word-play contests. For example, a recent challenge was to "'Spoonerize' a single word or a name by transposing different parts of the word (more than two adjacent letters), and define the resultant new term." Examples of solutions given in the column as illustrations:
An email widely circulating in cyberspace for over 10 years mistakenly reports the results of two of the Post's challenges as being from yearly events sponsored by Mensa, the high IQ society, and though this has been clearly denied by the author of the Post's column, the error still persists. In fact, my wife and I received a forwarded email just the other day claiming to list the winning entries of this year's contests. Even though the source is incorrectly identified, the results are legitimate and very amusing, depending on your taste in humor. The first challenge was to supply alternate meanings for common words. Here are the wacky winning entries:
- Bootlicker > Lootbicker: To argue in Congress over who gets the earmarks.
- Whappersnipper: Someone who assaults a mohel.
- Lugachug: To carry a cooler full of beer.
1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.Ok, that was the warm-up. The second contest asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.
2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.
3. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
4. Esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.
5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.
6. Negligent, adj.. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.
7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.
8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.
9. Flatulence, n.. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.
10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline.
11. Testicle n. A humorous question on an exam.
12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.
13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.
14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with yiddishisms.
15. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.I've written before about my sense of humor, and so I realize many of you may not share my enthusiasm for these nuggets. But if you do and you want more, go to the Washington Post and sign up for a free subscription. I did.
2. Ignoranus: A person who is both stupid and an asshole.
3. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
6. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.
7. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high
8. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
9. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
10. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
11. Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
12. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
13. Glibido: All talk and no action.
14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidental ly walked through a spider web.
16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
17. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
