The effervescently-talented Mrs. Monica Evanchik has taken on the enigmatically esoteric subject of street-sign lettering in her latest slide show for the New York Times. Much work was done by her to present this specialized subject in a manner both comprehensive and comprehensible for the layman.
Why you have kids:
so they’ll take care of you when you are old and infirm.
(No, that’s not me and my son, Jack. I drink my beer from a bottle.)
Monica Evanchik has meandered into the mellifluos world of blanc de blanc champagnes in her latest presentation of a New York Times wine tasting. I have rarely heard the reviewers so enthusiastic about their selections.
I have just seen the most amazing video of dozens of cats in a small Moscow apartment. This is the most cats you will ever see in so small a space, so just make sure to click on the video on the linked page and watch it.
Last night’s debate on gentrification went by with laudable interested discussion. As a moderator, there are a few things that tick me off, and they are mostly a question of impolite audience members. It is amazing to me that people will talk in full voice in a private conversation at an event while debaters on the stage are speaking. I have noticed that during the debate, proponents of the more “left-y” side of the discussion tend to be the more unruly ones, barging in with guffaws and heckling, seemingly unaware that they are not welcome to take part in the act unless called upon. I suppose their extreme democratic notions make them oblivious to the restictions imposed by elitist rules of decorum. The trend of the philosophical and political allegiances of the misbehaved is not a total one, though. The aforementioned yakkers, inconsiderate of the neighbors’ unwelcome attention, were certainly conservatives.
At 20:00 tonight, Wednesday, August 1, I will be moderating a debate at the Lower East Side’s Lolita Bar on the question, “is gentrification good?”.
I mentally prepare for these debates, which are held each month on a new topic, by wondering what questions I might ask of the debaters. This helps me to anticipate their arguments and to more fully contemplate the issue at hand. The questions are at times philosophical, and often provocative and logically fallacious. I think the fallacious questions are important to allow a debater to address questions that are in the back of people’s mind and thus dispel unreasonable doubts.
Never mind that some seem repetitious or may play on a theme already introduced. I don’t ask every question that comes into my head. If only the audience might do the same.
Here are some of my thoughts on potential questions:
That’s it and quite a lot at that, not to say an awful lot. Say hello to me if you come to the debate.
A Los Angeles hospital feels it necessary to share private patient information for purposes of “protective services for the President and others“. A full copy of the privacy policy is available here. The full explanation is that they “may disclose medical information about you to authorized federal officials so they may provide protection to the President, other authorized persons, or foreign heads of state or to conduct special investigations”. The fact that the provision is explicitly spelled out strongly suggests that the disclosure of information has already been made in the past. Is this a matter of a hospital being co-opted into an increasingly totalitarian state, or merely Liberal hysteria about legitimate law-enforcement activities? A close reading of the document suggest reasons for alarm from any person concerned about their privacy and civil liberty.
The University of Florida has a good web page summarizing shark attacks throughout the United States and the rest of the world. The numbers go back over four hundred years, though only more recent statistics should be considered complete. Statistics are parsed by swimmer activity, type of shark, country or state. All I know is that Maine beaches are looking awful safe this summer.
You know you’re desperate for visitors to your blog when you …
I like the site Violent Acres. It’s funny and witty and well-written. As the author herself points out, the Internet is generally too nice and her wit is acid enough to burn up a few sacred cows. Her philosophy is basically common-sensical libertarian, with a strong streak of self-reliance and distrust of arbitrary authority. The author maintains her anonymity, so I will refer to her as Ms. Acres in the context of this post.
Ms. Acres writes frequently about child-raising, often with acerbic astuteness, but like her spiritual and philosophical soul-mate, the science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein, I wonder how much of her experience is first hand, from start to finish, with children of her own? What is clear is that she has stepchildren from her husband’s previous marriage whom she supervises occasionally. She also has shown justifiable disdain for the moral supersession of absent biological fatherhood over a good step-dad.
Her most recent post speaks of the humiliation of being an adult waiting in line for the latest Harry Potter book. Given her frugality, and the high cost of competent baby-sitting, and her complete silence on the matter. I find it hard to imagine that Ms. Acres has children of her own that she watches on a full time basis.
I like Ms. Acres writing. I like a lot of what she says about child-raising and wish more parents had her point of view. I am not so dull as to assert that those who observe rather than participate in an activity are incompetent to comment thoughtfully on it. I just look forward to the day when Ms. Acres bitch-slaps herself, admitting that dealing with her own kids full-time is nothing like she imagined, and that her idealistic notions are like tattered tissue paper in the face of one’s own screaming infant child.
It’ll be just my foot-in-mouth luck that Ms. Acres has some serious biological bar from bearing children, allowing her tragical immunity from my existential barb.