Uncategorized

Sep 212007
 

I learned about this Civics quiz over at SCSU scholars.

I took the quiz while watching RTR Planeta for the first time in months.   Hmmm.  Now that channel features ads, it looks like.  Or is it a program about TV ads?   Hard to say when I can only understand 10 percent of the words.

Scored 60 out of 60 on the civics quiz.

I was a bit shaky on the question about bond purchases by the Federal Reserve, and also on the one, “Which author’s view of society is presented correctly?”   But I’m one of those people whose ability to answer multiple choice questions often exceeds his knowledge of the subject.

Aug 212007
 

Chemists Find What Makes Coffee Bitter says this Yahoo article about a LiveScience article, never mind that I can’t seem to find the original at livescience.com.

“Roasting is the key factor driving bitter taste in coffee beans. So the stronger you roast the coffee, the more harsh it tends to get,” Hofmann said. He added that prolonged roasting leads to the formation of the most intense bitter compounds found in dark roasts.

Oh, yeah?  These people seem to be confusing harsh with bitter.ÂThey are not the same thing, at least not in coffee. I found an actual livescience article from two years ago that gets that part right:

Bitterness comes from skimping on grounds when you brew, brewing for too long, and brewing in a pot or machine with residual grounds left from hours, days or weeks ago.

The person who wrote that knew what he was talking about.  Those are exactly the factors that make coffee bitter.  And bitter is bad.
But harshness is something else entirely. Starbucks coffee tends to be harsh.   Their school of coffee-thought has been labeled the “Burnt is better” school.  Some people like that kind of harshness.   I don’t myself, but I can understand, sort of.

The yahoo article has it partly right.  You get harshness from roasting too much.  But that’s not the same as bitter.

I wonder if that research was done by a non-coffee drinker.  I say never trust a non-coffee drinker to make your coffee.  And maybe you shouldn’t let a non-coffee drinker do coffee-taste research, either.

Aug 162007
 

From Daniel Henninger at the WSJ:

…Now comes word that diversity as an ideology may be dead, or not worth saving. Robert Putnam, the Harvard don who in the controversial bestseller “Bowling Alone” announced the decline of communal-mindedness amid the rise of home-alone couch potatoes, has completed a mammoth study of the effects of ethnic diversity on communities. His researchers did 30,000 interviews in 41 U.S. communities. Short version: People in ethnically diverse settings don’t want to have much of anything to do with each other. “Social capital” erodes. Diversity has a downside….

Give me a break! you scream. What about New York City or L.A.? From the time of Sherwood Anderson’s “Winesburg, Ohio” through “Peyton Place” and beyond, people have fled the flat-lined, gossip-driven homogeneity of small American “communities” for the welcome anonymity of big-city apartment building–so long as your name wasn’t Kitty Genovese, the famous New York woman who bled to death crying for help….

The diversity ideologues deserve whatever ill tidings they get. They’re the ones who weren’t willing to persuade the public of diversity’s merits, preferring to turn “diversity” into a political and legal hammer to compel compliance. The conversions were forced conversions. As always, with politics comes pushback. And it never stops.

The harvest of bitter fruit from the diversity wars begun three decades ago across campuses, corporations and newsrooms has made the immigration debate significantly worse. Diversity’s advocates gave short shrift to assimilation, indeed arguing that assimilation into the American mainstream was oppressive and coercive. So they demoted assimilation and elevated “differences.” Then they took the nation to court. Little wonder the immigration debate is riven with distrust….

Like he said, there’s lots here to argue about. But I think I’ll want to find that original article and see if I can stand to read it.

Aug 122007
 

We’re just now finishing up breakfast at a campground. I was telling my wife how I dreamt last night that I introduced the new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to the Clintons. He was someone I had met earlier in the dream, very young, and presumably conservative, though I can’t say who he resembled. My wife and I were sitting at a table in a church basement-like setting when the Clintons came over and sat down across from us. I think there was some conversation, though I’ve already forgotten that part of the dream. Then the young Judge came over to the table, and I figured the proper thing would be to introduce him to the Clintons. They were speechless at seeing this young Judge, and looked at each other, but Bill soon recovered and gave him some of his “You know, we have to work together, blah, blah, blah.”

I think the stimulus for this encounter was an old article of Peggy Noonan’s that Opinion Journal.com had mentioned a day or so ago:

“Peggy Noonan http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=85000464 more or less predicted 9/11 (and Bill Clinton’s evasion of responsibility for it) in a Jan. 19, 2001, column, and we don’t remember being particularly perturbed as we edited it.”

The part of Noonan’s article that got me to thinking was this:

That the speech was lacking in grace or largeness goes without saying, that it offered seemingly wise and even avuncular words with a subtext of political aggression and competitiveness was in its way perfect. That is what Mr. Clinton’s career has been, aggression offered as sympathy.

I used to say similar things back in those days, but not in such fine words as Ms Noonan used.

It had been quite a few years since I met any presidential persons in my dreams, and this was the first for a Supreme Court Justice. And it’s nice sitting at the campground picnic table to use the internet, but the sun is coming up to make my screen hard to read, and it’s time to be off on a bike ride.

Aug 082007
 

It seems that a lot of folks are so full of hate for George Bush and hate for tax cuts that they’ve abandoned a lot of their values in the wake of the I35-W bridge collapse — just for a chance to do some Bush-bashing and tax-raising. For partisan political gain, they’re allying themselves with the forces of modern development that are turning the earth into a monotonous, bland place and which disconnect us from the environment and from each other.

I’ve blogged about bridges in my bicycle blog: Bridges to Planet Earth where I breathed a sigh of relief that an old bridge in Tennessee is not currently threatened by the safety-efficiency people.

Personal recollection: When we lived in St. Cloud, MN in the mid 70s it was on the opposite side of the Mississippi from the University where I was going to grad school. We lived close enough that I often walked across the bridge to get there — the 10th Street Bridge. It was a rickety old thing that rattled as cars went across, and it couldn’t handle the volume of traffic that some planners thought should be directed through our neighborhood.

In the winter time it was a COLD walk across that bridge. It could be quite a painful ordeal. The river runs north and south there, and the valley acts as a wind channel for the cold north winds. There was nothing on those trusses to shelter you. Brrr. It makes for quite the memories now.

I found somebody else’s blog entry about that bridge: Deep Blade Journal It has photos of the old bridge and of the new one that replaced it. Replacement was always a controversial topic while we lived there. Planners wanted to replace it; those of us who lived in the community didn’t want it replaced, and it was held off for many years. It couldn’t last forever, though, and eventually the safety-efficiency people had their way. There is now a new bridge, a lot of traffic, and the world is a more boring place for it. I’ve been back to drive across the new bridge a few times, always with a sense of loss.

But it’s not all loss. Not until I saw the above blog entry did I see the underside of that bridge. It’s not your ordinary boring Interstate bridge. The designers and engineers could have done a lot worse. Maybe someday people will be just as protective and fond of that one as we were of the old 10th Street bridge.

Main point, though: There’s more to life than safety and efficiency.

Jul 062007
 

MoveOn.org is having an awful lot of trouble moving on:

Petition: Stop Executive Overreach

You’ve probably seen the news that President Bush let Scooter Libby, the one man who was convicted for the lies around the Iraq war, go free.

The obstruction of justice doesn’t stop there. The Senate recently subpoenaed documents from the Vice President’s office around the illegal wiretapping program and so far he has not complied. It’s clear this administration thinks it’s above the law.

It makes one wonder how they got that name, anyway.

Feb 232007
 

From Newsweek: China Above the Law:  A poorly functioning legal system is supposed to hurt economic growth.  But nobody told the Chinese.
This article explains how the Chinese compensate for the lack of a legal system and the “rule of law.”  Their method works, at least for now, at least as far as economic growth is concerned.   Not that we should really kill all the lawyers over here in the U.S. and do it the way China does, but this article helps us to think about why we even bother to have a legal system.  If we’re going to spend so much money on lawyers and judges, we ought to have an idea of what we’re getting for our money.  And if we aren’t, maybe some changes are needed.

Feb 092007
 

From chron.com and the AP

Snow called Pelosi’s office to make sure she knew the White House supported her use of a military plane.

He also distanced the White House from the GOP’s take on the matter. The Republican National Committee said Pelosi was on a “power trip.” Snow, asked whether the RNC is free to go after Pelosi on its own, said, “Well, apparently they did this time.”

A “power trip.” That would be a good name for Pelosi’s plane.

I for one have a big problem with this, no matter what Tony Snow says. Having her own plane helps free her from the need to make the skies safe for all travelers, not just those who are in positions of leadership. Maybe she’d have to be more responsible in dealing with terrorism if she didn’t have special protections that the rest of us lack.

I didn’t know that Hastert got special privileges, either, nor did I have a lot of sympathy for Newt’s complaints. But two wrongs don’t make a right. These people ought to live in the real world they are elected to represent instead spending their time jockeying for elite perks and privileges. It’s a corrupting influence on them.

Maybe if we had term limits to bring them down to earth once in a while, I’d have a different opinion about it.

I also have a big problem with special protections for judges and police. Those people, too, ought to be making the streets safe for everyone, not just for the privileged few.

Nov 182006
 

Here is a Washington Post article by Jonathan Weisman and Lois Romano: Pelosi Splits Democrats With Push For Murtha: Speaker-to-Be Accused Of Strong-Arm Tactics

…Pelosi’s aggressive intervention on behalf of Murtha has baffled and angered many Democrats, who think she has unnecessarily put her reputation on the line out of misplaced loyalty to a friend and because of a long-standing feud with Hoyer, the minority whip….

…For the most part, lawmakers, Hill aides and some outside advisers — even some close to her — say they are at a loss to explain why Pelosi has held a grudge for so long, because she clearly has the upper hand as leader of the House Democrats. They suggest that part of what rankles her is that Hoyer is not beholden to her and feels no compulsion to publicly agree with her on every issue. This, allies say, she sees as a sign of disloyalty….

It’s interesting that the elected leaders of the two parties are so much alike on this. George Bush and Nancy Pelosi now have reputations for valuing personal loyalty above all else.

It makes me miss Ronald Reagan more than ever. He could put up with blabbermouth skeptics and backstabbers in his own administration. But he was loyal to his own agenda.