Gerard Vanderleun has some thoughts, with implications for the Obama campaign. As Iowahawk notes in comments, they’re brutal.
Hey, somebody should write a book
Category Archives: Popular Culture
What Were They Thinking?
I mean, anyone could have predicted this: John Denver Karaoke Sparks Thai Killing Spree.
But I have to admit, I would have guessed “Thank God I’m A Country Boy” would have been the tune to send him over the edge. Oh, the humanity.
Back To The Drawing Board
I just remembered that I called the Bob Davis show this morning to talk about the new theory re: Moses and the Ten Commandments: dude was high. Apparently a professor somewhere has suggested that the entire experience was the result of a mushroom or some such ceremonial intoxicant. I called to say I didn’t believe it, because if Moses was tripping we wouldn’t have ten commandments. We would have three. The first would make sense, more or less; the second, written half an hour later, would command profound respect for lizards who sit on stones and look at you, because they’re freaking incredible when you think about it, and the third would be gibberish. Never mind the problem of getting the tablets down the mountain – anyone who has experience of watching stoners try to assemble pizza money when the doorbell rings doubts that Moses could have hauled stone tablets all the way down.
Super Sizing
Elizabeth Karmel has some thoughts on barbecue:
Restaurateurs don’t necessarily want you to eat the whole thing; they are giving us what we’ve asked for. Americans don’t like restaurants that serve small portions. Whether they eat it all or should eat it all is another matter; consumers vote with their dollars and like it or not, American consumers love and buy big portions.
I’ve discussed this before, but the reason that restaurants serve so much food is related to the reason that the Space Shuttle (and space launch in general) cost so much. How’s that for a topic segue? It always comes down to marginal cost.
The Space Shuttle is expensive per flight, because they have to support all of the overhead in Houston and the Cape, but fly very few times. But the marginal cost (the cost of flying the next Shuttle flight, given that you’re already flying) is probably about a hundred fifty million or so (the cost of the expended hardware, basically, and specific crew training) which is much less than that average cost (typically well over half a billion). Same thing applies to the space station. Back in the nineties (before Freedom became ISS) they were trying to cut five billion dollars out of the projected thirty-billion dollar development budget. Joe Talbot, the man at Langley who was tasked with coming up with a plan to do so, told me (in an exasperated tone), “that’s the cost of the hardware.” In other words, they could cut out the hardware, and only spend twenty-five billion, and have no station at all. Or they could spend a little more money (thirty-five billion instead of thirty billion) and double its size. Being a government program, the budget cutters tend to make more of the former sorts of decisions than the latter ones.
It’s different for a business, even though the economic issues are exactly the same, because they’re driven by actual customers.
Even if a restaurant served you no food at all, if all you did was come in and take up table space and staff time for a certain period of time, they’d still have to charge you quite a bit, because much of the cost of a restaurant meal is overhead to cover costs of rent, utilities, staff salaries, etc. The cost of the food itself (unless it’s a very high-end restaurant, where you’re eating lobster, and filet, and larks-tongue bisque with a truffle reduction) isn’t all that much. They could cut the portions in half, but they wouldn’t be able to cut the price of the meal by half. Conversely (and this is what the market drives, as Elizabeth says), they can double the portions while adding very little to the price. That’s the economics behind “super sizing” soft drinks and fries–you’re simply adding a little sugar and spuds, which are very cheap, to the meal whose overhead has already been covered by the basic order.
And of course, I think that one of the (many) causes of the obesity epidemic in the country is the fact that as we’ve grown wealthier, we go out to eat a lot more. When the portions are large, you’re going to have a tendency to eat it. A lot of us would be better off simply sharing a meal with our dinner companions, but the restaurants discourage this, for obvious reasons–they don’t get enough to cover their overhead costs if everyone does it. When you’re cooking for yourself, you not only have a better idea of the cost of the meal, because you’re using food that you purchased, but it’s also easier to quit eating and just put the leftovers in the fridge, rather than have to ask for a doggie bag and hope that you get it home soon enough.
Bottom line, if you really want to lose weight (and save money) don’t eat out.
[Update]
There’s a good point in comments:
I have these same problems cooking for myself. It’s hard to buy things in quantities for one or two portions. You end up with three or four servings…. (Re: try to cook a real meal for one).
Yeah, that’s another overhead problem. Unless you’re making something fancy where individual items are being created (e.g., home-made ravioli) or labor intensive (peeling/deveining shrimp) it doesn’t take much more effort to cook for two, or four, than for one. The basic overhead of meal preparation is the same. It takes me about half a minute to clean/cut a potato, so adding a couple more for a lot more mashed potatoes, all done in the same mixing bowl, is no big deal, and baking a chicken is baking a chicken, whether for one of four. This is one of the benefits of marriage (or at least cohabiting).
I cook dinner almost every night, but interestingly, I rarely cook breakfast, because it seems like a lot of work, (frying bacon, making coffee, sectioning grapefruit, hashing browns, frying eggs, making/buttering toast, most of which all has to come out about the same time) for not that great a meal. I would never do it just for myself, and with the two of us, I still generally reserve it for weekends.
Another good point, from the same comment:
…the combo of A and B has been sending me to fast food format restaurants. I can pay little and buy by the item (re: any portion size I want). If I only want one chicken taco… I can buy one chicken taco (probably for $1-$2)… If I want two or three, they can do that too…
I’ve been noticing that, too. I’ve never ordered a “meal” at a fast food place, because they don’t have anything I want to drink (I don’t do soft drinks, and don’t like iced tea–in restaurants, if I don’t have beer or wine, I drink water). I generally order a sandwich a la carte, and sometimes a small fry. But I’ve seen that Taco Bell has a lot of individual, reasonably priced items, and other places have “dollar menus” as well, so perhaps they’re also trying to satisfy that end of the market. One of my favorites is Checker’s (around here, anyway, also known as Rally’s in some parts of the country), where they sell a double fish sandwich for a little over two bucks. There are enough customers that they can afford to sell them to those who want them without fully amortizing the overhead, or if they do, at low margin, and it expands their potential customer base.
One other point. It used to be that Mexican restaurants were one of the best ones to have for exactly this reasons. You could charge a low price for a meal with very cheap ingredients (corn meal, ground…meat, rice and beans), but still have great margins. A lot of them have started to get greedy lately, though. You used to be able to find a really cheap, decent hole-in-the-wall Mexican place, but it’s getting harder and harder, at least in my experience. Of course, since moving to south Florida, I don’t have as much variety to choose from as I did in LA.
[Update at 5:20 PM EST]
This is another good point from a commenter:
Cooking for one or two can be done, but it involves cooking for four and freezing for three.
Yup. I’ve made a big pan of lasagna for myself (used to do it a lot in college). Eat some, put some in the fridge, freeze the rest. And this was in the pre-microwave (at least for struggling students) days.
[6 PM update]
One other point, that I should have made in the original post. The things that get supersized (high-glycemic carbs) are not just the cheapest things to add to the meal, they’re the worst things for us to eat, from the standpoint of weight gain, inducement of diabetes and increase in artery risk. And the things that we need more of (proteins) are relatively expensive. The basic economics of food (at least at the current state of technology) militates against a healthy diet. This is also one of the reasons that the “poor” in this country are both overweight and malnourished (scare quotes because “poor” is relative. No one in the US is truly poor, compared to much of the world).
New Amsterdam
I don’t actually watch that much network television, but I have to admit that I probably watch more Foxfare than anything else.
Tonight, there premiered a new show, called “New Amsterdam.”
It’s an interesting premise. A man who was born in the early seventeenth century (or even a century before) is given eternal (or almost eternal–hang on) life in perpetual youth. He lives that long life in what was at that time New Amsterdam, but what become shortly thereafter (once the British took it from the Dutch) New York.
He sees the village evolve into a town, then into a city, then into the greatest city in the western world (if not the world itself), which is why it was attacked six and a half years ago by those to whom the western world is an anathema to their seventh-century beliefs. But I digress.
He becomes a homicide detective in that great city, and his knowledge of the past is a great aid in solving gotham crimes.
As I said, an interesting premise. I mean, given that CSI, Wherever, is one of the biggest hits on network television, how could any producer turn it down?
But there’s a (supposedly) dark undercurrent to the story.
His eternal life is not viewed, by the story writers or himself, as a blessing. It is apparently a curse. He cannot end his life volitionally. The only way to put an end to this (apparent, and obvious, at least to the script writers) misery of endless youth and health is to find his true love.
Then he can die.
Just how perverse is that?
Let’s parse it.
OK, so you’ve “suffered” through four centuries of youthful life, in perpetual health, in a world in which your chances of dying are nil, and you apparently don’t even suffer any pain, though this is a world in which even dentistry is barbaric for at least the first three hundred years. And now, after having seen a little village purchased with beads on a little island at the mouth of a river, you’ve watched it become the most powerful city on the planet, you want to check out?
You’re in the early twenty-first century, about to enter a world in which many may join you in your longevity, though without the “burden” if having to find their true love to end it.
Well, both boo, and hoo.
Here’s the thing that makes this science fiction (or rather, speculative fiction).
In the real world, people who are offered the gift of living forever will also have the capability of ending that endless life, barring some sadistic fascist government that (like some perceptions of God) thinks that the individuals are the property of the state, and not of themselves. If they really get tired of life, they will check out, either legally and easily, or illegally and in a more difficult manner. But the will to die, if it is strong enough, will win out.
So to me, the real suspension of disbelief in this new series is not that a man could live for four hundred years, but rather, that he would have to live that long in misery.
Thus, it is more of a morality tale, based on unrealistic premises, than one based on anything resembling the true future.
I hope that no one decides that long life is a bad thing, and more importantly, that no one thinks that it is something that no one should have, based on this foolish, deathist premise.
What’s The Point?
Sarah Pullman is very unhappy with Facebook’s privacy policy.
OK, I got a Facebook account last fall, at the urging of several people, who told me that I simply had to have one (though they could never actually explain why). I’ve yet to figure it out myself. I’ve gotten no discernible benefit from it (of course, I haven’t invested much time in it, either). Can anyone explain to me what the big deal is, and what I’m missing out on if I don’t have an account, or don’t use the one I have?
[Update late morning]
While we’re on the subject, here’s an article on which is better for business: Facebook or LinkedIn?
What’s The Point?
Sarah Pullman is very unhappy with Facebook’s privacy policy.
OK, I got a Facebook account last fall, at the urging of several people, who told me that I simply had to have one (though they could never actually explain why). I’ve yet to figure it out myself. I’ve gotten no discernible benefit from it (of course, I haven’t invested much time in it, either). Can anyone explain to me what the big deal is, and what I’m missing out on if I don’t have an account, or don’t use the one I have?
[Update late morning]
While we’re on the subject, here’s an article on which is better for business: Facebook or LinkedIn?
What’s The Point?
Sarah Pullman is very unhappy with Facebook’s privacy policy.
OK, I got a Facebook account last fall, at the urging of several people, who told me that I simply had to have one (though they could never actually explain why). I’ve yet to figure it out myself. I’ve gotten no discernible benefit from it (of course, I haven’t invested much time in it, either). Can anyone explain to me what the big deal is, and what I’m missing out on if I don’t have an account, or don’t use the one I have?
[Update late morning]
While we’re on the subject, here’s an article on which is better for business: Facebook or LinkedIn?
Where Have The Heros Gone?
It’s not a new subject, but Lileks muses on what’s happened to Hollywood (and popular culture in general):
…imagine a story conference for the Beowulf movie: you know, I see modern parallels here – not surprising, given the timelessness of the epic. But the Mead Hall is civilization itself, an outpost constructed against the elements, and Grendel is the raging force that hates the song they sing-
“They hate us for our singing!” Knowing chuckles around the table.
No seriously, he does hate them for their singing. That’s the point.
He hates what they’ve built, what they’ve done, how they live their lives.
“Maybe he has reason. That’s the interesting angle. What drives Grendel?”
Yes, you’re right. You’re absolutely right. No one’s ever taken the side of the demon in the entire history of literature, especially the last 40 years. By all means, let us craft an elaborate backstory for the guy who breaks down the door and chews the heads of the townsfolk, that we may better understand how we came to this point.
Confused
Selena Zito writes that all of the remaining presidential candidates are Scots-Irish.
Really? This is the first I’d heard that Hillary! was of Scots-Irish descent. I’d always assumed that she was from Puritan stock. That’s the way she’s always acted. And Obama is obviously, at best, only half Scots-Irish.
Zito doesn’t seem to quite get the concept, either:
How can there be such scant understanding of a 30 million-strong ethnic group that has produced so many leaders and swung most elections?
Perhaps because political academics and pollsters parse the Scottish half off with the WASP vote and define the Irish-Catholic half as blue-collar Democrats. They are neither.
There is no “Irish-Catholic half” of the Scots-Irish. Scots-Irish aren’t Irish at all. Neither are they Scottish. They were mostly Anglo-Saxon, not Celtic. They were also a violent people with an honor culture, mercenaries from the border area between England and Scotland. As the article notes, they were sent by the English to colonize Ulster, to get them out of Britain after the war between England and Scotland was settled and they had no more need for them. The ones too violent for Ulster were shipped off to America, so they’re a double distillation of the most violent culture that the British Isles produced. After they fought (mostly for the South) in the Civil War, many of them headed out west.
People who think that America is too violent blame it on the proliferation of guns. But they confuse cause and effect. We have a lot of guns because we have a lot of Scots-Irish (aka rednecks). But it comes in pretty handy during war time.