• Meat only once or twice a week, and that only 1/4 lb portions. I split a macadamia crusted mahi mahi fillet a few days ago– when you haven’t had meat in a week, even a few bites tastes AMAZING.
• Eat mostly salads / veggie stews / veggie stirfrys. Cook most food from fresh vegetables.
• Try to not eat anything with: high fructose corn syrup, modified food starch, corn syrup, modified corn product, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, hydrogenates vegetable shortening, etc. This cuts out most junk food, as well as almost any processed food from the grocery store… there’s a few things in the organic isle at Albertson’s or in Whole Foods, but even there you have to watch for them.
• Avoid “hidden” calories from beverages. I mostly drink water or herbal tea (no milk, no sugar). When you feel hungry, drink a glass of water/tea and wait 15 minutes. If you still feel hungry, then eat food. Otherwise, you were just thirsty.
• (something I’m still getting used to) Order smaller portions at restaurants, and split when possible. Don’t get appetizers. Order from the healthy / reduced calorie menu when possible.

Those 5 guidelines, and I feel healthier than I have in years!

I feel like we meandered a bit; not wanting to deal with the philosophical issues raised by comparison of Pirsig to other contemporary thinkers. Nevertheless, it’s kind of neat. Give it a listen sometime!

The underlying problem is, house prices are *way* over-inflated. Inflation-adjusted, they peaked at *double* the historical norm, and all this mess started when they came back down just 10-30% (regional). There is a generation of people who honestly believe that house prices don’t go down, and have made grave mistakes in their personal finances as a result. Nation-wide, house prices above about 3x the median hosehold income aren’t sustainable, and we’re still about 5x (and of course far worse in the housing bubble cities).

While there were certainly a subset of loans that were just bad – forged docs, impossible payments, etc, and that’s what’s causing this month’s crisis, the problem is much deeper. There’s an entire culture now of buying a house with a mortgage payment of 80%+ of your take-home pay, counting on cashing out equity every year because “house prices only go up”. This isn’t a problem the government can fix.

Sure, the governement needed to intervene to avoid a market panic, but really it just needed to “make a market” in these mortgage-backed securities, to allow them to trade at a value not absurdly depressed by that panic. That’s not a $700B bailout, that’s just splitting the difference between buyer and seller.

Long term, however, house prices are certain to fall back to sustainable levels, and anyone thinking “we just need to put this problem behind us so house prices can start rising again” is in a dream world. The governement isn’t going to solve that problem, and shouldn’t try. Do the minimum to stop the panic, and get out.
-lgw

What do you all think?

I mean, heck, let’s look at all the things I usually only do once a week: see friends, play RPGs, do laundry, go shopping, sleep in late, go out to dinner, think about my finances, play with pets, and more.

In many ways, my life apart from work is measured by a weekly yardstick.

Lots of daunting things seem less daunting– and some seem much more daunting, when weighed on the “once a week” average of my life. A short list of upcoming stuff:

• My wedding? Over 50 weeks away, plenty of time to plan.
• My deadline for my next grant/paper: Only 6 or 7 weeks. Ugh.
• How long till a friend moves away: Only 8 weeks or so. Yikes!
• How long until even more friends move away: less than 30 weeks. Wow. Less than 30 chances to see them again.
• How long till Teisha graduates: Probably 200 weeks or so, which means I need to find a job around here for 100 weeks or so. Not too bad.
• How long since I last got new shirts (which I need): 16 weeks. Guess I should go shopping…
• How long since I’ve last written more than a few pages of something for fun: At least 100 weeks, which is too long.

So yeah, the weeks pass quickly. But maybe with that in mind, I can try to stay more motivated to use the time I have productively and enjoyably. And the best way to do that? Probably more exercise– I’ve always felt that regular exercise raises your energy level in life, and I’m out of practice.

Has anyone else been thinking about time a lot lately?

In my mind, I’d say that there are some subjects so core that I can’t imagine calling something an “education” if it lacked them: reading/writing, basic math (simple 2x = 23, solve for x level algebra, at the very least), world history, some review courses of the social sciences (politics, psychology, etc), and some basic science (a little general chemistry/biology/physics, not even calculus; with an understanding of the scientific method). If you learned just that much, I’d say you should at least pass high school.

But what would I add on top next, to create a good, general education? Firstly, something that is usually a rare elective would be front and center– I think everyone going further into academia than high school should be required to take a class on Logic. I couldn’t take symbolic logic until I was a junior in college, and it would have helped so much in so many classes. Secondly, learn some calculus– it’s math that will help you understand trends, patterns, and ideas in fields from physics to economics to sociology. I also agree that foreign language requirements make sense. And, as I started this thought with- I think, these days, that a programming class (not a typing class or a “play with hypercard” class– a basic introduction to something like javascript and C++) should be in the bare minimum undergraduate college curriculum. I’d also add that a class in Ethics might be a good idea, but I’m not sure that will ever fly. Add on more stringent writing classes, some more broad review classes in the hard and soft sciences, and you’ve got a generally useful base to serve as a foundation for a degree (and the attendant specialized classes it requires).

But that’s just my feelings. I actually think about these issues a lot, since I want to be an educator when I “grow up”. Even at the level of a single class, it’s important to ask yourself “what is the bare minimum that the students must know for me to feel like I’ve taught them?” You can’t set the bar too high– you’ll cover a lot more, and some students will learn everything you throw at them and more (and should be encouraged through private discussions, extra opportunities, etc), but having a good sense of the baseline, the minimum helps me know what to reinforce, time and time again.

How would you change school curricula, if you could?

Even though they somehow manufactured that statement and went with it, it’s still blatantly false. If they used their “right” to refuse service to, say, all black people who came in to the cafe… Well, I don’t think that policy would fly for very long. Guess they aren’t right about their right. I recall some similar thoughts on signs in the Illuminatus trilogy, I may have to pull it out tonight and re-read.

No real story here, other than a mildly interesting article and my obsessive-compulsive nature.

Now, either I’m a textbook example of a piss-poor graduate student, or the author is an elitist crazy and I’m sane. Read on to see snippets of her “advice”, and my incredulity and disbelief.

Her article starts out with these inspiring words: “Those who stick with a career in science do so because, despite the relatively poor pay, long hours, and lack of security, it is all we want to do.”
Right off the bat, I’m out– It’s not ‘all I want to do’. I want to write, explore, play, vacation, and teach. Hell, if I could somehow bypass graduate school and go straight to instructor, I would probably jump for it.

After these inspiring words, she continues to a bullet-point list sparkling with such amazing jewels as:
“Work hard– long days all week and part of most weekends. If research is your passion this should be easy, and if it isn’t, you are probably in the wrong field.”
and it’s continuation (which I find vaguely repulsive): “Note who goes home with a full briefcase to work on at the end of the day. This is a cause of success, not a consequence.” I’m sorry, but if ‘success’ is so narrowly defined that leading a rich and fulfilling life in addition to performing an honest day’s work is failure, then I don’t want to succeed.

To her credit, she then lists some good advice, such as proper lab-book keeping and careful planning, and stresses the importance of creativity and writing skills. But she caps it off with a parting shot which I believe she meant in good cheer, but which I again find vaguely insulting: “To be successful you must be at least four of the following: smart, motivated, creative, hard-working, skillful, and lucky. You can’t depend on luck, so you had better focus on the others!”

I may be biased because I suppose I am a little bitter about graduate studies at this point… but damn. Is it so wrong to want a life outside of work?