Thursday, June 3, 2010
New Job: Week 4
This is week four on the new job. You will not see updates for weeks two and three. The new job is going well. I'm learning a lot, but I won't be fully trained and allowed to fly solo until July. Everyone in my department is very nice. It's mostly women, which is more than acceptable. Since I am one of the few men in the department, it seems as though the nice women are even nicer to me. A group of women who have lunch together everyday adopted me as part of their lunch group. The guys that work there are pretty good to talk to, too. My two immediate supervisors are both Michigan and Detroit Tigers fans, so I always have a topic to talk to them about. The only drawback is that Alex Yu works there. No, that is a lie. I just want to see if the blog will show up on a google search under his name. Alex is the friend that helped get me this job. The only drawback thus far is the fact that I have definitely been lazier outside of work since I began. My trips to the Y and the library are way down, while my caloric intake and lust for more music remain the same. Of course, this is my fault for being lazy, but I can still blame it on the new job. Overall, I would say that everything is going great. I even joined the company softball team and I haven't played a bat and ball game in years.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Days of the week: Spanish vs English, and the Saturday corollary
While walking down the street the other day I had a random thought about the days of the week. In Spanish, days of the week are recited beginning with Monday and ends with Sunday, so it is as follows: lunes, martes, miércoles, jueves, viernes, sabado, y domingo. In English, when recited, the week starts with Sunday and ends with Saturday. I will not type all of the days out because you probably speak English. This led me to wonder why this was the case, but I have not been able to find anything regarding this discrepancy in order.
Although I found nothing concrete about my question, a few things are fairly obvious after a cursory glance, Saturday and Sunday are troublesome. In English, the week begins with Sunday and ends with Saturday, which is the Sabbath day in Judaism. Interestingly, Saturday is sabado in Spanish. Sabbath in Spanish is sabat or Sábado (capitalized and with the accent), which allows us to make the easy connection to the Hebrew Shabbat. Spanish celebrates God, while English honors Saturn, the Roman god. Then again, English also puts Saturday at the end of the week as the seventh day. In Spanish, the week ends on Sunday or domingo, whose Latin origins mean the "Day of God." Overall, I think these differences exist because English language and customs were more influenced by Scandinavian and Germanic societies than by their southern European based counterpart Romantic societies. The northern Europeans took longer to convert to Christianity thus leaving the subtle pagan influences more firmly entrenched.
Although I found nothing concrete about my question, a few things are fairly obvious after a cursory glance, Saturday and Sunday are troublesome. In English, the week begins with Sunday and ends with Saturday, which is the Sabbath day in Judaism. Interestingly, Saturday is sabado in Spanish. Sabbath in Spanish is sabat or Sábado (capitalized and with the accent), which allows us to make the easy connection to the Hebrew Shabbat. Spanish celebrates God, while English honors Saturn, the Roman god. Then again, English also puts Saturday at the end of the week as the seventh day. In Spanish, the week ends on Sunday or domingo, whose Latin origins mean the "Day of God." Overall, I think these differences exist because English language and customs were more influenced by Scandinavian and Germanic societies than by their southern European based counterpart Romantic societies. The northern Europeans took longer to convert to Christianity thus leaving the subtle pagan influences more firmly entrenched.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Michigan Smoking Ban
The smoke curtain lifted from bars and restaurants in Michigan earlier this month. This is cause for celebration. No longer will people avoid certain bars, even bars they like, to prevent their clothes from stinking of smoke. After all, clean and fresh smelling clothing is very important, more so even than clean lungs. In all earnestness, I do appreciate not coughing after a rude person has blown smoke in my face. So, we have non-smokers and hypocritical smokers rewarded for their years of patience and tolerance, but what about the smokers that want to keep smoking while being protected from the elements? They are literally left out in the cold and have to maintain a certain distance from entrances of bars and restaurants when they want to smoke. Smokers cannot even smoke on the patio at these establishments. I think that something should be done for these ostracized people.
Now, it sounds like I am sympathizing with smokers and disagree with the smoking ban, but in actuality, I could not be happier about the ban. I am a non-smoker that hates smelling like smoke, that hates kissing girls that taste of smoke, and hates breathing in smoke at the many poorly ventilated bars that exist in this proud state. No one truly likes having to sift through the heavy smoke-filled air at bars if they do not volunteer for that mission. My issue is not with concept of protecting people from second hand smoke at bars, but with the distortion of the fine line between regulation and personal choice. I think that the legislation that passed last year could have been more accommodating to the smoking population. My compromise will be presented later, but I want to first bring forth background information that will explain my thinking.
Under the previous arrangement, a bar or restaurant could choose to either allow smoking or ban smoking. Most bars were afraid of banning smoking due to the potential loss of customers, so they remained smoking bars. This was a ridiculous assertion by bar owners, especially since according to the CDC only about 20% of American adults smoke. If you are a bar owner, to which portion of the population would you rather cater? Hopefully, you decide on the much larger portion of the population. I will even admit that smokers are more likely to frequent bars. Let's make the ludicrous assumption that 90% of smokers go to bars versus only 25% of non-smokers. These very extreme assumptions lead to 20% (1/4 of 80%) of non-smoking, American adults frequenting bars compared to only 18% (9/10 of 20%) of smoking, American adults. The numbers have changed considerably, yet the non-smoking population still maintains a slight majority. This is significant for three reasons: first, majority still plainly favors non-smokers; second, the potential of capturing even a small segment of the non-smoking, non-bar going population is too lucrative to ignore; and third, under my assumed data, the percentage of smokers going to bars is not far off from non-smokers.
Although, it may be unhealthy for all and unappealing for most, allowing smoking has not ceased to be profitable. Additionally, the smoking sanctions demonize smoking. It seems a little unfair to automatically assume that one is a bad person for smoking. Heart disease, some cases of Type-II diabetes, and their ilk are terrible afflictions that affect millions of Americans; however, nobody is looking down his nose at a coworker for bringing a dozen doughnuts to work. Actually, the reactions are quite the opposite with the culprit receiving smiles and thanks rather than disapproving looks.
This has been somewhat long winded, but I have finally come to my proposed solution. I think most people are aware that bars require liquor licenses to serve liquor. The licenses are expensive and highly sought after because only a limited number (scarcity is dependent on local governing body) are available at any one time. My proposal is to borrow an idea from the other major vice in our society and institute smoking licenses. The cost for a smoking license definitely cannot be greater than that of a liquor license due to tangible revenue from liquor sales, but these new licenses will not be cheap. They can be limited based on population, say one license per 25,000 people. This means that Ann Arbor would have about five smoking licenses. To avoid certain establishments wanting a license from receiving preferential treatment, a lottery could be held for all of the interested bars/restaurants. This is more fair than an auction because the wealthier bar owners will not be able to simply outbid for the rights and the possibility of corruption becomes greatly diminished.
My proposal will not assuage the people that want to eradicate smoking, nor will it satisfy the people who want to smoke everywhere. What my proposal accomplishes is allowing smokers a little corner to call their own, while exponentially increasing the amount of clean, healthy air at bars and restaurants. The added indirect bonus is that local governments receive additional revenue which allows them to possibly maintain a few other people employed, such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters. According to Michael Scott and me, my scenario is a win-win-win situation.
Now, it sounds like I am sympathizing with smokers and disagree with the smoking ban, but in actuality, I could not be happier about the ban. I am a non-smoker that hates smelling like smoke, that hates kissing girls that taste of smoke, and hates breathing in smoke at the many poorly ventilated bars that exist in this proud state. No one truly likes having to sift through the heavy smoke-filled air at bars if they do not volunteer for that mission. My issue is not with concept of protecting people from second hand smoke at bars, but with the distortion of the fine line between regulation and personal choice. I think that the legislation that passed last year could have been more accommodating to the smoking population. My compromise will be presented later, but I want to first bring forth background information that will explain my thinking.
Under the previous arrangement, a bar or restaurant could choose to either allow smoking or ban smoking. Most bars were afraid of banning smoking due to the potential loss of customers, so they remained smoking bars. This was a ridiculous assertion by bar owners, especially since according to the CDC only about 20% of American adults smoke. If you are a bar owner, to which portion of the population would you rather cater? Hopefully, you decide on the much larger portion of the population. I will even admit that smokers are more likely to frequent bars. Let's make the ludicrous assumption that 90% of smokers go to bars versus only 25% of non-smokers. These very extreme assumptions lead to 20% (1/4 of 80%) of non-smoking, American adults frequenting bars compared to only 18% (9/10 of 20%) of smoking, American adults. The numbers have changed considerably, yet the non-smoking population still maintains a slight majority. This is significant for three reasons: first, majority still plainly favors non-smokers; second, the potential of capturing even a small segment of the non-smoking, non-bar going population is too lucrative to ignore; and third, under my assumed data, the percentage of smokers going to bars is not far off from non-smokers.
Although, it may be unhealthy for all and unappealing for most, allowing smoking has not ceased to be profitable. Additionally, the smoking sanctions demonize smoking. It seems a little unfair to automatically assume that one is a bad person for smoking. Heart disease, some cases of Type-II diabetes, and their ilk are terrible afflictions that affect millions of Americans; however, nobody is looking down his nose at a coworker for bringing a dozen doughnuts to work. Actually, the reactions are quite the opposite with the culprit receiving smiles and thanks rather than disapproving looks.
This has been somewhat long winded, but I have finally come to my proposed solution. I think most people are aware that bars require liquor licenses to serve liquor. The licenses are expensive and highly sought after because only a limited number (scarcity is dependent on local governing body) are available at any one time. My proposal is to borrow an idea from the other major vice in our society and institute smoking licenses. The cost for a smoking license definitely cannot be greater than that of a liquor license due to tangible revenue from liquor sales, but these new licenses will not be cheap. They can be limited based on population, say one license per 25,000 people. This means that Ann Arbor would have about five smoking licenses. To avoid certain establishments wanting a license from receiving preferential treatment, a lottery could be held for all of the interested bars/restaurants. This is more fair than an auction because the wealthier bar owners will not be able to simply outbid for the rights and the possibility of corruption becomes greatly diminished.
My proposal will not assuage the people that want to eradicate smoking, nor will it satisfy the people who want to smoke everywhere. What my proposal accomplishes is allowing smokers a little corner to call their own, while exponentially increasing the amount of clean, healthy air at bars and restaurants. The added indirect bonus is that local governments receive additional revenue which allows them to possibly maintain a few other people employed, such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters. According to Michael Scott and me, my scenario is a win-win-win situation.
Monday, May 10, 2010
New Job
I begin my new job at ProQuest today. The excitement level is far greater than the nervous level. This is new territory for me, business casual and a cubicle, but oddly, I think I'll fit right in. I don't know what I'll be doing exactly, but I will be training for two weeks. I hope the people are nice and I hope for some girls around my age. Maybe I'll find my Pam Beesly (that's how IMDB spells it) and Dwight Schrute. Wish me luck.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Julie Bowen
Exceedingly beautiful. I can't even explain. She is one of those women that keeps on getting better looking the older she gets, yet she was still amazing in the beginning. Modern Family pulled a coup by having Julie Bowen and Sofia Vergara on the same show. I will admit that I thought she was very attractive in Happy Gilmore and on Ed, but once I saw her again on Boston Legal, wow, was it over. Just wow. If she were your friend's mother, then you would go to their house for the sole purpose of talking to her instead of your friend. I wish I could have been Silas in Weeds. If it weren't creepy, I would walk around with her picture in my wallet. Kidding about that last part. I should stop before this spirals into uncomfortable and incriminating territory.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Terrible Thought
I want to preface this post by saying I do not subscribe to the ideology of what I wrote below. It was just a fleeting thought that popped into my head that I have hashed out in the course of writing these paragraphs. Also, if it helps my cause any, I am pro-life, so do not take the following as a reflection of the inner workings of my mind.
The other day I watched an episode of "The Office", the act not being newsworthy. This occurred after reading some things about universal health care. The health care article talked about the possible subpar treatment of the elderly. The episode of "The Office" was "The Fire" from Season 2. It had Michael, with his man-crush on Ryan, asking Ryan to quiz him about business practices. After one of the questions that Michael answered incorrectly, Ryan informs Michael that getting a new client is 10x more costly than keeping an existing client. My mind was still on the health care issue when I heard this.
Thinking as an economist (i.e. no morals or ethics), I wondered what the optimal age was to preserve. By that I mean at what points do you decide that saving someone is more costly than letting them go. It is certainly not a baby because of all the subsequent costs to raise the child. This is not to say that all babies will be done away with because they are investments in the future. The question really lies in the decision of who you would save between two individuals in a cost versus output scenario: a baby or someone of a different age. I think the baby loses this battle, but the age still has to be young, but not too young. Maybe 18 or 24 or 30, I don't know. The 18-34 year old bracket is still young and strong, has already had a good deal of investment, while also having quite a few productive years remaining before the costs outweigh the benefits.
I wonder if there would be a difference in age for men and women due to the longer life span of the average woman and also to the limited reproductive time of a woman compared to a man. For men, The first factor would make the men's age lower just because of the shorter life span, but the second factor might increase it a little since men can produce offspring their whole lives. The first factor probably has greater weight than the second due to the fact that reproduction for men is not as important as output. As for women, I think the opposite is true. You would want to optimize the reproductive years because the menopausal years are only good for nurturing. Short term thinking cannot cloud judgment on long term view. If we went to have good years in the future, then we need the women reproducing. Of course, science and technology can potentially completely change these outlooks.
The other day I watched an episode of "The Office", the act not being newsworthy. This occurred after reading some things about universal health care. The health care article talked about the possible subpar treatment of the elderly. The episode of "The Office" was "The Fire" from Season 2. It had Michael, with his man-crush on Ryan, asking Ryan to quiz him about business practices. After one of the questions that Michael answered incorrectly, Ryan informs Michael that getting a new client is 10x more costly than keeping an existing client. My mind was still on the health care issue when I heard this.
Thinking as an economist (i.e. no morals or ethics), I wondered what the optimal age was to preserve. By that I mean at what points do you decide that saving someone is more costly than letting them go. It is certainly not a baby because of all the subsequent costs to raise the child. This is not to say that all babies will be done away with because they are investments in the future. The question really lies in the decision of who you would save between two individuals in a cost versus output scenario: a baby or someone of a different age. I think the baby loses this battle, but the age still has to be young, but not too young. Maybe 18 or 24 or 30, I don't know. The 18-34 year old bracket is still young and strong, has already had a good deal of investment, while also having quite a few productive years remaining before the costs outweigh the benefits.
I wonder if there would be a difference in age for men and women due to the longer life span of the average woman and also to the limited reproductive time of a woman compared to a man. For men, The first factor would make the men's age lower just because of the shorter life span, but the second factor might increase it a little since men can produce offspring their whole lives. The first factor probably has greater weight than the second due to the fact that reproduction for men is not as important as output. As for women, I think the opposite is true. You would want to optimize the reproductive years because the menopausal years are only good for nurturing. Short term thinking cannot cloud judgment on long term view. If we went to have good years in the future, then we need the women reproducing. Of course, science and technology can potentially completely change these outlooks.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Things I Do Not Like at the YMCA
People sitting at machines and not doing anything
Example: I like to use the Precor Bike on the mezzanine level where the indoor track is because nobody ever uses it and I don't have to sign up for it. Recently, I attempted to use it after lifting; however, this stupid, fat 12 year old kid was just sitting on the seat looking at the wall. He would pedal about one revolution every 30 seconds. His brothers were sitting on the other bike and the Nordic Track that are next to the Precor bike. They were also not doing anything. This should not have been a big deal, but I had a strained MCL and running would delay my recovery. I came to find out that their mom was running on the track and left the machines as babysitters. I was so frustrated with the situation that I left soon after.
The side buttons on the water fountains not working
I don't understand why the side buttons on the water fountains do not work, especially since there are spots to put working buttons on the water fountains. The worst part is that the buttons on the side are fake. Thank you YMCA for tricking me and making me look foolish. The only water fountain in the building with working side buttons is the short one by the chest press machine and hip abduction machine.
The actions of the naked
One of the worst mental images you can ever acquire in your life happens in the men's locker room at the YMCA. It is disturbing to see the old men wandering around naked in the locker room, then lifting up a leg and putting it on a bench in order to facilitate drying their private parts. My horror is increased when the towel is placed under the leg, held from each end, and finally slid back and forth repeatedly. These people then enjoy going to a locker next to you with the sole intent of bending over by you when they put on their underwear. The whole scene is quite a grotesque production. I am so incredibly ecstatic that I was not alive during the time of the public Roman bath houses.
People who sign up for cardio machines and never use them
This is pretty self explanatory. People sign up to use a cardio machine for 45 minutes and never arrive to fulfill the appointment. What is the proper etiquette in this situation? Can I swoop in after the first 15 minute block is over? Do I ask an employee if I can erase the person's name? Honestly, I just want to work out in the least amount of time possible, not figure out how to handle social situations.
People stealing your machine to do sets while you are in between sets
The other day the same person stole my machine three different times. I felt like I was warming up a slot machine at a casino for a lurker. I would move on to a new machine because my sets on the previous machine were interrupted while I was getting a drink at the water fountain. Upon returning to a machine, I would find that I had been evicted. It was a very nomadic experience.
Example: I like to use the Precor Bike on the mezzanine level where the indoor track is because nobody ever uses it and I don't have to sign up for it. Recently, I attempted to use it after lifting; however, this stupid, fat 12 year old kid was just sitting on the seat looking at the wall. He would pedal about one revolution every 30 seconds. His brothers were sitting on the other bike and the Nordic Track that are next to the Precor bike. They were also not doing anything. This should not have been a big deal, but I had a strained MCL and running would delay my recovery. I came to find out that their mom was running on the track and left the machines as babysitters. I was so frustrated with the situation that I left soon after.
The side buttons on the water fountains not working
I don't understand why the side buttons on the water fountains do not work, especially since there are spots to put working buttons on the water fountains. The worst part is that the buttons on the side are fake. Thank you YMCA for tricking me and making me look foolish. The only water fountain in the building with working side buttons is the short one by the chest press machine and hip abduction machine.
The actions of the naked
One of the worst mental images you can ever acquire in your life happens in the men's locker room at the YMCA. It is disturbing to see the old men wandering around naked in the locker room, then lifting up a leg and putting it on a bench in order to facilitate drying their private parts. My horror is increased when the towel is placed under the leg, held from each end, and finally slid back and forth repeatedly. These people then enjoy going to a locker next to you with the sole intent of bending over by you when they put on their underwear. The whole scene is quite a grotesque production. I am so incredibly ecstatic that I was not alive during the time of the public Roman bath houses.
People who sign up for cardio machines and never use them
This is pretty self explanatory. People sign up to use a cardio machine for 45 minutes and never arrive to fulfill the appointment. What is the proper etiquette in this situation? Can I swoop in after the first 15 minute block is over? Do I ask an employee if I can erase the person's name? Honestly, I just want to work out in the least amount of time possible, not figure out how to handle social situations.
People stealing your machine to do sets while you are in between sets
The other day the same person stole my machine three different times. I felt like I was warming up a slot machine at a casino for a lurker. I would move on to a new machine because my sets on the previous machine were interrupted while I was getting a drink at the water fountain. Upon returning to a machine, I would find that I had been evicted. It was a very nomadic experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
