Holier-that-thou Foodies

It's the end of hunting season (actually bow is starting back up) so the "I hate hunting" crowd has surfaced once again. Apparently these people are actually air ferns and can subsist only on the moisture in the air, and emit only life giving oxygen as a byproduct of their respiration. But I'm going to assume that plants don't have facebook (yet).
So here's the quick-and-dirty: meat comes from animals (shocking, I know). For thousands and thousands of years a select group of people in a village (though sometimes an entire village might participate, depending on size and the difficulty of the method) would go out every day to look for animals. Were they curious about the critters around them? Did they all have biology degrees and were cataloging the fauna? No, they were looking for food. And they weren't looking to find out what those critters were eating, these people wanted to eat the critter! Fast forward to animal domestication, then to the more modern era. This is still happening, except we have delineated the boundaries of the habitat and have stocked said habitat with animals that we find useful-- e.g. cows. These cows provide food products (milk) and additional cows. They also provide meat. Getting the meat from the cow requires that the cow no longer be alive.
Those who are anti-hunting but are also munching on a roast beef sandwich are either impossibly ignorant or practiced at the art of self-deception.

Without linking the the article in question (use your Google skills), I will reference Steven Davis' work out of Oregon State U. His stated goal was to determine whether there are more animals killed per acre for plant harvest than are killed every year for human consumption. His initial findings were that approx 0.3 billion animal lives could be spared if Americans only ate meat (chickens account for a whopping 8 billion animal deaths, a logical conclusion would be that eating only cows would result in even fewer animal deaths). His findings were, not surprisingly, controversial and after some modifications to his method, the data showed that vegetarianism was slightly better than all-meat from the "fewest deaths so people can live" perspective.
But here's my point: even for vegetarians, death is required for life. Animals die directly from harvest practices, or die during the relocation after their home has been destroyed. If anyone thinks that the little animals can just move to another area, I encourage you to come out to Pullman to experience a region with farmland as far as the eye can see. Now, when it's harvest time, how far do you think the field mouse needs to go to find another food source? If he survives the machines (which run two, three, or more abreast, with blade systems that are twenty feet long) will he survive the hawk on the phone pole waiting to pounce? If he manages to survive both of those, how long until he starves to death?
The only way to get around it is to join a food co-op in which the vegetables are all organic (no pesticides to chase all of those insects across the highway to die on my windshield before otherwise dying from neurotoxins) and hand picked (no machinery to squash animal dens).
I'm out of time on this one, but hopefully at least one anti-hunter is sitting slightly lower on their perch. All animal life must extinguish other life to continue, and this is most true for humans.

"Why Are You So Negative All the Time?"

I'm not what you'd call a happy person. Frequently I'm accused of being a pessimist, and I respond that I'm simply a realist-- though I have a tendency toward projecting to the outcome of an event, so it looks like pessimism. But why? Because that's how I've been conditioned. I've tried being excited about things. I've tried "positive thinking." And what does it get me- rampant disappointment. Let's take some recent examples:

I was excited to run in the Warrior Dash that took place on July 18. Result: Achilles tendinitis that sidelined me for about 4 days on either side of the race.

I was excited to be running stairs at Greenlake with my friend Jaime, in preparation for said race. Result: my calf muscles spasmed such that I couldn't walk upright for three days.

I've had two job interview sessions that went into third interviews. Result: No offer from either, with one explanation being so bizarre that I'm convinced the exercise was a practical joke.

Grad school. Result: no reasonable funding offers (about 40% from one school on the other side of the country). I was accepted to my undergrad institution, but communication from the department was like pulling teeth, the guy who was supposed to be my advisor could clearly not give a shit less and even with the grad student bump to student loans (bringing it up to $26K a year!) that still would not be enough for me to meet my minimum financial needs. In the end I canceled my enrollment and won't be going. Note: this is one item whose result I could have had an impact on-- if I had paid another $150 to try to raise my GRE scores by taking the test a second time. That said, I got the impression that funding was too scarce and it probably wouldn't have helped anyway.

Degree. Result: about $12000 in debt on top of what I paid for the first section of my undergrad in the late 90s. Bonus- no one gives a shit that you have a bachelor's.

Belt grinder for the shop. Result: what was advertised as taking about 90 minutes took closer to 11 hours becasue of crappy instructions and some overall design issues. Bonus- a project I was working on was damaged when a part of the grinder slipped, and in the process I shaved about 1/8" off the end of my thumb.

Anvil. Result- after wrestling the 400# beast into place, I found that there was a huge sway in the back (anvils are designed to be flat working surfaces), which required that I spend hours grinding and filing to get it into useable shape. Then it turns out that the face had been "repaired" with welding stick sometime in its past, and overall it's softer than I expected. It's also far too big for my shop space, and I've given myself a few charliehorses trying to maneuver around it. Will probably be selling it as it's a disappointment and a hazard.

Motorcycle. A buddy had a Yamaha bike that needed "a little mechanical work" and he gave it to me out of desperation becasue he was moving. Result: the electrical system needed complete overhaul, I could never get it started and I ended up selling it for $100.

Truck. A boy needs a truck, right? Especially a blacksmith boy! A coworker's neighbor was selling his son's truck for $300 (1976 Ford F-150 Camper Special, so it was the F250 chassis with the F150 engine- or something like that). Managed to drive it home, taking a ferry from Kingston to Edmonds, and somehow didn't get killed; the steering coupler was totally gone, so there was a ton of "play" in the steering. Result: The timing was shot, so it took forever to get it to start, and it frequently stalled out no thanks to all of the stop signs and lighted intersections in my town. Insurance was stupidly expensive for it, too (and our adjuster would not let me only insure it on days I was driving it). After nearly $200 in parts and around a dozen hours in labor, I sold it to a neighbor who uses it on occasion.

So there are just a few of the bigger examples. I can't usually get a cup of coffee at Starbucks without at least a little of it spilling on me- I'm not kidding. My wife looked at me a couple weeks ago when I was having a -real- bad time of it and she said (I'm paraphrasing some) "you know, I thought you were just being negative all these years, but honestly, I don't know why you bother getting out of bed some days. It really does seem like nothing you've tried to do in the last several years has worked out in any kind of good way- at best you've broken even." And there you have it. The Constant Contrarian rides again!

More Helpful Career Advice

Saturday night I posted to a message board that I'm active on that I had an interview yesterday. Yesterday afternoon I updated that I did not get the job, and I was (am) kinda bummed about it.

Helpful piece of advice in response:
"Maybe you can keep looking and sending out resumes."

LotR and Star Wars Are EXACTLY the Same!

A fairly common question from the past few years is, "which is better: LotR or Star Wars?" Which got me thinking about them, and I think they're exactly the same:

*Protagonist is an orphan
*Protagonist encounters an elder with a reputation for mischief
*Protagonist  is given an artifact from an ancient age
*Protagonist travels with a small group of companions
*Protagonist travels away from home with companions, first place they stop is a watering hole full of criminal-types
*Protagonist meets adventurer-type with a dangerous reputation at said watering hole
*Protagonist relies on adventurer as a guide
*Protagonist learns from magic-wielding elder during journey
*Part of the journey takes place inside a large, maze-like environment
*Magic-wielding elder is killed during the journey out of said maze, but is still able to interact with the boy during the journey
*Protagonist's party splits, companions are captured by elite enemy forces
*Protagonist has close-encounter with main evildoer
*Protagonist's companions manage escape from enemy forces, cause a distraction that allows...
*Protagonist drops something in a hole that undoes the power of the main evildoer
*Protagonist is permanently scarred by the journey

I'm sure there are even more general similarities, and quite a few differences, but the list of things that come to mind while I'm sitting here without either story available to watch and compare is pretty stunning. Though, I think Joseph Campbell might argue that the above is an outline for many hero stories, so I may just be noticing that the sky is blue for the first time.

Yes, I am Upset with Netflix...

Yes, it will only cost me another $5 a month for my plan--BUT the service kinda sucks and there's not even a nod toward fixing it. If the streaming service wasn't primarily old Steven Seagal movies that I already get on HBO I probably wouldn't be so mad. But the hike is for DVDs you say? Sometimes, by the time I wait for a DVD to be available and shipped to me, I've forgotten why I wanted it in the first place-- probably because of some avant garde piece in Salon touting the cinematic virtues of 1952's 'Watching Grass Grow and Other Tales of Forbidden Romance.' why did I want to watch that again? Oh yeah, Hitchcock directs the corpse of Robert E Lee to an Academy Award nominated performance.... But now I can't seem to care. And there's no promise/guarantee/discussion from Netflix that they have any intention of using the revenue garnered from the DVD plan increases to improve their streaming service, or any service for that matter. I mean seriously- I can get 'AlienS' and fucking the stupid ass theatrical release of 'Blade Runner' but if I want the good shit, like a 5 hour ultimate brain-drain director's floor-sweepings-cut of 'Blade Runner' then I have to wait for that shit on DVD. And they have like one copy in the whole system, so I have a 'very long wait' which means by the time the damned thing shows up I don't feel like I HAVE 5 hours to sit there watching unnecessary camera holds on a fictitious futuristic LA. Will paying another $5 a month mean I get these DVDs faster? Does it mean I won't even have to wait for a DVD?

Dear "Homeless" Guy

What's wrong with this picture:
Clean New Balance shoes.
Crisp jeans, with what appears to be the remnant of a crease.
Hilfiger fleece jacket.
Patriots team-store hat with the hologram under the brim.
Handwritten sign that reads, "anything helps."
<Brrrrraaaaaaap> Oh, there it is. This guy is dressed more expensively than I am (I didn't see his watch) but he's got the stones to stand on the street corner asking for a handout. Nope. You gotta do -something- to get a buck off of me. I don't care if you're sitting there selling shitty sketches of the streetcorner for a dollar. Do something. Play two cords on the guitar. Play the goddamned spoons (maybe you'll get a song written about you). I really don't care, but you're not getting a free dollar.

Medical Insurance is not really "optional"

I don't know why I bothered, but I read the user comments on a blog post the other night. The conversation turned toward healthcare, then medical insurance. One poster said she was paying $650 per month for her and her husband, as they are small business owners and have to provide their own coveage. She hinted that the coverage isn't spectacular, and did say that she was traveling 70 miles to see a dentist who is covered by her plan.
The "fiscal conservatives" chimed in with genius comments such as:
"That's not healthcare rationing! You have healthcare!"
"You don't need insurance! It's a scam! Just save your monthly premiums and pay out of pocket"

Those are the two that reall stuck with me. First, how is this NOT healthcare rationing? There are clearly other dentists available. Only certain dentists will take her insurance, and I'll bet that those who are on plan, but won't see her, won't see her becasue the plan doesn't pay very well and they may already be caring for others on the same plan. This is textbook healthcare rationing.

Second, health insurance is not optional, and the folks who claim it is have never had, or known, anyone with even a minor, chronic medical condition. I believe the surgery related costs for my wife's knee replacement surgery was near $60,000- and that doesn't count the dozens of doctor visits before she got the OK for surgery, nor the horribly-failed orthoscopic knee surgery that put her on the path for a total knee replacement, nor the after care, nor the prescription meds before and after the surgery... So let's just look at that.
My company tells me that their out of pocket for my health plan is about $530 per month, and I believe my wife's is the same (I know it would cost us $550 per month if I were to be covered on her plan, and even then the benefits are reduced). So let's say we take the higher number from above -- $650 -- and put that in savings every month. How long would we have to save to pay for that knee?
$60,000/$650 per month = 93 months (rounding up). 93 months is 7 years 8 months. And that's just for the ONE procedure. So anyone who thinks having medical insurance is optional is some kind of PollyAnna.

Now if they were arguing for a return to a pay-for-service model, with no insurance intervention, and providers charging fees in a competitive marketplace-- then we're talking about a different game. I was talking to a doctor in a clinic that I worked in, and she said she knew a doctor in Colorado a couple decades ago who worked near a ski resort on a cash-only basis. He charged like $30 for a visit, and you were basically seeing him becasue you twisted your knee in a mogul field and needed a Rx for pain meds. He kept no records, had low overhead and a non-recurring patient base. In that scenario it works. But I can't see that working if a poor or low-middle class family has a couple of kids. $30 per visit for two kids is going to add up fast, so now we need to discuss a sliding scale....

I love pat answers from chuckleheads in blog comments.