bearing blog

bearing blog


bear – ing n 1  the manner in which one comports oneself;  2  the act, power, or time of bringing forth offspring or fruit; 3 a machine part in which another part turns [a journal ~];  4  pl comprehension of one’s position, environment, or situation;   5  the act of moving while supporting the weight of something [the ~ of the cross].

  • Mental games for a crowd.

    Over at xkcd, the game "Ghost" has been solved… but the real treasure is the comment thread:

    It’s satisfying to have the tree, but my brother is sad because I ruined our game. Wikipedia suggests a few variants on Ghost. Can anyone suggest any other replacement games playable by voice and memory only?

    209 responses and counting.  Some of the games I know already.  I want to try Contact. Also Biverbal Showdown, although I would probably lose because everybody in my social circle knows some word combos that make me laugh for no reason.

    ADDED:  Also Goths.  "At this point the game could either go to buckwheats, swashbuckled, or swashbuckling, so by saying T or D player 1 can lock the word onto one of the first two and guarantee a win."

    ADDED.  For some reason, the comment thread appears to be heavily populated with current or former high-school quiz-bowl or debate team members.  I can’t imagine why this would be.

    —

    |

    1 comment on Mental games for a crowd.

  • Diapering days may be coming to an end…

    "How old is she?" asked the other toddler’s dad, peering in at MJ through the open door of the bathroom just off the music-class studio.  MJ was perched backwards on the toilet, straddling it, and staring intently down into the water, watching.

    "Not quite eighteen months."

    "You," said the dad, "are one of those parents I hate."

    "It was her idea!" I protested.  "If it were up to me, I would have waited for warmer weather!" 

    Mary Jane is the second of my babies to become suddenly interested in toileting, all at once.  She wanted to sit on the toilet last week.  It became supremely important that we keep the bathroom doors closed 24-7, as she’s not very sure-footed and has fallen in a few times — I’m afraid she’ll go in head first!    Fortunately I managed to convince her that a potty is just as good a place to sit, even if it is a bit less tidy.

    The first hurdle has been passed:  if she is allowed to run around the house naked, she will run to a potty when she needs to go.  (The only exception is if she happens to be standing on a stepstool or sitting on a kitchen chair.  It seems the effort of climbing down without falling is too much for her to manage with a full bladder.   Puddles have ensued.)

    The second hurdle has been passed:  if she is placed on a toilet, even an unfamiliar one, she will try to eliminate, and often does.  The key here is to put her on backwards (facing the lid).  She’s still pretty little and her bottom falls in, but if she’s facing backward she can grab onto the back of the seat and keep her balance well.   

    The third hurdle has been passed:  She has found a way to tell me "I need to go."  She pronounces it "POE-ee."    She likes sign, too, and a few times she has made the sign for "wet" (which she knows from Signing Time, I guess, because I’ve never really used it with her much — or maybe the boys taught her?)  She used to make it only after she wet her diaper, but it’s starting to precede the wetting by enough time to serve as a warning.

    Hurdle number four is in progress:  At home, getting her to wear underwear, taking it off when (and only when) she needs to eliminate.  She was very happy to get a dozen pairs of panties, and spent a whole day changing from pink ones to blue ones to yellow ones for no apparent reason other than the variety.  There was a bit of a backfire when she refused to wear any other clothes, apparently because they impeded her view of the lovely new panties.  Several days later she was refusing to put them on at all.  She still seems to have mixed feelings about wearing them.

    I’m still diapering her when we go out.  If it were spring, it’d be a lot easier, but it’s freaking cold out there right now, and it is too much trouble (a) to remove layers and layers of clothing quickly when she communicates a need to go and (b) to deal with a wetting that soaks through several layers of clothes including the snowsuit.

    No real reason to bring this up other than a snapshot of life today.

    —

    |

    1 comment on Diapering days may be coming to an end…

  • Head of state.

    Recently, David Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy noted:

    Like France, but unlike the Ireland or the United Kingdom, the United States combines the job of Head of State and Head of Government into a single person.

    …and then went on to praise Barack Obama as a potential Head of State, without taking a position on his fitness as Head of Government. 

    It’s an important distinction, and one that I wish more people would make, because a lot of Americans appear to be thoroughly confused by the concept that "head of state" and "head of government" are distinct roles (as evidenced by the comments in the thread that followed, e.g., by "Titus Pullo,"  "I find it hard to believe that a poster on this website would get all weak in the knees for Obama. What about principles? Do they mean anything?"  Well, duh, that goes into the "head of government" category.   (Here’s Wikipedia on "Head of State.")

    I find it more useful to categorize presidents and potential presidents according to three more-or-less independent sets of criteria:

    1. fitness as "head of state" 
    2. competence as "head of government"
    3. morality, justness, and efficacy of policies

    "Fitness as head of state" includes such criteria as character, charisma, communication/speechmaking ability, and "embodiment of national values" as Wikipedia puts it; it is important both for the president’s ability to lead the nation and for the president’s ability to represent the nation to others.  "Competence as head of government" includes criteria such as ability to get bipartisan support, ability to work with people critical of the administration, ability to choose wise advisors and other appointees, experience in the executive position, things like that.  "Morality, justness, and efficacy of policies" is, I think, self-explanatory.

    I believe policy to be the most important, followed by governmental competence, followed by fitness as head of state.  I think there’s room to disagree about this ranking, especially the latter two; I’m open to arguments that the fulfillment of the symbolic role of the head of state is more deeply and permanently influential than the fulfillment of the executive role as head of government.  And then there’s the argument that you want a good executive if and only if the policies are good, and you want an incompetent executive if the policies are bad (so they’re less likely to succeed).  I’m not sure I agree on principle, but in terms of realpolitik there’s certainly something to that.

    (Policy being the most important is often what makes it tricky to decide between two candidates, because it’s almost guaranteed that Candidate X is superior on some of the issues and Candidate Y is superior on others.  Candidates are much more easily ranked according to their probable fitness as head of state, which is why — I think — so many people make their decision based on an emotional response.  Head of state is largely defined by emotional response.  I reject the easy decision as the right way to decide.)

    My position on GWB is that he’s proven a poor head of state and a marginal-to-poor head of government.   As for policies?  Overall I’d say "tolerable, and probably more tolerable than what we’d have seen under Gore or Kerry."  Some good, or at least good considering the constraints.  Some, very bad.   Feel free to disagree in the comments.  I know there are still some people around who think he’s been a fantastic head of state, and likewise some people around who won’t concede he’s accomplished anything that isn’t totally poisoned. 

    Because it’s the easy part, here are my impressions on the head of state job alone, and remember this is independent of policy and executive competence:

    Among the Democrats: 

    Mr. Obama — I think he’d make an excellent head of state.  Said to be a good and charismatic speechmaker, likable, probably well accepted by other nations as a representative of the U.S.  As a symbol that the U. S. has moved past most of its interracial hatred, very important, perhaps even more important to other nations than to us.   

    Mrs. Clinton — She’d be a terrible head of state, in some ways not directly through her own fault.  Half the country has an emotional reaction to her that is little short of revulsion, much as (mostly the other) half of the country as a similar reaction to GWB now.  Whether that’s rational or not, it makes her a bad symbol of the country, unless you think divisiveness is an essential characteristic of the U. S., which I suppose is an arguable point.   And then there’s the Dynasty Problem, which we already have in spades thanks to the two Bushes.  We do not want to be a country that appears to pass political power around in dynasties.   And even if you think it would be wonderfully symbolic to have a woman president right now — is this really the First-Woman-President symbol we want?  She’s heavily laden with Bill-baggage of all kinds.

    Among the Republicans who are still viable:

    Mr. McCain — Unpredictable, fitting for someone who’s constantly described as a "maverick." He might turn out an excellent HOS.  He’s not a very good symbol of the Republican Party (lots of division there) but has a track record of getting bipartisan support for stuff, which (though it technically falls under the "competency" heading) means that he has at least grudging respect from both Democrats and Republicans (though not the extreme end of either wing), and you know what?  after all the hating inspired by Presidents Clinton and Bush, a little "grudging respect" would be a step up.    On the other hand, he risks getting everyone to hate him for the same reason.  His former POW status will play into his emotional acceptance when it comes to armed conflicts.  I’m not exactly sure how, though.   A big question mark.

    Mr. Romney — Um, he just looks like an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, smooth politician to me.  Smoothness works in your favor for head of state-ness, as long as it doesn’t cross the line into a perception of "slick."  He’d probably be a decent HOS:  no surprises, just sort of ordinary presidential-ness.  Nothing really special, controversial, or inspiring either.  Just your basic POTUS.  (ADDED:  And he has the squarest website, too.  Scare quotes around "BLOG?")

    —

    |

    No comments on Head of state.

  • Simcha deconstructs Thomas Kinkade.

    Go Simcha!  Don’t apologize.

    —

    |

    No comments on Simcha deconstructs Thomas Kinkade.

  • Death, in the family.

    It’s changing, because "family" is changing.  A powerful article from Elizabeth Marquardt, author of Between Two Worlds.  Much of what she writes about is very familiar to me, and this is an example.

    —

    |

    No comments on Death, in the family.

  • Punk?

    In praise of the minivan:

    The other day, I posed a question to a few of my co-workers–if you needed the people- and cargo-carrying capacity of a large vehicle, would you really penalize yourself by selecting something less useful than a minivan just to save your ego? And if that’s true, just how sad is that? How much are we letting what others think dictate a fundamental part of our everyday lives? A surprising number said they would never drive a minivan, no matter what.

    Popular culture is so anti-minivan today that driving one is so counter-culture, so in the face of popular biases, so keeping-it-real, that it’s almost punk rock. In a utilitarian way, anyway.

    I’ve driven a Toyota Sienna for a bit more than a year.  It’s fantastic to drive.  It seats eight.  Pretty good mileage.  And it can haul 4×8 sheet goods.

    (In the comments in the above thread: 

    I feel sorry for you. Keep trying to fool yourself. You’re married with 2.5 kids, but you’re still cool! Really! F’n boomers.

    "Boomers?"  The boomers are retirees now, dude.) 

    —

    |

    5 comments on Punk?

  • IRL.

    One of the most fun, and unexpected, benefits of throwing the blog out there has been the chance to meet other bloggers.  "C.J." of the blog Light and Momentary contacted me last week to let me know that she and her husband were making an out-of-town overnight trip to St. Paul, and did I want to meet up with them?

    My first thought was — you’re taking your first out-of-town overnight trip together in years, and you want to spend some of it with me?  But my second thought was Sure!  so after some text messaging back and forth (it’s no fun to call someone whose voice you’ve never heard before as you lead up to meeting in real life) we arranged to meet at Mickey’s Diner in downtown St. Paul. 

    (Bonus!  I got to go to Mickey’s Diner.  Without the impetus of an out-of-town guest I probably would never have gotten around to it.  My review:  it’s fun and has tasty burgers, but Al’s Breakfast in the Dinkytown area of Minneapolis probably has it beat for authentic greasy spoon atmosphere).

    Well, it was really lovely to sit and chat for a while, and to meet "Elwood" too.  (Happy 40th birthday, Elwood!  Thanks for being willing to spend it with strangers that your wife knows from the Internets!)  I got to find out why her family’s pseudonym is Most-Gladly and why the blog is called Light and Momentary.  She got to find out that I never bother to read "about" pages.  (Doggone it!  Now I want to know about early fatty acid intake on neurodevelopment too!  And it’s too late to ask!)

    Light and Momentary is here.  Check it out.

    —

    |

    1 comment on IRL.

  • More complicated than a food pyramid.

    Megan McArdle is blogging about   food   stamps.  I was interested to find out from one of her posts that the government publishes a "thrifty food plan" — a "nutritious, minimal-cost diet" — as well as food plans at three higher cost levels  ("low," "moderate," and "liberal") and also publishes the monthly cost of food on each plan.    This is the government’s suggestion of how to live healthfully on a tight food budget.

    The "thrifty" plan, supposedly, costs an average of $487.90 per month (as of December 2007) to feed a couple with two small children.  You can calculate it for individual familes — the monthly and weekly cost is broken down for individuals of different ages here.  (An adult female can be fed, it says, for $33.30 per week.   A teenage boy, for $34.40.)  The plans themselves are given as "market baskets," that is, pounds per week of certain categories of foods:  in each week, an adult male is supposed to consume 2.82 pounds of whole grain breads, 0.08 pounds of whole grain cereals, 1.66 pounds of non-whole-grain cereals and breads, 1.24 pounds of dark green vegetables, and so on.   To see the market baskets in the thrifty food plan, go to this pdf file and scroll to Table ES-1, which begins on page 11.

    It’s kind of interesting just to compare our family’s food expenditures (which I don’t track carefully — I just have a general idea of how much we spend at the grocery store and local dairy each week, and I don’t know yet how long the quarter-beef and half-hog we got this year are going to last, and I admit to not paying any attention at all to restaurant/coffee shop spending) to that cost.  And to compare our family’s food variety (which I do have a good idea of, since I plan all the meals) to the government’s suggestions of how to plan a "nutritious, minimal-cost" diet.   Actually, it doesn’t look like a bad nutritional plan overall, considering the cost constraints.  I wish they had a category for pregnant and/or nursing women, though.

    —

    |

    No comments on More complicated than a food pyramid.

  • Book suggestion thread at the Volokh Conspiracy.

    Readers at the VC are answering a bleg for suggestions:  libertarian-themed fiction for 12-year-olds.  Suggestions vary widely:  George Orwell, Kafka, Heinlein, the Harry Potter series, Orson Scott Card, Madeline L’Engle, Neil Gaiman… and numerous more authors that I’m unfamiliar with.   

    There’s a lively debate about the age-appropriateness and interest level of the various books.  I liked this comment from "Gadzookie" (paragraph breaks and some formatting added):

    What puzzles me about this discussion is the absence of any real thought as to

        (a) not turning the girl off to reading in general (Howard’s End at 12?!?!) or

        (b) what kind of person you actually want to teach her to be. ….

    [I]t seems to me that giving her books telling her that the only way to be happy is to leave behind the droves of commonfolk ([Ayn] Rand), or that you should live a life of spoiled decadence (Stranger in a Strange Land), or that the government is going to make rats eat off your face (1984) is somewhat ill-advised.

    The virtue of Wrinkle in Time or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is that they aren’t so endlessly negative about the possibilities for happiness in the world we have.

    Check it out if you like book discussion threads.

    Personally, I can’t stand Heinlein either.  Even though I disagree strongly with her attitude, I think Ayn Rand’s books are valuable as a part of the political-fiction canon, but at the late high school level, not for 12-year-olds.  I was about 12 when I read 1984, and even with the face-eating rats, I loved it.   A Wrinkle in Time  seems more like a book for a ten-year-old to me.

    —

    |

    1 comment on Book suggestion thread at the Volokh Conspiracy.

  • Sacramental Prep.

    I wrote a couple of weeks ago about Oscar’s impending first Confession. Well, it’s all over now.  Margaret in Minnesota’s daughter "Cate" was in his class at our parish.  She writes about the program here.  She captured Oscar in a photo of kids waiting in line for the confessional; in the photo at the bottom, he’s the kid in the middle in the blue shirt.

    (In other words, I’m letting her blog for me.  Busy day!)

    —

    |

    1 comment on Sacramental Prep.

  • Everybody does it.

    Dr. Helen starts off by critiquing an advice columnist’s response to a find-a-lost-wallet-full-of-money problem, and winds up inspiring an intriguing comment thread.

    Fascinating because several commenters defend the idea of keeping found money, even if the owner’s identifiable.  Direct quote: 

    it’s hilarious what people will pretend, even behind the anonimity of comment boxes.

    I am way more honest for admitting what I would do with a found wallet – not a stolen wallet but a lost wallet – than all these people here pretending to be pure.

    I suppose this comes from having a moral calculus that goes like this:

        1.  I am a decent, ordinary person, certainly no worse than anyone else

        2.  If I found somebody’s money and could get away with it, I’d keep it

        3.  It must be true that anybody else would do the same.

    Interesting.   Commenter Rich Rostrom points out:

    Personnel managers have discovered the easiest way to find potential thief/employees: ask them if they have stolen from a previous employer. Most thieves believe "everybody does it", and that claiming otherwise is obvious hypocrisy. So they confess to minor thefts, expecting a favorable response to this "honesty".

    If a potential spouse says, of theft, or other serious offense, "everybody does it" – red flag time!

    Job interviews are full of unhelpful-sounding questions like "Describe the worst mistake you ever made and how you recovered from it."  Basically decent people have trouble coming up with appropriate answers.  I think that these questions are designed to weed out people with severe problems.  There’s a pretty wide gulf between "Ummmm… I guess it would be the time I made a clerical error that cost our company a few thousand dollars in fines" and "That’s an interesting question.  I would say it was when I violated that protection order that my last boss filed against me."

    —

    |

    1 comment on Everybody does it.

  • Thanks, Sis.

    Sister Mary Martha answers the perennial noisy-children-at-Mass question.  I think she’s on our side.

    Of course, you have to do your part to discipline and keep your children quiet and respectful. I know you are doing that. And if the child is wailing or blabbering he has to go.

    Other than that, Jesus commanded the rest of us to suffer having them around. Or suffer while having them around.

    The acknowledgment  I know you are doing that makes all the difference.  Read the whole thing.

    —

    |

    No comments on Thanks, Sis.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

…more to come later