Oct. 21st, 2005 07:34 am
random update
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heatray5dYesterday on the train home from work I ended up having a very pleasant conversation with a 20 year old English major at Wheaton College. As the conversation developed, it became apparent to me that she was working up the courage to ask me for some sort of contact information. Luckily her courage failed her and she asked only if I took the train often, before wishing me good evening.
It's reasonably flattering, having just turned 30, to have a 20 year old girl hit on me, though I'm not certain if it's weird that such a thing happened on a commuter train. I guess when you go to a small, relatively remote college, you meet people where you can. I suspect, given some of the course of our conversation, that she's a complete wingnut as well.
The situation presented me with an interesting dilemma. Given that I live with my girlfriend - who I do not intend to replace any time soon if I can help it - it would obviously be inappropriate for me to give contact information to someone who clearly intends to use it to pursue some kind of romantic liaison. On the other hand, I take the train every day. I am comfortable on the train. I would like to remain so. So a gracious refusal would have been necessary, as it's more or less inevitable that I'll run into this girl again sometime in the next year and a half (she's a junior).
I've been described as reasonably successful when it comes to dating, but even so I've never been the sort of guy girls hit on. I don't know why. I expect it's either that I'm so incredibly good looking that I automatically come across as unattainable, or that ninety percent of the shit I talk about (zombies, Transformers, hot lava, China's artificial maintenance of its currency, how Alan Greenspan is really the sexiest man alive) confuses and upsets most women. So I've never figured out how to refuse a request for contact information without clumsily muttering something about my girlfriend.
I wish I could vomit on command. That would absolve both of us of any responsibility, and smooth over any deep emotional embarrassment related to a public rejection.
Topic number 2 is the dog. She needs minor surgery and a thorough dental cleaning. These two things can be combined for a bargain veterinary surgery deal, but I still can't afford it and her vet doesn't do payment plans. So I'm at a loss there, but I think I can wait until April, when I get my bonus (and hopefully a raise and promotion).
She's also been having mild freak-outs in the evenings for the last two or three weeks. So far, the herbal calming juices that proved so useless prior to her going on medication have proved effective, but I still worry that whatever anxiety disorder she has is getting bad enough to overwhelm her clomipramine regimen, which is currently at the maximum dosage for a dog her size.
It's possible that what is bothering her is simply the seasonal change. She's seems always to be somewhat uncomfortable with Fall. Perhaps it reminds her of her own mortality.
Topic 3 has been posted elsewhere, but I think livejournal is less of an echo chamber than the mailing list I'm on, so I'll repost my musings here:
In reading a little bit about the Administration's proposals for preparing for the possible outbreak of bird flu or another pandemic, I find myself a bit at sea.
Leaving aside the obvious silliness of using the armed forces to maintain a quarantine, I have a question about the feasibility of the Bush Administration's approach to vaccination - specifically, my understanding is that they are attempting to relax FDA oversight and offer patent protections and tax incentives to companies prepared to produce and distribute the appropriate vaccines.
Now, my understanding of the free market is that it is inherently reactive - meaning that it responds to demand in the face of scarcity. In simple if/then terms: people drive more = they want more gas = the market produces more.
So with the potential of an outbreak, there might be an increased demand for vaccination, but not nearly the increased demand presented by the actual outbreak of a deadly epidemic. It seems to me that without additional incentives or compulsion, vaccine producers would be unwilling to overproduce and stockpile vaccine because that would drive prices down, and keep them down even in the event of an outbreak. And rightly so - the business of business is to make money; profit is not the engine that drives morality, nor is cash the milk of human kindness.
The free market approach would appear to me to encourage the creation of scarcity in order to realize maximum profits in the case of suddenly surging demands. This, in turn, seems to me like a recipe for pretty profound disaster in the case of a widespread outbreak; people tend to be pretty well behaved in emergencies until the things they see as necessities are taken away.
Am I completely wrong about how this is supposed to work? It seems too obvious to me to be right. Can someone with a better understanding of economics than myself please try to explain?
I'm not really looking for criticism of the President. I'm hoping that erudite people with a sympathetic understanding of the free market can offer me a different interpretation. Still, if you have something critical to contribute, please do. I'm always happy to read people insulting the President.
Finally, if I started a fictional livejournal for Tom Delay and did bad things with it ("Killed 2 hookers today. Made Roy Blunt chop them up and seal the pieces in the acid barrels in Frist's basement."), would I be arrested/shot?
It's reasonably flattering, having just turned 30, to have a 20 year old girl hit on me, though I'm not certain if it's weird that such a thing happened on a commuter train. I guess when you go to a small, relatively remote college, you meet people where you can. I suspect, given some of the course of our conversation, that she's a complete wingnut as well.
The situation presented me with an interesting dilemma. Given that I live with my girlfriend - who I do not intend to replace any time soon if I can help it - it would obviously be inappropriate for me to give contact information to someone who clearly intends to use it to pursue some kind of romantic liaison. On the other hand, I take the train every day. I am comfortable on the train. I would like to remain so. So a gracious refusal would have been necessary, as it's more or less inevitable that I'll run into this girl again sometime in the next year and a half (she's a junior).
I've been described as reasonably successful when it comes to dating, but even so I've never been the sort of guy girls hit on. I don't know why. I expect it's either that I'm so incredibly good looking that I automatically come across as unattainable, or that ninety percent of the shit I talk about (zombies, Transformers, hot lava, China's artificial maintenance of its currency, how Alan Greenspan is really the sexiest man alive) confuses and upsets most women. So I've never figured out how to refuse a request for contact information without clumsily muttering something about my girlfriend.
I wish I could vomit on command. That would absolve both of us of any responsibility, and smooth over any deep emotional embarrassment related to a public rejection.
Topic number 2 is the dog. She needs minor surgery and a thorough dental cleaning. These two things can be combined for a bargain veterinary surgery deal, but I still can't afford it and her vet doesn't do payment plans. So I'm at a loss there, but I think I can wait until April, when I get my bonus (and hopefully a raise and promotion).
She's also been having mild freak-outs in the evenings for the last two or three weeks. So far, the herbal calming juices that proved so useless prior to her going on medication have proved effective, but I still worry that whatever anxiety disorder she has is getting bad enough to overwhelm her clomipramine regimen, which is currently at the maximum dosage for a dog her size.
It's possible that what is bothering her is simply the seasonal change. She's seems always to be somewhat uncomfortable with Fall. Perhaps it reminds her of her own mortality.
Topic 3 has been posted elsewhere, but I think livejournal is less of an echo chamber than the mailing list I'm on, so I'll repost my musings here:
In reading a little bit about the Administration's proposals for preparing for the possible outbreak of bird flu or another pandemic, I find myself a bit at sea.
Leaving aside the obvious silliness of using the armed forces to maintain a quarantine, I have a question about the feasibility of the Bush Administration's approach to vaccination - specifically, my understanding is that they are attempting to relax FDA oversight and offer patent protections and tax incentives to companies prepared to produce and distribute the appropriate vaccines.
Now, my understanding of the free market is that it is inherently reactive - meaning that it responds to demand in the face of scarcity. In simple if/then terms: people drive more = they want more gas = the market produces more.
So with the potential of an outbreak, there might be an increased demand for vaccination, but not nearly the increased demand presented by the actual outbreak of a deadly epidemic. It seems to me that without additional incentives or compulsion, vaccine producers would be unwilling to overproduce and stockpile vaccine because that would drive prices down, and keep them down even in the event of an outbreak. And rightly so - the business of business is to make money; profit is not the engine that drives morality, nor is cash the milk of human kindness.
The free market approach would appear to me to encourage the creation of scarcity in order to realize maximum profits in the case of suddenly surging demands. This, in turn, seems to me like a recipe for pretty profound disaster in the case of a widespread outbreak; people tend to be pretty well behaved in emergencies until the things they see as necessities are taken away.
Am I completely wrong about how this is supposed to work? It seems too obvious to me to be right. Can someone with a better understanding of economics than myself please try to explain?
I'm not really looking for criticism of the President. I'm hoping that erudite people with a sympathetic understanding of the free market can offer me a different interpretation. Still, if you have something critical to contribute, please do. I'm always happy to read people insulting the President.
Finally, if I started a fictional livejournal for Tom Delay and did bad things with it ("Killed 2 hookers today. Made Roy Blunt chop them up and seal the pieces in the acid barrels in Frist's basement."), would I be arrested/shot?
Tags: