Monthly Archives: April 2006

Fun with story problems

Posted on by
Reply

The best part of math for me was the story problems; you know the “If Johnny has six apples and you have no apples, and the government takes three apples from Johnny so it can give you one apple’s worth of applesauce while putting another apple in a “lockbox”, what happens to the remaining apple?”

Today’s Fixit column (it used to be “Mr. Fixit” before the surgery) took me back to those happy schoolboy days when a letter writer asked, “Does it burn more gas and so cost more money if you drive 75 miles per hour to get to a destination than if you drive 60 mph?” as opposed to ultimately saving money by getting there sooner.

Fixit offers this example in response:

Bob and Jim each need to drive 60 freeway miles from City A to City B. Both cars get 30 miles per gallon at 55 mph, the posted speed limit.

Bob travels at 55, but Jim speeds and does 75 mph — wanting to get there sooner.

At 75 mph, it would take Jim about 48 minutes to reach the destination.

At 55 mph, it takes Bob about 65 minutes to reach the destination.

At 55 mph, Bob used 2 gallons of gasoline. At $2.80 per gallon, that’s $5.60 to drive the distance.

At 75 mph, Jim would use 2.5 gallons of gasoline. At $2.80 per gallon, that would be $7 to go the same distance.

Fair enough. Jim pays an additional $1.40 to get to his destination 17 minutes sooner. Maybe it’s worth it to Jim to pay roughly the cost of a tall dark roast at Starbucks (no decaf for him, thank you) so that he can do something else with those 17 minutes of his life. Certainly the StarTribune columnist wouldn’t want to get into judging someone’s lifestyle choices, right?

However, it turns out that Jim paid $155.60 for this trip and arrived later than Bob.

How did this happen?

He was ticketed for speeding on the way and was fined (which could raise his insurance rates), and the stop slowed him down. (If they had traveled together in Bob’s car, both would have saved even more.)

Hmmm. Funny that it didn’t mention how much the boys would have saved (but not the taxpayers) if they had taken light rail. Or the bus. Or how much more time those options would have taken out of their lives. Funny, too, that speeding ticket scenario was gratuitously added in as Professor Fixit stepped from the chalkboard and up onto the soapbox.

In the same spirit, let’s assume that Jim, driving at 75 mph and closer to the prevailing speed of the rest of the traffic than Bob, doesn’t get a ticket and that he and Bob are competitors on their way to call on the same prospect. Jim gets there first, makes the sale and is on his way out to lunch with his new client by the time Bob is easing into a parking space. Or, let’s say Bob is really delayed because of the beat down he received from the long line of angry drivers that got stuck behind him, not to mention the related medical expenses that further drives up the cost of his trip.

Oh, but there’s more:

By the way, federal income tax credits of $250 to $3,400 are available in 2006 and 2007 to purchasers of hybrid-electric or diesel vehicles, based on the vehicle’s efficiency and fuel savings. (Tax credits are dollars deducted from taxes owed.) Act fast. After each auto manufacturer has sold 60,000 hybrids, the credit begins to phase out. See www.ase.org/taxcredits for details. (Check out local excise tax reductions and other benefits for hybrid purchasers, too.)

I don’t think Fixit read the article by Jamie Lincoln Kitman in the same newspaper, Best way to save gas may be to avoid hybrids, or this report: Hybrids Consume More Energy in Lifetime Than Chevrolet’s Tahoe SUV.

Numbers are fun!

Crusted but cheeks?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what leapt out at me this morning as I skimmed across a local restaurant’s ad in the Strib’s Variety Source section today. My brain said, “What?” At first I thought the this guy had started a food and restaurant column.

After slamming on my speed-reading brakes I backed up and looked closer. The ad actually was promoting “Asiago-Parmesan Crusted Halibut Cheeks.”

Oh. Well. That’s different.

All the same, I think I’ll check out the salad bar.

Small wonders

Posted on by
Reply

This isn’t a particularly deep or thoughtful post, but I saw something to make me roll out my Keanu Reaves impression: “Whoa.”

Z-blog cites the following from a LA Times article:

Last year more transistors were produced, and at a lower cost, than grains of rice, according to the Semiconductor Industry Assn. Moore estimates that the number of transistors shipped in 2003 was 10 quintillion, or 10 to the 18th power — about 100 times the number of ants estimated to be stalking the planet.

Wow, transistors are more plentiful and cheaper than rice — and they probably end-up feeding more people, too, when you think about how essential they are to everything we take for granted these days. I can’t think of anything that’s produced today — even food — that isn’t affected by the technology that solid-state transistors make possible. Furthermore, without them your iPod would be full of tubes and about the size of an old Victrola. (What’s also amazing about this story is that somewhere we have an estimate for the number of ants in the world).

Just like all of those ants, these little transistors are often overlooked. Still, it’s mind-boggling that they can be produced in such quantities and at such prices. Let’s hear it for markets and innovation!

Filings: The empty tomb?

Posted on by
Reply

Buffy Holt of Plain Simple English is in London and posted this exquisite photo from inside Westminster Cathedral at 3:00 p.m. on Good Friday. The image is peaceful and meditative but what I found most interesting is that the church is all but empty during the scheduled Celebration of the Lord’s Passion.

What made this so interesting to me was that I had been thinking a lot last week about our all-too-human instinct to take something transcendent and turn it into tradition, and the photo reminded me of something a friend of mine had said several years ago along the lines of how we start with a movement, turn it into a monument and before you know it it becomes a mausoleum. Such is the affect of the traditions of man on the things of God.

Though the picture was of Westminster Cathedral, I don’t single out any religion or doctrine for this fault because it is common to all men and women (though, biblically, you might be able to make a case that women are less susceptible). You could see it happening even before Jesus was crucified, such as the dinner in Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13) when the woman anointed him with expensive oil and was berated by some disciples who took Jesus’ teaching to care for the poor and fashioned it into an on-the-spot doctrine that missed what the Spirit was doing (though the woman didn’t). Later, at the last supper (John 13:1) Jesus went to wash the feet of his disciples and Peter at first refused because such behavior didn’t line up with his thinking of what was proper (though you’d think if the Lord wanted to do something a certain way these guys by now would have learned to let him). When Jesus tells Peter that he must allow it or have no part in Jesus’ plan Peter careened over to the other ditch, telling Jesus to not just wash his feet but his hands and head as well. Again Jesus had to pull Peter back from taking a simple idea and going off in his own direction with it.

Later, after Passover and the sabbath, Mary gathered embalming oils and spices and set off for the tomb to honor and preserve the body according to their tradition. Even though Jesus had told her and the disciples what was going to happen, she thought of him as dead. As much as she loved Jesus and grieved for him she forgot what he said and set out to do what she thought was right and necessary until the angel spoke to her and reminded her (Luke 24:5-8). To her credit, she quickly embraced the new reality and hurried to tell the disciples who, because they couldn’t wrap their minds around it, dismissed her words as idle tales (24:11).

The disciples at Bethany, Peter seated before the basin, and Mary with her spices were all trying to do what they thought was right and proper, and that is how most religious traditions begin. It is all too easy for us to become like the Pharisees, observing the law to the letter and missing the spirit of the law entirely. It does have a way of sneaking up on you, though. Even as individuals we quickly develop our own habits and customs in how we relate to God and try so hard to reason out the things we don’t understand that we, like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, don’t recognize Jesus when he is sitting right in front of us (Luke 24:30). I can say this with complete boldness because I know it applies to my life. I’ve found that if there’s anything more draining to my faith than the traditions of man it is probably the traditions of me.

Tradition can be good, of course. The Passover, for example, was of God because it reminded the Israelites of his mercy and provision, and the spilling of the blood of a perfect lamb on the door mantle to save the first-born foreshadowed the blood of the perfect lamb and the sacrifice of God’s first-born to save us. Nor is this to say that everything old is suspect and we need to go running willy-nilly after every new thing; one path may lead to stagnation but the other can lead to outright heresy. The fault in both is losing sight of Christ and his word and being too quick to add our own refinements based on our own reasoning or even our experience (“well, it’s always worked fine when I’ve done it like this before”). This eventually leads to our faith being in our habits and not in the source of our being, hence the movement becomes a monument and the monument eventually becomes a mausoleum. And there ain’t nothing but dead people in there.

Dogs of war

Posted on by
Reply

Buck Sargent’s April 15 post at American Citizen Soldier, quotes Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman from his book, On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace:

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath — a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot, and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.” Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

Buck goes on to describe how this description applies to the developing Iraqi army of motivated “sheepdogs.” The entire post, which includes several other riveting first-person vignettes from the streets of Mosul is well worth reading.

(HT: Technochitlins).

Challenging Word of the Week: ilk

Posted on by
Reply

Ilk
(ilk) noun

The common use of ilk is in the phrase of that ilk, and, correctly employed, has a distinctly limited use. It applies properly only when the surname of a person is the same as the name of his estate or the place he’s from. In a series of letters to The Times (London), Sir Iain Moncreiffe, of Easter Moncreiffe, Perthshire, signed himself “Iain Moncreiffe, Of That Ilk,” meaning “Iain Moncreiffe of Moncreiffe.” Quoting from British English, A to Zed (Facts on File, 1987) by this author:

A friend of the author named Hector Cameron was a Cameron of Cameron, and once announced himself over the telephone as ‘Cameron of that ilk.’ The uneducated (at that time) author, to his shame, ascribed it to drink. There are MacDonalds of that ilk (MacDonalds of MacDonald), Guthries of that ilk (Guthries of Guthrie) and so on. From a Sassenach misunderstanding of usage, ilk has acquired the meaning ‘sort’ or’kind’; used generally in a pejorative sense: Al Capone, and people of that ilk, or even (heaven forfend!) Freudians (or communists, etc.) and their ilk.

The use of ilk is now expanded to include “family,” “class,” or “set” as well as “kind.” Fowler says of ilk:

This SLIPSHOD EXTENSION has become so common that the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) Supp(lement) was constrained to add to its definitions ‘also by further extension, often in trivial use, — kind, sort.’

The COD (Concise Oxford Dictionary) calls it “vulgar.” Ilk is, via Middle English ilke, from Old English ilca. Incidentally, the adjective Sassenach mentioned above is defined in British English, A to Zed as follows:

From the Gaelic for Saxon, an opprobrious term used by Scots, and sometimes the Irish as well, to designate and derogate the English.

My example: While we might figuratively lump all fast food brands into a common group, grammatically only the red-headed clown can accurately describe himself as “Ronald McDonald of that ilk.”

From the book, “1000 Most Challenging Words” by Norman W. Schur, ©1987 by the Ballantine Reference Library, Random House. I post a weekly “Challenging Words” definition to call more attention to this delightful book and to promote interesting word usage in the blogosphere. I challenge other bloggers to work the current word into a post sometime in the coming week. If you manage to do so, please leave a comment or a link to where I can find it. Previous words in this series can be found under the appropriate Category heading in the right-hand sidebar.

A low point in High Noon

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the dialog from the church scene in High Noon that I referenced in my last post. The set-up is that five years prior town marshal Will Kane sent Frank Miller away to prison where he was supposed to be executed. Miller and his gang had lead a reign of terror in Hadleyville and the vicinity marked by lawlessness and violence until Kane and his deputies brought law and order. When Miller was sent away he promised to return and kill Kane. Instead of being executed, certain politicians (for reasons unknown) arranged for Miller to be pardoned. Just minutes after Kane is married to Amy, a Quaker woman, and retires as marshal he receives the telegram that Miller is about to arrive on the noon train and he is told that three of Miller’s notorious gang are already waiting at the train station waiting for him. Kane realizes he must still defend the town and face Miller, but since the town has calmed down in recent years Kane is down to just one deputy, who has quit because Kane wouldn’t recommend him as the new marshal. With Miller expected within the hour, Kane interrupts the town’s church service looking to deputize men to protect their community.

Does this sound familiar to you?

Parson: (reading from scripture) “For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedness shall be…”

Kane enters at the back of the sanctuary. The parson stops reading and remarks that he is surprised to see Kane, noting that he never visited there much before and “didn’t see fit” to have his wedding performed in the church.

Parson: “What could be so important to bring you here now?”

Kane: “I admit I’ve never been much of a church-going man, and I didn’t get married in this church because my wife is a Quaker. But it looks like Frank Miller’s comin’ back on the noon train and I’m looking for special deputies.

A number of men nervously step forward, but are interrupted.

Cooper: Before we go rushing out into something that ain’t gonna be so pleasant, let’s be sure we know what this is all about. What I want to know is this. Ain’t it true that Kane ain’t no longer Marshal? And ain’t it true there’s personal trouble between him and Miller?

General hub-bub as every tries to talk. Kane’s friend, Jonas Henderson, calls for order and clears the church of the children so that the congregation can voice their differences of opinion like adults.

Coy: Yes, we all know who Miller is, but we put him away once. And who saved him from hanging? The politicians up North. I say this is their mess. Let them take care of it.

Sawyer: We’ve been payin’ good money right along for a marshal and deputies. Now the first time there’s any trouble, we’re supposed to take care of it ourselves. Well, what have we been payin’ for all this time? I say we’re not peace officers. This ain’t our job!

Another man: I’ve been sayin’ all along, we ought to have more deputies. If we did, we wouldn’t be facin’ this thing now.

Ezra: I can’t believe I’ve heard some of the things that have been said here. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sure, we paid this man and he was the best marshal this town ever had. It ain’t his trouble, it’s ours. I tell ya, if we don’t do what’s right, we’re gonna have plenty more trouble. So there ain’t but one thing to do now, and you all know what that is.

Trumbull: This whole thing’s been handled wrong. Here’s those three killers walking the streets bold as brass. Why didn’t you arrest them, Marshal? Why didn’t you put them in jail where they ought to be? Then we’d only have Miller to worry about instead of the four of ‘em.

Kane: I haven’t anything to arrest them for, Mr. Trumbull. They haven’t done anything. There’s no law against them sittin’ on a bench at the depot.

Woman: What’s the matter with you people? Don’t you remember when a decent woman couldn’t walk down the street in broad daylight? Don’t you remember when this wasn’t a fit place to bring up a child? How can you sit here and talk and talk and talk like this?

Parson: The commandments say, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but we hire men to go out and do it for us. The right and the wrong seem pretty clear here. But if you’re asking me to tell my people to go out and kill and maybe get themselves killed, I’m sorry. I don’t know what to say. I’m sorry.

Henderson: What this town owes Will Kane here it can never pay with money – and don’t ever forget it. He’s the best marshal we ever had, maybe the best marshal we’ll ever have. So if Miller comes back here today, it’s our problem, not his. It’s our problem because this is our town. We made it with our own hands out of nothing. And we want to keep it decent, keep it growing. We’ve got to think mighty clear here today. And we’ve gotta have the courage to do what we think is right no matter how hard it is. There’s gonna be fighting when Kane and Miller meet and somebody’s gonna get hurt, that’s for sure. Now, people up North are thinking about this town – thinking mighty hard, thinking about sending money down here to put up stores and to build factories. It’ll mean a lot to this town, an awful lot. Well, if they’re gonna read about shooting and killing in the streets, what are they gonna think then? I’ll tell ya. They’re gonna think this is just another wide-open town and everything we worked for will be wiped out. In one day, this town will be set back five years. And I don’t think we can let that happen. Marshal Kane is a mighty brave man, and a good man, and that’s why I hope he’ll leave town now while there’s time. Because if he’s not here when Miller comes, my hunch is there won’t be any trouble, not one bit. Tomorrow, we’ll have a new Marshal and if we can all agree here to offer him our services, I think we can handle anything that comes along. And to me, that makes sense. To me, that’s the only way out of this. Will, I think you’d better go while there’s still time. It’s better for you and it’s better for us.

Dumbstruck, Kane offers a quickly-spoken “Thanks” and leaves empty-handed.

When High Noon was originally released in 1952 it was considered to be a commentary on the McCarthy hearings and the betrayals and “duck and cover” attitudes of many in Hollywood. There certainly seems to be a timeless quality, though, to our tendency to let fear and politics cloud the issue even at the point where something has to be done.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: A new class starts

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve restarted this series with a new group of boys and we’ll mainly be following the original course outline since those movies were arranged in a certain order with a purpose in mind. The difference this time is that I have more movies to choose from and less of a time constraint — and I’ve invited the fathers as well.

Our first meeting was Thursday night and we’ll continue every other Thursday until we finish the original series or until the group wants to stop. I’ll continue to feature new movies in this space while the class is going on, but only on weeks when the group doesn’t get together. On those weeks, such as this one, this regular feature will focus on the discussion that followed the movie of the week. This week’s movie was the Gary Cooper classic, High Noon (see my original study guide and discussion questions for this movie here).

The group currently consists of six boys between the ages of 12 and 15, and three fathers plus myself. Another father and son will join us when they get back from vacation and another young man may join us as his schedule permits. The boys all started the evening pretty excited about doing something new and with anticipation for the huge pizza and and box of cheesy bread we’d ordered. So, bouyed by the food and inspired by the slam-bang ending of the movie, the boys were bubbling over with questions and comments about the movie afterwards, right?

I did say these guys are 12 to 15 years old, didn’t I?

First question: What did you think of the movie?

General response: “Borrrrring!”

When I asked why it was boring there were comments about it moving so slowly, with too much talking and not enough shooting and explosions. I continued to ask questions (from the study guide and others than occured to me based on the boys’ reactions), however, about what was being said (and meant) during those long talking parts. I tried to draw them out on the key lessons of the movie regarding personal honor and integrity and the importance of defending the rule of law even at great personal cost.

I was not surprised or disappointed that most of the questions or leading comments I made seemed to be going over their heads. The movie is slow and “talky” at times, especially for young men who don’t have a perspective on the things that were important to Marshall Kane and what he was risking and defending. The important thing to me at this stage was that the boys were talking and responding, even if they were going out of their way to be silly (talking about how the Marshall should have had an AK-47 or made some bombs, for example).

The big thing was they were talking and not sitting quietly waiting for it to be over (well, maybe a couple were). I know that even at this age the guys don’t want to come off as if they’re paying too much attention or care too much about what’s going on and that they will try to establish their own control of the discussion by seeing if they can veer off into other topics. I, with help from the dads, managed to keep pulling them back to question at hand and even got a couple of fairly insightful responses from the boys in spite of themselves. Whenever a lightbulb would go on over one of their heads, however, the lad was quick to try and throw a hat over it.

It’s a beginning, and similar to what happened the first time I did this. As we go on I expect the young guys will stop trying so hard to be funny (or studiously aloof) and will begin to engage with the issues and character qualities implicit in the films I’ve selected. After all, if I had expected that they already had an understanding of the concepts of duty, self-respect and self-sacrifice for the greater good then I wouldn’t have seen the need to offer the class again. As I said, some good answers did start to come out, even if they were offered somewhat uncertainly, and this should become more common as the comfort level increases in the coming weeks (plus I have a couple of sure-fire incentives in mind that I might apply as needed).

One thing that I got out of this viewing of this classic this time came from the scene in the church where Kane tries to rally the good men to his cause. The sentiments expressed by the townspeople on both sides were so much like the words bandied back in forth in Congress today about America’s foreign policy that it will almost make you laugh — if it doesn’t make you cry.