Bike ride

We took a ride along the Sparta to Elroy trail last summer. I took some pictures and shot a little video. Took forever to put them together into a kick ass video. By kickass video I mean one that's over 10 megs in size and takes forever to download. (Anything less was too pixelated to see)
Enjoy?

Beware the predator!!

Wasting time, I found myself on this website watching movie clips and recording the audio for future use. I was amused by this clip from The Royal Tenenbaums, both for the clip and for the title posted by the site. If you can't make out the jpeg, the clip is called a "predator natural understanding of international finance..." I believe what is actually said in the movie is preternatural. Ha ha ha....ha.

My Master's favorite

Zach Johnson is currently one stroke behind the leader. Keep your fingers crossed.
Also, T. Woods just wrapped a club around a tree dealing with a bad lie. I've never seen anything like it--pretty cool. He's still a seventy year old in a young man's body, but it was a rather impressive "golf shot," as they say. I'm sure it will be all over the internets by the time you see this post.

Suckass Borders

So (yes, I start my sentences with so) I needed to find out the hours of the Borders store I was fixin' to visit. Clicked on this here link to locate the store in question. Up pops the helpful map but, what's this? you can't click on the map to find the stores in a particular state. Dang, suckass Borders. What's more, I can't figure out what the colors are supposed to be. Geographic regions, I suppose, but no apparent logic as to what state is what color and why they are colored at all. It ain't like you can filter them. And with that I say, "Dang Borders, you suck."

*Ironically, I was going to Borders to purchase a web mapping book.

Johnson-esque donkey born at local landfill

A donkey bearing a striking resemblance to Zach Johnson was recently born at an area landfill. 412 well-wisher Dick Donohuge notes that the event was "not exactly unexpected."

You wouldn't call them "snack fries"

Does the notion of a "snack wrap" enrage you? Apparently it enrages a certain L'Etoile pastry chef, who is a casual acquaintance/wife of blogger ZMurder. According to Mr. Murder, numerous holes in the walls of his palatial Gorham Street home bear evidence of her anger when she sees the McDonald's Snack Wrap advertised. And despite his claims of slipping on a banana peel and falling down the stairs, Z's own broken ribs and facial bruises testify to this, too.

Whence her outrage? Supposedly she insists that it is foolish to qualify the name of this product with the word "snack." A wrap is a wrap, her logic goes, and there is no need to label it as anything else.

I contend that Mrs. Murder's anger is misguided, and refute her with the following.

First, this is a matter of size. A wrap is not simply a wrap if it is a small portion. If this wrap does not measure up to standard wraps, we should deem it snack-sized, and to make this distinction perfectly clear to consumers, we should label it as such. This is a public courtesy to customers so that they do not receive something unexpected.

Critics, of course, will contend that "snack" is in the mouth of the beholder, and we cannot define a "one size fits all" snack. Certainly anything can be a snack--or a meal--to somebody, but again it is important to consider variation in size. We need to distinguish this wrap from other, larger wraps. We must also take into account McDonald's intentions for this wrap. They intend it to be a snack; you are free to do with it as you please, but you are aware of their intentions. Now, it is understandable that Z's wife might not realize that these products are snack-sized. After all, weighing in at a petite 43 pounds, she might consider one of these wraps a full meal. But think of 290-pound (all muscle) ZMurder or my own 600-pound father, likely the more frequent McDonald's customers. This is hardly a meal to them. The libertarians among us, I hope, will be pleased that we are letting the market define a "snack."

But wait, the issue is still complicated. As I reflected on my recent delicious meal of a honey mustard (crispy) chicken snack wrap and french fries (compliments of my driving student), I thought I had conclusively solved the matter. The wrap is approximately the same size as the medium fries, I thought, and we'd hardly consider the fries a main course, so clearly the wrap is of snack size! The first counterpoint to that, which Z supposed his wife would propose, is that we wouldn't call them "snack fries" despite their clearly being snack material, and that likewise there is no need to call the wrap a "snack wrap." The second counterargument I envision is a response to the previous paragraph: yes, wraps now come in various sizes, but so do orders of french fries, and again, no one is calling any of them "snack fries." My answer to these points is that fries are a known food item, deeply embedded in our culture and our arteries. The people can accept different sizes of just "fries." They are not ready for different sizes of wraps. And please don't believe that I consider myself above them; I make no claim to be ready for multiple wrap sizes either.

Perhaps the future will allow us to drop "snack" from the name, but now is too soon.

Please share your thoughts on this matter and Food Theory in general. There are many issues to discuss and debate!

How now brown bureaucrat?

The following started as an argument at Nick's Restaurant on Thursday night (right after the StP show). It quickly turned ridiculous via email. Below are the first two emails. Further correspondence will be posted as comments.

Zach Johnson:
Hey hippies,

Here's the article I was drunkenly referencing earlier: Jacob Sullum's "Jumping the Loan Shark" (http://www.reason.com/news/show/117910.html). I'd be interested to hear your objections to this. My blog convo re this can be found here: http://www.journeytothemiddle.com/index.php?p=942
Please comment if you're interested. Holla.

John$on

Joel Przybylowski:
Nice article. I'm especially moved by convincing passages such as this:

"In a 2005 Cato Institute paper, Hillsdale College political scientist Gary Wolfram reviewed the relevant studies and concluded 'there is a good deal of evidence suggesting that federal financial assistance has the unintended consequence of increasing tuition for all students.'"

Surely someone writing for the Cato Institute (a popular BIG government defender) who has reviewed "the relevant" studies and cites "a good deal of evidence" has objectivity as his focus. I would be more inclined to take this seriously if the writer had the courage to undertake an honest review of the issue.

I'm curious as to how the money I borrow from the government and pay back with interest is "aid," as the blogger repeatedly insists. In addition to the interest I pay, will not my seven figure "average" income further strengthen the state coffers in taxes I pay (and thus allow us to wage more wars on behalf of [cough] small-government "conservatives")?

I tire easily listening to fake-ass small-government types who think they got where they are all on their own and the government they claim they want to "drown in a bathtub" isn't just something they want to manipulate to their own benefit. They talk a good game and then throw it all out the window when they take office (see: every "conservative" that has been in power in my lifetime). They gather all the racists together by convincing them their taxes are paying for welfare moms and then ship them off to die in Iraq so Cheney et al can grow fat. Brilliant. So called small government types don't hate government, they hate when the people at the bottom get something out of the deal. They view themselves as independent bootstrap hikers living some American dream fantasy only to manipulate the government to their liking when they grab power.

The author would rather I borrow money from "private" (FEDERALLY insured [subsidized risk aversion]) lenders, and uses the argument that they would keep the price down. It takes but own trip to an ATM to realize how sure you should be of private lender profit motives. Credit card rates, anyone..? Oh if only I could strap that rate on to a juicy student loan principal. Please, my guess is tuition would remain inflated (or rise) as these jackasses lick their chops at the site of the revenue my debt would create.

My suggestion would be to practice what you advocate. Cast aside the taxpayer funded TA position you hold (full benefits for a part-time job!?) and go take out a loan at Bank of America. It should only cost you about 60k (not, in fact, the price of a Hyundai), plus interest. Be a shining example of the beautiful free market system the hippies so foolishly misunderstand. The students would benefit by getting an actual professor to teach their classes and the people of WI would benefit by paying less in taxes. Last but not least, the folks at the Cato Institute would be happy as another scum-sucking ivory tower liberal is plucked from the big government teat. (You do know these people despise you, don't you?)

I agree, access to easy money only enables colleges to raise tuition. I disagree that the obvious answer is to privatize lending. That doesn't address the operating costs at a place like UW, it only switches who benefits from my misery.

United we stand! (rhetorically speaking, of course)
jap