Saturday, January 31, 2004
It's in the cards
Over the Christmas holiday my in-laws introduced me to a very, very wicked vice, from which I have an extremely difficult time extricating myself once I get started. They showed me their Hoyle Casino PC game, which I found utterly enthralling, much to my wife's chagrin. I got so into this game that I asked to get a copy of it to put on my then-brand-new laptop.
One nifty aspect of the game is that you create your own character, meaning that you use this utility called FaceMaker to craft the physical appearance of that character (face and clothing mostly) as it will appear at the various card or craps tables, etc. Then, when it comes time to play head-to-head against other players, even computer players, it gives the game a much more "human" feel to it than it otherwise might. So much of gambling and the whole casino scene rides on being able to look at the faces of your opponents in order to sense their habits and weaknesses, and it's a nice touch to have other human visages to look at while you play. Granted, these faces (and voices) don't have nearly the variation or subtlety to be too convincing, but it's definitely a step up from my older, cheaper casino game. (I'll leave it for another time to discuss my interest in games of chance.) In addition, the character you create starts with a bank, and you can try to increase your winnings over time as you return to this casino again and again....and again, in my case.
Hoyle's Casino features a good number of games including roulette, slots, and even horse racing; but what I find myself playing more than anything is the Texas Hold 'Em game. I love this game. I also hate it, mostly because it is terribly addictive. In fact I finished a session just now where I went from steely-eyed pro to whimpering loser to gloating winner all in the course of about 90 minutes. The only reason I quit is because I'm almost emotionally exhausted from the roller coaster feeling of having lost half my money, and then finally winning it all back and then some. (Judging from my near-hysteria over winning and losing all this fake money, I've concluded that I'm not ready for the real thing - something in which Cindy can take a measure of reassurance.)
One nifty aspect of the game is that you create your own character, meaning that you use this utility called FaceMaker to craft the physical appearance of that character (face and clothing mostly) as it will appear at the various card or craps tables, etc. Then, when it comes time to play head-to-head against other players, even computer players, it gives the game a much more "human" feel to it than it otherwise might. So much of gambling and the whole casino scene rides on being able to look at the faces of your opponents in order to sense their habits and weaknesses, and it's a nice touch to have other human visages to look at while you play. Granted, these faces (and voices) don't have nearly the variation or subtlety to be too convincing, but it's definitely a step up from my older, cheaper casino game. (I'll leave it for another time to discuss my interest in games of chance.) In addition, the character you create starts with a bank, and you can try to increase your winnings over time as you return to this casino again and again....and again, in my case.
Hoyle's Casino features a good number of games including roulette, slots, and even horse racing; but what I find myself playing more than anything is the Texas Hold 'Em game. I love this game. I also hate it, mostly because it is terribly addictive. In fact I finished a session just now where I went from steely-eyed pro to whimpering loser to gloating winner all in the course of about 90 minutes. The only reason I quit is because I'm almost emotionally exhausted from the roller coaster feeling of having lost half my money, and then finally winning it all back and then some. (Judging from my near-hysteria over winning and losing all this fake money, I've concluded that I'm not ready for the real thing - something in which Cindy can take a measure of reassurance.)
Thursday, January 29, 2004
It's the O C, stupid
I came across a very abstract and polysyllabic discussion about why there aren't more entrepreneurs in our ostensibly capitalistic society at 2Blowhards. But it struck me while reading this that there is one very simple explanation that goes a long way toward understanding this phenomenon, and only requires a basic level of familiarity with economics: opportunity cost . I've often noticed that economists and/or folks who like to talk about economics in the abstract often seem to have trouble comprehending that a good many people value other things in life besides money, or its acquisition.
Why is this so easy for me to understand, but so hard for Friedrich?
Why is this so easy for me to understand, but so hard for Friedrich?
It's the same thing, except different
OK, I'm going to demonstrate some ignorance here, but I don't get what the difference is between an LCD monitor (like the one I recently bought) for use with a desktop PC, and an LCD TV that seems to show a much sharper picture and better resolution. Maybe I just haven't looked super-closely at the LCD TV's, but I can say that when I'm standing there in the showroom of Circuit City, I'm pretty damn impressed with the image quality on, say, the Sony 23" LCD. But when I'm sitting at home with my machine plugged into my 17" LCD monitor, the image is, well, underwhelming.
I mean, I do like the fact that there's no flicker, which is good for my eyes to be sure. But the screen resolution is noticeably less than my old 17" CRT, and when I'm viewing my digital photos on it, I definitely can see a "stair-step" effect in the photos when I've taken pictures that have very straight lines in them.
And what about my laptop? My laptop screen looks really nice. Why is that? That's LCD too, right? Does it have to do with "native" resolution? I don't know. All I want is to see a really pretty picture, and not get a headache looking at it.
I mean, I do like the fact that there's no flicker, which is good for my eyes to be sure. But the screen resolution is noticeably less than my old 17" CRT, and when I'm viewing my digital photos on it, I definitely can see a "stair-step" effect in the photos when I've taken pictures that have very straight lines in them.
And what about my laptop? My laptop screen looks really nice. Why is that? That's LCD too, right? Does it have to do with "native" resolution? I don't know. All I want is to see a really pretty picture, and not get a headache looking at it.
WMDs of the gaps
In a similar manner to how some assert proof for the existence of God by claiming that what we don't know in science by definition suggests His existence, we're now seeing similar illogic propounded for claiming that WMDs in Iraq could well have existed in spite of the fact that nobody actually found any. I recently came across this blog entry at Wonkette which talks about David Kay's recent testimony:
Where to begin? To me there are two points to be made. First, there's the ironical notion that in spite of the fact that the full weight of the US military was bearing down on their whole command and control structure, that same Iraqi political and military apparatus was still organized enough to destroy all the evidence not only of all the WMD stockpiles themselves, but the voluminous paper trail that would certainly have accompanied it. Such a hypothesis requires critics to prove a negative, which of course is impossible - where is Occam's Razor when you really need it? Granted, Kay doesn't actually appear to subscribe to this point of view, but you can bet that the Bush dead-enders who support the administration unapologetically and in spite of the contrary evidence will pick up on this idea and promote it as a plausible explanation. I guess I just fear that the mainstream media, after three years of being browbeaten into thoughtless submission, is now gullible enough to buy it.
The second point has to do with the urgency (or the lack thereof) that the US military seemed to take in securing the country from the kind of looting that Kay describes. Don't you think that if this administration and the Pentagon leaders actually believed there was a genuine threat from large WMD stockpiles, and that the Baathists were desperately trying to hide as much evidence of it as they could, that there would have been a bigger and more coherent effort to secure those suspected facilities as soon as possible after the invasion? It was apparent to me even early on that this administration wasn't really acting like they believed there was any urgency to that quest.....in which case the administration was either lying or grossly incompetent in its Iraq invasion planning.
OK, so that's not an altogether new thesis....but the Kay quote does make that increasingly evident, at least to me. Now if only the media did their jobs....
UPDATE: Actually, a third point comes to mind, which is something of a corrollary to my second point. Kay makes reference to widespread looting and the "U.S. military's failure to control it". That's something you didn't hear much about from the Bush administration or its propaganda arm, Fox News, while it was happening. Oh no, that wasn't widespread looting, it was just the sporadic actions of a few "dead-enders" and a few unruly types, but nothing that was unexpected or requiring immediate attention. To say otherwise would have been an admission on the part of the administration that they hadn't adequately made post-war plans for Iraq, or that their plans were insufficient for the task at hand. And we all know how this administration doesn't take blame or admit fault for anything - gotta save face, you know.
Thus, Kay's statement effectively puts Bush apologists in a logical vice: if the looting was so bad that it led to the destruction of all the meaningful WMD evidence, then the administration is guilty of downplaying the severity of the looting as it was happening. That's the unpleasant alternative to proposing the aforementioned idea of those wily Baathists who couldn't organize an effective resistance to the US invasion, but still could organize the tiimely and methodical destruction of all the damning evidence of their noncompliance with UN resolutions.
Again, this really just amplifies my second point, but it especially highlights how this administration seems to consider truth and honesty secondary to whatever serves their immediate political interests.
David Kay testified that there may always be "unresolvable ambiguity" about WMDs in Iraq "because of the severe looting that occurred in Iraq immediately after the U.S.-led invasion and the U.S. military's failure to control it." He suspects that "Iraqis probably took advantage of that period of chaos to get rid of any evidence of weapons programs."
Where to begin? To me there are two points to be made. First, there's the ironical notion that in spite of the fact that the full weight of the US military was bearing down on their whole command and control structure, that same Iraqi political and military apparatus was still organized enough to destroy all the evidence not only of all the WMD stockpiles themselves, but the voluminous paper trail that would certainly have accompanied it. Such a hypothesis requires critics to prove a negative, which of course is impossible - where is Occam's Razor when you really need it? Granted, Kay doesn't actually appear to subscribe to this point of view, but you can bet that the Bush dead-enders who support the administration unapologetically and in spite of the contrary evidence will pick up on this idea and promote it as a plausible explanation. I guess I just fear that the mainstream media, after three years of being browbeaten into thoughtless submission, is now gullible enough to buy it.
The second point has to do with the urgency (or the lack thereof) that the US military seemed to take in securing the country from the kind of looting that Kay describes. Don't you think that if this administration and the Pentagon leaders actually believed there was a genuine threat from large WMD stockpiles, and that the Baathists were desperately trying to hide as much evidence of it as they could, that there would have been a bigger and more coherent effort to secure those suspected facilities as soon as possible after the invasion? It was apparent to me even early on that this administration wasn't really acting like they believed there was any urgency to that quest.....in which case the administration was either lying or grossly incompetent in its Iraq invasion planning.
OK, so that's not an altogether new thesis....but the Kay quote does make that increasingly evident, at least to me. Now if only the media did their jobs....
UPDATE: Actually, a third point comes to mind, which is something of a corrollary to my second point. Kay makes reference to widespread looting and the "U.S. military's failure to control it". That's something you didn't hear much about from the Bush administration or its propaganda arm, Fox News, while it was happening. Oh no, that wasn't widespread looting, it was just the sporadic actions of a few "dead-enders" and a few unruly types, but nothing that was unexpected or requiring immediate attention. To say otherwise would have been an admission on the part of the administration that they hadn't adequately made post-war plans for Iraq, or that their plans were insufficient for the task at hand. And we all know how this administration doesn't take blame or admit fault for anything - gotta save face, you know.
Thus, Kay's statement effectively puts Bush apologists in a logical vice: if the looting was so bad that it led to the destruction of all the meaningful WMD evidence, then the administration is guilty of downplaying the severity of the looting as it was happening. That's the unpleasant alternative to proposing the aforementioned idea of those wily Baathists who couldn't organize an effective resistance to the US invasion, but still could organize the tiimely and methodical destruction of all the damning evidence of their noncompliance with UN resolutions.
Again, this really just amplifies my second point, but it especially highlights how this administration seems to consider truth and honesty secondary to whatever serves their immediate political interests.
Monday, January 26, 2004
Scanning redux
I spent a good part of the previous weekend scanning more old class notes (see my previous note for context). I spent a little time trying to make the process more efficient - not an easy task with a $100 PSC (printer/scanner/copier). The device works pretty well actually, but it is unrealistic to expect it to be all that fast or too easy to operate out of the box. (The old adage 'Good Fast Cheap - pick any two' comes to mind...) Still, after many iterations as well as some painful mistakes, I think I've figured out a way to reliably save different types of notes and reports. Among other things, I've learned how to save handwritten notes in color PDF files that don't take up too much disk space. Such notes comprise a majority of all that I am trying to save.
While doing all this it is impossible to avoid the question that begs to be asked: simply put, "Why bother?" I've got thousands of pages of notes, many of which date back 10-15 years, and yet I'm scanning them as though my life depended on maintaining an accurate record of all that time spent in classrooms. Then of course, it dawned on me that perhaps that was exactly why I was doing this.
Does my life really depend on these notes? Well....that's probably an overstatement. But it is clear that I place a very high premium on knowledge and memory, and that my notes signify both these things to me. I've pondered recently what constitutes personal identity, and have come to understand the enormous role that memory plays in this. A movie I saw last year which concretized that notion for me was "Memento", with Guy Pearce in the starring role as a man on a mission to find his wife's killer, in spite of his recent brain injury that prevents him from remembering anything that happened more than 20 minutes ago. It's a remarkable film, and there are a couple particular moments in it where Pearce's character explores the meaning of his own memory loss and how it has come to define his whole existence.
So what am I trying to preserve by scanning these notes, which makes it more likely they will last in perpetuity? Perhaps I see all this as a compendium, not just of the subject matter (which in itself means a lot to me) but also of the occurrences that have led me to where I am today. When I re-read what I've written, I can rediscover not just who I turned into when I learned things from these classes, but I get a glimpse of what I was like before I learned any of it. Put another way, my insistence on keeping all this stems largely from a deep-seated fear that by simply chucking these notes, I disconnect myself from an intensely formative time in my life, from which I extract so much personal meaning. When you feel that strongly about something, justified or no, it's hard to simply let it go.
Put yet another way, I'm trying really hard to keep feeling "time".
While doing all this it is impossible to avoid the question that begs to be asked: simply put, "Why bother?" I've got thousands of pages of notes, many of which date back 10-15 years, and yet I'm scanning them as though my life depended on maintaining an accurate record of all that time spent in classrooms. Then of course, it dawned on me that perhaps that was exactly why I was doing this.
Does my life really depend on these notes? Well....that's probably an overstatement. But it is clear that I place a very high premium on knowledge and memory, and that my notes signify both these things to me. I've pondered recently what constitutes personal identity, and have come to understand the enormous role that memory plays in this. A movie I saw last year which concretized that notion for me was "Memento", with Guy Pearce in the starring role as a man on a mission to find his wife's killer, in spite of his recent brain injury that prevents him from remembering anything that happened more than 20 minutes ago. It's a remarkable film, and there are a couple particular moments in it where Pearce's character explores the meaning of his own memory loss and how it has come to define his whole existence.
LEONARD: I know I can't have her back, but I want to be able to let her go. I don't want to wake up every morning thinking she's still here then realizing that she's not. I want time to pass, but it won't. How can I heal if I can't feel time?
So what am I trying to preserve by scanning these notes, which makes it more likely they will last in perpetuity? Perhaps I see all this as a compendium, not just of the subject matter (which in itself means a lot to me) but also of the occurrences that have led me to where I am today. When I re-read what I've written, I can rediscover not just who I turned into when I learned things from these classes, but I get a glimpse of what I was like before I learned any of it. Put another way, my insistence on keeping all this stems largely from a deep-seated fear that by simply chucking these notes, I disconnect myself from an intensely formative time in my life, from which I extract so much personal meaning. When you feel that strongly about something, justified or no, it's hard to simply let it go.
Put yet another way, I'm trying really hard to keep feeling "time".
Friday, January 23, 2004
Scanning for scanning's sake?
Cindy and I bought a new printer/scanner/copier last weekend. We've been doing a huge computer room-makeover since late November, and this device is the latest (and hopefully last, for a while) acquisition. I was very excited initially about the prospect of being able to make scans of all my photos and my class notes, which I've been lugging around from move to move over the past decade or more. Then I'd be able to get rid of the bulky binders and albums that contain them. You may recall my earlier comment about the desirability of having an easy bed to move, which we recently decided to forego. Well, perhaps in compensation, I'm now looking to make my ever-increasing information inventory a bit more mobile.
So I've actually started scanning. And it's pretty cool - I've so far made PDF files out of my class notes for two classes, as well as files for a couple short reports I wrote. But it has taken me a cumulative 5 hours or so to do this, and now I find myself staring down what must be another couple thousand pages or more of class notes and homework assignments. (Not to mention that I've not even started scanning the photos, which I recently tallied at more than 3,400.) Bear in mind that I've not really said anything about why I want to keep these class notes in the first place. But my mindset seems to be that because I've kept them this long, and that now we have a scanner, well then, by golly, I should scan them all. When the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem you see begins to look like a nail.
I have a feeling I'll be revising my strategy very soon. Scanning is cool, but it'd be great if during 2004 I got to spend a little time outside, or with the wife, or heck, maybe even doing a little work, instead of hunched over that sleek but noisy little box.
So I've actually started scanning. And it's pretty cool - I've so far made PDF files out of my class notes for two classes, as well as files for a couple short reports I wrote. But it has taken me a cumulative 5 hours or so to do this, and now I find myself staring down what must be another couple thousand pages or more of class notes and homework assignments. (Not to mention that I've not even started scanning the photos, which I recently tallied at more than 3,400.) Bear in mind that I've not really said anything about why I want to keep these class notes in the first place. But my mindset seems to be that because I've kept them this long, and that now we have a scanner, well then, by golly, I should scan them all. When the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem you see begins to look like a nail.
I have a feeling I'll be revising my strategy very soon. Scanning is cool, but it'd be great if during 2004 I got to spend a little time outside, or with the wife, or heck, maybe even doing a little work, instead of hunched over that sleek but noisy little box.
Justice shrugged
I saw a news tidbit tonight about that Representative Janklow in South Dakota, who was convicted on second degree manslaughter. He's been sentenced to 100 days in jail. No, correction - 30 days in jail, with 70 days followup reporting to the county lockup. And after 3 years, his record is clean.
So let me get this straight. I can show a pattern of irresponsible driving behavior, including speeding and driving under the influence, and do that for decades...and then even if I eventually kill someone through my negligence, I can still get off with a month in jail, a couple years probation, and then eventually a clean record?
Oh wait, what am I thinking? That kind of sentence only gets handed down to high-profile Republican politicians; you know, the real "tough-on-crime" variety prosecutor-types who would seek nothing less than the maximum 10 years in prison for some no-name who committed the exact same crime under the exact same circumstances.
And don't even try telling me this guy didn't deserve anything harsher - not with this record - and that's just from 1990 on. You can imagine the lecture that someone lower-profile would get from a judge if they'd run a stop sign and killed someone. I just hope the civil suit filed by the victim's family can bring some greater sense of justice to this whole sad affair.
So let me get this straight. I can show a pattern of irresponsible driving behavior, including speeding and driving under the influence, and do that for decades...and then even if I eventually kill someone through my negligence, I can still get off with a month in jail, a couple years probation, and then eventually a clean record?
Oh wait, what am I thinking? That kind of sentence only gets handed down to high-profile Republican politicians; you know, the real "tough-on-crime" variety prosecutor-types who would seek nothing less than the maximum 10 years in prison for some no-name who committed the exact same crime under the exact same circumstances.
And don't even try telling me this guy didn't deserve anything harsher - not with this record - and that's just from 1990 on. You can imagine the lecture that someone lower-profile would get from a judge if they'd run a stop sign and killed someone. I just hope the civil suit filed by the victim's family can bring some greater sense of justice to this whole sad affair.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Cheney, in his words, and in mine
From Yahoo today:
This quote just reeks of that smarmy attitude that says, "Guilty as charged! Ha ha." What a prick.
Cheney said he's effective working behind the scenes and doesn't believe voters will choose the next president based on running mates. "Am I the evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole?" he said. "It's a nice way to operate, actually."
This quote just reeks of that smarmy attitude that says, "Guilty as charged! Ha ha." What a prick.
Friday, January 16, 2004
Double entendre headline
From Yahoo:
[Gen.] Sanchez orders Iraq prisoner abuse probe
I wonder exactly where one orders such things? Then again, I don't think I really want to know.
[Gen.] Sanchez orders Iraq prisoner abuse probe
I wonder exactly where one orders such things? Then again, I don't think I really want to know.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Good point
Cindy got a free issue of National Geographic in the mail a couple days ago. On the cover is a headline "Death On The Nile", with a depiction of some Egyptian wall art behind it. Then, in a moment of amusing pique, she blurted out "What is it with all the mummies and National Geographic?"
At that moment I couldn't think of a more astute observation.
At that moment I couldn't think of a more astute observation.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
So that's why mannequins have always creeped me out
I was reading an article by Roger Ebert about the likelihood of Andy Serkis getting an Academy Award nomination for his performance as Gollum in Lord of the Rings, when the topic of "the uncanny valley" came up. I'd never heard of this before, but it's a fascinating explanation and study of how we as humans react to entities which have some amount of "human" characteristics. Definitely worth a read.
Sleep tight
Back in 1991, when I was a new grad student at the University of Texas at Austin, I bought a futon, double size with a wood frame, with my then-girlfriend Veronica. Back then, futons were still a fairly new phenomenon, and they seemed to me like a great alternative to the old bed paradigm, that of a bouncy spring mattress with a heavy box spring underneath it. Especially considering that I was still living a very mobile existence, the abilty of a futon for easy breakdown and setup was very attractive to me, and clinched the deal. Also, the firmness of the cushion on the unyielding frame made for a vastly improved sleep system for me, as I came to realize that sunken springy mattresses were actually quite uncomfortable. (I often sleep better on a hard carpeted floor than a spongy bed.)
Time passed - the old girlfriend left but the futon stayed on. I moved from Texas back to Arizona, then to Davis California, for another grad school stint where I moved that bed 3 more times. I then moved to 100 miles to San Carlos where I started life in the workaday world. 7 years after the initial purchase I finally bought a replacement cushion for the frame, partly at the urging of my new girlfriend. (Women, to their credit, are often the motivating force behind improving the sleep systems where I live.) The futon had new life, and became our bed for another 5 years....but this was a case of diminishing returns. A few more years passed, with one more move, this time to Santa Cruz, at which point the mobility advantage of the futon had been pretty milked, and now we were left with a bed that somehow felt smaller, with a lumpier cushion than we had ever remembered. It was time for a change.
In December Cindy and I took delivery of a new bed, a queen size Simmons Beautyrest with a box spring. I came full circle - now, a futon was completely out of the question, and I found myself impressed with the great advancements made in "bed science" since I had last considered a real mattress. Now they have all these new-fangled features that allow the bed to be way more comfy than I had imagined. With the Beautyrest you barely even feel the other person getting into or out of the bed. That feature alone was the clincher this time, and was very apparent even when we were trying out mattresses in the department store.
Of course, this time we spilled a hefty chunk of change on the thing - about a thousand bucks for the whole setup. But it's well worth it. As a friend once said, there are two things in life you should never skimp on - comfortable shoes and a good bed. Hard to disagree with that.
Time passed - the old girlfriend left but the futon stayed on. I moved from Texas back to Arizona, then to Davis California, for another grad school stint where I moved that bed 3 more times. I then moved to 100 miles to San Carlos where I started life in the workaday world. 7 years after the initial purchase I finally bought a replacement cushion for the frame, partly at the urging of my new girlfriend. (Women, to their credit, are often the motivating force behind improving the sleep systems where I live.) The futon had new life, and became our bed for another 5 years....but this was a case of diminishing returns. A few more years passed, with one more move, this time to Santa Cruz, at which point the mobility advantage of the futon had been pretty milked, and now we were left with a bed that somehow felt smaller, with a lumpier cushion than we had ever remembered. It was time for a change.
In December Cindy and I took delivery of a new bed, a queen size Simmons Beautyrest with a box spring. I came full circle - now, a futon was completely out of the question, and I found myself impressed with the great advancements made in "bed science" since I had last considered a real mattress. Now they have all these new-fangled features that allow the bed to be way more comfy than I had imagined. With the Beautyrest you barely even feel the other person getting into or out of the bed. That feature alone was the clincher this time, and was very apparent even when we were trying out mattresses in the department store.
Of course, this time we spilled a hefty chunk of change on the thing - about a thousand bucks for the whole setup. But it's well worth it. As a friend once said, there are two things in life you should never skimp on - comfortable shoes and a good bed. Hard to disagree with that.
Monday, January 12, 2004
Happy Not-so-new Year
Well, finally, 12 days into January, and I finally find the time to restart the trusty old blog. But first, a quick recap of the past month.
The holidays were fine, consisting of time spent with both the new spouse's family as well as my own. One amusing anecdote from the Shellito Christmas follows....
I'd spent a few previous Christmas' with her family, but this year was the first time we had a name-drawing component to the gift-giving. This was done apparently at the behest of Cindy's mother, who wanted a more "toned-down" holiday. Also, in order to make it easier to figure out what to give, we were required to submit wish-lists on Amazon. Cindy seemed to have a tough time coming up with selections from their site that she wanted, and I did too to some extent - still we managed to dig up 6 or 7 items for Santa to choose from. I had no idea how much money someone might spend on my gift, so I chose items from a spectrum of prices, starting at a mere $8 or so going all the way up to a dream DVD collection of Ken Burns' Baseball documentary, clocking in at a healthy $150.
Well, one day after I had created my list, I saw that 6 of my 7 items had already been purchased (with the Baseball DVD collection as the odd one out, not surprisingly). To be honest I was a little peeved to actually be getting all those things, since my intent was not to merely provide a laundry list of items to receive. But that seemed to be the way the Shellitos operate, so I had to knuckle down and accept it. But I was determined to get some measure of revenge - there was no way I was going to follow the "toned-down" script if someone was simply going to check off everything in my list. So I went to Cindy's father's list, and proceeded to buy 7 of the 11 items listed there - all tools, some pricey. (I also realized this would be a great way to ingratiate myself as the son-in-law.)
Cindy also joined in, buying almost everything on her brother's list. In the end, there were probably 30% more presents to be shared this year than last, and I had thought for sure that in going as overboard as we did, that the blatant mockery of the "tone-it-down" directive would result in next year's Christmas having much stronger enforcement of this policy, and a renewed commitment to reduced consumption. Unfortunately, after all the wrapping paper was shredded and every last present opened, Cindy's mother commented how she thought this year's gift-giving was in fact more subdued than last. Alas, my attempt at subtle irony was completely crushed under the weight of all that free shipping from Amazon.
Still, it was fun seeing Cindy's dad's face light up every time he saw that he just got a new tool.
Then we flew back to KC the day after Christmas to do another holiday with my family. My family is a very different experience mostly because of the preponderance of children ages 3 to 14, which is absolutely delightful when you haven't seen them in a while, but later very tiring after about 5 hours in close quarters with lots of present-opening. My sister recently moved into a spacious new house, and we also got to spend an evening there too. (As Californians we are easily rendered speechless when we see the kinds of houses you can get for less than $200K.)
We flew back to California on the 31st, and rung in the New Year in Santa Cruz, including a trip downtown to enjoy First Night along with thousands of other revelers.
There've been plenty of other interesting new developments in the past month too....I'll be sharing those shortly.
The holidays were fine, consisting of time spent with both the new spouse's family as well as my own. One amusing anecdote from the Shellito Christmas follows....
I'd spent a few previous Christmas' with her family, but this year was the first time we had a name-drawing component to the gift-giving. This was done apparently at the behest of Cindy's mother, who wanted a more "toned-down" holiday. Also, in order to make it easier to figure out what to give, we were required to submit wish-lists on Amazon. Cindy seemed to have a tough time coming up with selections from their site that she wanted, and I did too to some extent - still we managed to dig up 6 or 7 items for Santa to choose from. I had no idea how much money someone might spend on my gift, so I chose items from a spectrum of prices, starting at a mere $8 or so going all the way up to a dream DVD collection of Ken Burns' Baseball documentary, clocking in at a healthy $150.
Well, one day after I had created my list, I saw that 6 of my 7 items had already been purchased (with the Baseball DVD collection as the odd one out, not surprisingly). To be honest I was a little peeved to actually be getting all those things, since my intent was not to merely provide a laundry list of items to receive. But that seemed to be the way the Shellitos operate, so I had to knuckle down and accept it. But I was determined to get some measure of revenge - there was no way I was going to follow the "toned-down" script if someone was simply going to check off everything in my list. So I went to Cindy's father's list, and proceeded to buy 7 of the 11 items listed there - all tools, some pricey. (I also realized this would be a great way to ingratiate myself as the son-in-law.)
Cindy also joined in, buying almost everything on her brother's list. In the end, there were probably 30% more presents to be shared this year than last, and I had thought for sure that in going as overboard as we did, that the blatant mockery of the "tone-it-down" directive would result in next year's Christmas having much stronger enforcement of this policy, and a renewed commitment to reduced consumption. Unfortunately, after all the wrapping paper was shredded and every last present opened, Cindy's mother commented how she thought this year's gift-giving was in fact more subdued than last. Alas, my attempt at subtle irony was completely crushed under the weight of all that free shipping from Amazon.
Still, it was fun seeing Cindy's dad's face light up every time he saw that he just got a new tool.
Then we flew back to KC the day after Christmas to do another holiday with my family. My family is a very different experience mostly because of the preponderance of children ages 3 to 14, which is absolutely delightful when you haven't seen them in a while, but later very tiring after about 5 hours in close quarters with lots of present-opening. My sister recently moved into a spacious new house, and we also got to spend an evening there too. (As Californians we are easily rendered speechless when we see the kinds of houses you can get for less than $200K.)
We flew back to California on the 31st, and rung in the New Year in Santa Cruz, including a trip downtown to enjoy First Night along with thousands of other revelers.
There've been plenty of other interesting new developments in the past month too....I'll be sharing those shortly.
 | ||
 |  |  |
 | ||
