Ring Pop Fail

Last week were you licking on your Blue Raspberry Ring Pop thinking, "This is a few Swarovski crystals away from being a Kate Middleton's 18-carat sapphire ring." 

Well good news, bad news.

Good news is that Bazooka Candy Brands heard you!

Bad news, while you admire your royal jewels, that just replaced the Bella's engagement ring knockoff, keep your tongue in your mouth. This Blue Raspberry is NOT edible. Ring Pop Fail. Sorry kids.

Like.... whatever, yeah

I remember a girl named Meredith that rode my bus in Elementary and Middle School. There are two stories I always think about when I think of Meredith. One was when she sang En Vogue's "Never Going to Get It" to my 6th grade bus boyfriend who wore the same Where in the World is Carmen San Diego? shirt every day, and had half a shaved head.

The second story takes place shortly before we parted same-bus-seat-sitting-circles in 7th grade. Now some may think that my later feminist adult mind made this up, but I don't doubt it. After laughing like an idiot at something a boy said, I asked her why she was acting different. By different I implied acting like a moron in front of said boy. "Boys don't like girls that are smarter than them."

After my date on Tuesday I was interested to know his last relationship didn't spark/work out because "she didn't have much going for herself." I can't shake the feeling I have too much going on. I discussed finance and politics, which he brought up and could wing a convo, but I knew more than just to be dangerous. I was everything opposite of this girl who "didn't have much going." I know that doesn't mean interest or that the spark was there, but I thought it would get me a call back. Not just two text message, where I was addressed as Sarah Michelle not Sarah Elizabeth.

We all keep our own lists of flaws we have with ourself. It juts hurts my heart that there are those out there who make girls think "Not dumb enough" should be added to that list.

The start of Bonds 101

This is going to be a tight rope act.  Please wiggle the line if I start getting too fancy with my footwork, but this is what I do... well we will start with what is a bond?  Everyone, individuals, companies, the government, ect. ect., have a balance sheet.  Assets on the left and Liabilities to the right.  I certainly consider Christian Louboutin shoes a major asset!  The average Americans largest asset is their home property, therefore making their biggest liability their mortgage payment.  Liabilities are just I.O.U.s.  That five bucks that Eric wants back, liability.  The fact he promise to pay for dinner tomorrow, that would be an asset under Accounts Payable.

On a company balance sheet bonds are their I.O.U.s to the bondholders.  You'll notice that I have painted liabilities red, which is more than just pretty colors.  If you've ever heard the term, "Back in Black" (Not via ACDC), typically means you went from (negative) cash flow to positive! 

When an entity (typically business or government) needs cash cash money they could just charge it on their credit cards, but lets say they need millions of Benjamins?  They can issue a bond, oh yeah.  One bond is 1,000 smackaroos.  The investor says hey Mr. Entity, here is my $1,000, but what are you going to give in return for this money?  Because, after all, there is no free lunch. 

The entity is like, weellllll I want to borrow this $1,000 for 10 years and I will return it to you, and in exchange I will give you 5.00% interest semi-annually on your $1,000.  Every 6 months for 10 years you receive a coupon of $25 ($50 per year is 5.00% on $1,000).  Then at maturity date, thats like the expiration date the entity pays you one last interest payment and your principal back (the $1,000). 

Neat little tid bits if you are a nerd.  The reason the interest is called coupon payments is because waaayyyyyy back in the day if you bought a bond there would be the certificate and perforated coupons on the bottom.  When it was time for another coupon payment you would rip off your coupon and cash that sucker at the bank.  These were called bearer bonds, as they bore the actual coupons. 

Yep, I'm a nerd. Any questions??

Paternalism? REally?

So my objection for today is the use of/advocation for the term "paternalism" in Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler’s Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron. Here's why it bothers me:
1. Duh, cause I'm a feminist. I can't reconcile myself to Sunstein and Thaler's idea that "the term "paternalistic" should not be considered pejorative, just descriptive," Yeah, I know S and T say their system doesn’t abuse paternalism because the libertarian bit always means there is a choice—but the crux of their argument is that this choice is flexibly persuadable to the point of being a non-choice, which should be exploited to everyone’s well-being ( and just who is deciding this well-being? Do we trust the authors invocation of empirical evidence-and those gathering it- to safeguard against abuse?)

2. I think it’s a flimsy excuse to include the term paternalism on the grounds that it is commonly used. This article tries to get readers to agree with the ideas set forth and also to show readers their own susceptibility to persuasion based on the way an issue is presented. It undermines S and T’s own argument when their issue is presented through the use of a term with potentially alienating power.
3. Nudge, the book based on this article, is crazy popular where I used to work, the official bookstore of the Wharton Business School. I don’t fancy paternalism in any form becoming the buzzword in a place famous for creating the “Leaders of Tomorrow.”

Don't worry, he'd want me to speak up.

I was going to use my John Stuart Mill reading (On Liberty) assignment as the Guinea Pig for a new segment here on 2BF called "At Least He Tried" in an effort to deal with my annoyance at people that I mostly like but who are a teensy bit sexist, racist or classicist (usually because they live in the way-back-then.) Some cursory wiki scrounging, however has altered my judgment of Mr. Mill, and I am pleased to report that he was a strong advocate for women's rights and disavowed slavery. So, we now have "At Least He REALLY, TRULY Tried:"

List of Grievances:
-some races are excepted from liberty because they are still barbarous and uncivilized ( this is such a weird moment in the text that I wonder if he is just pandering for support. An Emily Dickinson situation?)
- assumption that there is THE TRUTH to be found AND
- it is probably Christian


Ways that he REALLY, TRULY tries:
- He stands up for contrary opinions ( a sassy lady’s fav kind)
- There is room for whatev he says about barbarous races (and also what he assumes about Christianity) to be challenged in his model where folks are encouraged to speak up

It’s not perfect (it never is) but what good fem’nist is against free speech?

DIY: A serenity activity for people with ideological rage

1. Find an article, blogpost, or facebook status written by someone who not only disagrees with you, but is also openly hostile and insulting.

2. Don't read it until you've looked over this statement:

"It is only when we are in the habit of recognizing our opinions as a partial experience seen through our stereotypes that we become truly tolerant of an opponent." --Walter Lippmann

3. And heard what I have to say about it:
This also means that if our opponents refuse to see their own opinions as only one of many ways of perceiving the world, they aren't going to be tolerant either. I found this incredibly helpful in reading a critique of Lippmann done by the full-on snob H.L. Mencken. Usually Mencken’s name-calling would make my blood boil, BUT reading the Lippmann article first made it kind of nice to see how this diatribe proved Lippmann's very point. Mencken clearly has a set of stereotypes (particularly that the working man is a near-Neanderthal) that he won't look past. He’s writing for people who already agree with him and there is no use arguing. This is sort of refreshing in its own right. Here’s how:

4. NOW read your article, blogpost or facebook status, keeping in mind that the author is NOT going to change their position, and certainly not because you wasted time getting mad at them. This is an excellent opportunity to laugh at their bluster instead of spiking your blood pressure.

hullo my english major fem'nists. what d'ye say?

This Nick Carr is a wily one.
Carr’s post responds to this Adam Kirsch article. Kirsch proposes Google as a tool for breaking down the elitism of literary allusion by making information easily accessible.

Carr acknowledges that it’s a “dicey proposition” to speak against a “culture democratizer” like Google, though he does it anyway. In fact, he warns against the “hegemony of the Google view.” Fair point. He’s good at those. For instance, I’d also concede his point that allusion doesn’t have to be elitist. Exclusionary, yes, but not restricted to the “choice part of society” as per the OED definition. I would say it has been appropriated to great effect by minority artists (Think Kara Walker).

So why’d I call him wily? Because he uses the terms “allusion” and “literary allusion” so interchangeably that we lose sight of the qualifier: literary. He almost manages to throw us off the scent when he invokes filmmakers, painters and composers, but don't be fooled: it is literary allusion that he sees in danger (allusion is alive and kickin. See 30 Rock, or following my Professor's example Girl Talk).

“Literary” refers to a canon historically determined by mostly white, patriarchal standards that you betcha are elitist. Allusion is not necessarily elitist, literary allusion in the style of Yeats and Shelley sure has a history of being inaccessible. And if both of these dudes broadened what qualifies as literature they’d see the tradition of biblical allusion thriving in the works of Stephenie Meyer.