Hard to believe

Arthur Brooks, the incoming president of the American Enterprise Institute, writes in today's Wall Street Journal:

In May 2008, the Gallup Organization asked 1,200 American adults how many days in the past week they had felt 'outraged.' The average number of angry days was 1.17, and 54% of those surveyed said none. Only one in 20 reported being outraged every day. Despite the litany of horrors presented to us daily by campaigning politicians, most of us appear to be doing really quite well managing our anger.

Indeed, we are less angry today than a decade ago. Let's look back to the glory days of the 1990s, when -- according to the media narrative -- we enjoyed uninterrupted peace and prosperity. In 1996, the General Social Survey asked exactly the same 'outrage' question of 1,500 adults. Then, only 38% had not been outraged at all in the past week. The average number of angry days was 1.5 per week, 29% higher than at present.

That's not what I would have expected. The article goes on to say the one group that is more outraged than in 1996 is the self-described "very liberal", which is more intuitive. Is it because the Obama effect has already taken effect, or people are optimistic about ABTB (anyone better than Bush)? Assuming the author is right that the question was the exact same, some differences could be attributed to surrounding questions (did previous questions take an optimistic slant, or pessimistic). It's been a while since I've done any good survey construction or studied the practice, but each of the surveyor names give some sense of impartiality.

Brooks goes on to write:

A more interesting question than what afflicts extreme liberals today is why folks outside their ranks (including moderate liberals) are failing so miserably to muster up much rage in the current environment. One theory is that ordinary Americans have been lulled into a culture of complacency -- or in the fancier language of academics, they're suffering from "false consciousness."

Another possibility is that most Americans recognize that, while gas is expensive and our grocery money doesn't go as far as it did last year, we are still an enormously prosperous and fortunate nation.

The first seems more likely, the second seems to give americans to much credit. I wonder to what effect selection bias, or the use of the term "outrage" has? Both of these can draw on the mortgage crisis--perhaps increased transience caused by the meltdown shifted the response. Gallup should have ways to work around that, I would hope. But secondly is the difference between outrage and fear. I can't really reconcile that with the 1996 results though. At this time, however, maybe people are more afraid of the general climate moreso than outraged--a split vote if you will. And even if people are less outraged, Congress still has a 9% approval rating and Bush has about the lowest presidential approval ratings on record, so people are definitely pissed off about something.

What's my point?

On Facebook last week, a friend posted a note regarding the study published in Science magazine
that females have caught up with males in standardized testing on math and science. The note was posted with some sense of satisfaction, and a lot of the same feeling was in most of the various news accounts. The positive news was centered on this:

The researchers looked at the average of the test scores of all students, the performance of the most gifted children and the ability to solve complex math problems. They found, in every category, that girls did as well as boys.

My first reaction, without reading it too closely I admit (that seems to be a common theme for me) was to wonder how much of the change was male regression versus female progression. Given the handwringing over primary education in the U.S., was it a good thing, or a bad thing that the sexes were equal?

Today, however, I read some counterpoints to the study. Or more specifically, disagreement with how the outcomes of the study were reported. The point of contention is that the news accounts of the study centered on the focus on the testing mean (boy versus girl average) instead of variance (dispersion of scores). In news reports, it was first mentioned in the Wall Street Journal:

Girls and boys have roughly the same average scores on state math tests, but boys more often excelled or failed, researchers reported. The fresh research adds to the debate about gender difference in aptitude for mathematics, including efforts to explain the relative scarcity of women among professors of science, math and engineering.

And it's since been discussed on Marginal Revolution, which was then mentioned on the Freakonomics blog.

The main point of contention is the shape of achievement of boys and girls in math and science. The average amongst a group only tells you so much. If one group scores 100, 95, 90, 70, 60 and the other group scores 90, 85, 85, 80, 75, the mean is the same, but the level of achievement is different. A starker example would be if the first group was 100, 100, 100, 60, 55. If one presumes a high level of accomplishment in math/science is necessary for technical fields, the general increase by girls may not be enough to cause that bump in advanced education/career path. Furthermore, there's the issue of why is there such variance among boys.

This variance is something that occurred to me a long time ago--that the difference in intelligence of the sexes was negligible, but guys pushed more to the extremes. One of the comments in the blogs above mentioned that intelligence is believed to be tied to the X chromosome, so girls get the average of 2, while boys get just one, increasing male variance. I'm not sure if that's true or right, but it's a theory.

I would think some variance, or perceived variance would be sociological. Lower male achievement may be condoned to some degree because "boys will be boys", athletic achievement, an outgoing personality (or however you'd describe Bart Simpson) which leads to the belief one is smart, but just just doesn't test well, or just a greater propensity to get into trouble (also Bart). Girls seem to be less prone to these pitfalls. In regard to athletics, for example, I think I've read that female athletes score above averages, whereas male athletes are well below.

On the flip side, there's the thought that boys garner more attention, which means more direction, which could be important to the high variance. When I think back to elementary and high school, my recollection is that in the former, there were more smart girls but the smart kids were all at the same general level. Except for me. I was brilliant. Everyone told me so (oh, how the mighty have fallen). Middle school was much the same.

High school was a little different. Some people slid out of the "smart" group. More of those might have been female, hard to say for sure--I might just have been more aware of their lack of presence. But the general mix in the various AP classes junior and senior year was still fairly evenly split. The one thing that struck me (as it did in college) was that the smart girls seemed to work a helluva lot harder than the guys, but there wasn't a whole lot of difference in grades. I think the smartest people in my grade were considered guys, but that may have been the smartest girls were quiet and reserved and the smartest guys thought they were brilliant, so perceptions may have been shaped by those personality traits.

Still, that's all anecdotal experience. The blogs/discussions linked above get into more detail about the statistical relevance of the study and the meaning of the variance. In response to my subject, I guess my point is, in the words of Winston Wolf, "Well, let’s not [pat each other on the back] quite yet. " It would be misguided of educators, public officials, business and other stakeholders to treat the problem (female underperformance in math and science) as solved without looking deeper into the issue. That is, if it is an important enough issue to address outside of efforts to generally increase STEM education.

Screw you Gerber!

Back in the heady days when we thought it would take forever to use up $500 of credit at Babies R Us, we contemplated getting a swanky highchair. Pneumatic lift, 1 piece molded plastic seat, made with style and flair... why not? We quickly realized $500 doesn't actually go that far, so we did a complete 180, and went ultracheap with the Ikea Antilop--$25 with the tray, and a similar, one piece, easy clean seat!

Owen hasn't complained about sitting in it in the trial runs, and Carter Hale and Myra Streit survived their meals using it. So we were all ready to give Owen his first try of solids this weekend, but all we needed was the right feeding utensil. Having been interested in the Boon high chair, I became familiar with their other products, generally well reviewed, if not sometimes a little overkill. On a previous visit to BRU in May, we got the Boon Squirt, which keeps the rice cereal in the handle and the feeder can squeeze the feed onto the spoon. In retrospect, this seems more neat than super functional, but it's possible I don't have enough experience to know what I'm talking about.

We returned with our BRU haul, and as I'm prone to do, I researched what we just bought, rather than being prepared and doing it before hand. The Squirt has BPA! But a BPA-free version was scheduled to be available later in the summer. Joanne made another sojourn to BRU on Saturday to exchange the Squirt, but, alas, the BPA-free Squirt was not yet available. In what can only be described as knowing her mate well, Joanne bought two types of spoons, knowing the chances of getting one I'd be happy with on only one try was small.

It didn't even take any reviews to make my choice. On the back of the Gerber spoons, it says, in its entirety:

Long, slim handle makes feeding baby easier for mom

The hell?! Did the ink for "and dad" cost too much? If my mom didn't read this blog (hi Mom!), I'd be busting out some F-bombs (No, Mom, i wouldn't actually do that if you weren't a reader. I don't have a potty mouth. Honest!). Seriously, who are the ad wizards who came up with this one?

So the Meal Mates it was. Just on principle.

Sunday, July 27, Owen got his first "taste" of something not from a bottle. And a taste may have been all it was. I'm not sure anything actually went down, but at least he had a fun time with it!

Breaking some eggs

I'm not quite sure where I read it recently--perhaps in a Cook's Illustrated (the latest issue of which, is the best we received--almost everything is of interest), maybe somewhere else--it was written that cracking eggs on the side of a mixing bowl, which most people do, is not the optimal way. Instead, whoever wrote whatever it is I read, offered the countertop as the best place to smack the egg. While making brinner tonight, I gave it a shot. Low and behold, no shells in the mixing bowl, no egg on the counter (I generally get some rundown from the bowl) except for the 1 that I hit way too hard. Really, quite a better method. I was using rather thin shelled eggs, so it will require more testing to see how it works with thicker shelled brown eggs that we occasionally get.

Speaking of breaking eggs, you might be aware of the Large Hadron Collider being built on the French-Swiss border by a consortium led by European Organization for Nuclear Research, which will smash protons together to replicate the big bang. In the free issue of Harpers that I received, courtesy of The Atlantic (or possibly the Economist, but I doubt it) selling my info to Harper's distributor, there was an extended passage from Luis Sancho, a cosmologist specializing in time theory, that submitted an affidavit to the US District Court in Honolulu in opposition to the project:

Theoretical calculations show that the LHC could produce two kinds of dark matter--black holes and strange, ultradense quark matter--that are extremely dangerous, as both have been theoretically proven to swallow in a chain reaction the entirety of the Earth... The exact probability of a runaway reaction that converts Earth into dark matter is unknown. The minimal risk as calculated by CERN allows for a 1-10% chance of extinguishing Earth... A calculation shows that the LHC experiment would be, technically, the largest holocaust in history. It would also be the biggest environmental crime in history, far more harmful than global warming, as it would mean the destruction of all life-forms on the planet.

That's a big egg to break! And this was news to me, as apparently I missed this topic when it was news/blog fodder a couple of weeks ago. A CS Monitor recap:

"So, will the most ambitious science project in human history end human history? No.
I should say “no, according to scientists working on the LHC.” But the evidence points to a resounding “no.”
A study released last month disassembled the arguments against powering up the collider. The report found “no basis for concerns that [small] black holes from the LHC could pose a risk to Earth on timescales shorter than the Earth’s natural lifetime.” In other words: Yes, it could happen, but chances are the sun will burn out before this collider can have an Earth-ending mishap.
Their reasoning? Slashdot puts it best: “Everything that will be created at the LHC is already being created by cosmic rays. If a black hole created by the LHC is interactive enough to destroy the world within the lifetime of the sun, similar black holes are already being created by cosmic rays.”

No I don't understand the science behind, so I can't clearly say it's alarmism with no really proof. When I read Joanne the passage, she actually laughed--there is a certain "ridiculous" quality to the affidavit. Oddly, it is also one of the more uplifting, least depressing columns/articles/pieces in this particular Harpers. Think about that for second--contemplating world destruction was not the top downer in the issue. In fact, it might not even be in the top 10. Joanne stopped reading before she got this far because it was all so depressing. We opted not to get the subscription (the Index was rather weak as well) although we did get a second issue, the catchy "Why the GOP must die".

Lesson Learned

One of the advantages of having the youngest baby amongst your friends is that you get to learn from their experience.

Observe:

It is Carter's first birthday. He is getting a cupcake to celebrate. Notice the candle on top:


Child + flame = parents rushing to the rescue.

But not quite in time!


Good thing kids are resilient!



Thanks Jeff & Kathleen for the useful tip!

It was an honor to know you Charlie

This morning was shocking. For work every morning I do a scan of news related to research, economic development, entrepreneurship and innovation. One of the scans I do is for ASU. I was not expecting to see this:

"Very sad news for those of us who do physical anthropology. Charles ("Charlie") Lockwood (University College London) was killed today in a motorcycle accident in London. He is survived by his parents and sisters.

Charlie was a good guy. He left the Valley/ASU shortly after President Crow took over ASU. Most of it was the opportunity he had at a UCL and his research in South Africa, with some displeasure over the Crow's approach when he got to ASU. Charlie started playing Ultimate at about the same time as Joanne (summer 2000). We played on local men's teams together. I provided an email address to him of critical importance even though that person whose email address it was was standing right there.We didn't keep in close touch after he moved, but we met up with him when we went to Europe in September 2006. We had dinner at an Indian place in Kensington that was in the neighborhood of where I stayed during a summer program in June 1996. The picture above is from that evening.

The two things I'll remember most about Charlie: first, off field, he was one of the most thoughtful people I have known. What he said and what he did gave the impression of having a reason or logical rationale that wasn't an after the fact rationalization. To get his input or thoughts on anything, you got the sense and confidence he knew what he was talking about. The second, on the field, of people I've played with, he's in the top 2 or 3 people that played with the most heart. He wasn't an amazing athlete, but he always gave his full effort. He wasn't afraid to take the other team's best player, even if that guy was 8 years younger, a couple of inches taller, been playing a lot longer (Charlie started playing in his early 30s). And you know what? He didn't lose that one-on-one matchup. My vision of Charlie on the field isn't really in getting the D, but being in a position that if the other guy let up even one bit, he would get it.

An "In Memoriam" page is up at Anthropology.net

Ahi Ah-hah

Before I made it to the lamb at Costco, I was in the seafood area and I was prepared to get enough Ahi Tuna for five. I called Joanne and she was reticent, based on our not having had it before, and fish being hit or miss on the quality. And it wasn't particularly cheap. But, to try something new, I got a piece that was suitable for us for dinner tonight.

The plan, as it usually is in the summer, was to grill, but the weather didn't really cooperate. That meant grilling inside on the cast iron. Where as the lamb marinades were multi-hour affairs, the one I used for the ahi was 30-60 minutes. It was pretty simple: soy sauce, honey, ginger, pepper and a dash of sesame oil...

I'm getting ahead of myself. What I wasn't aware of at the time of purchase is that ahi is meant to be seared, with the inside still raw. As I mentioned previously, I tend to overcook meat out of fear of undercooking. And we're not sushi/raw fish eaters, so this presented a conundrum.

I adjusted the cooking times up a bit, to account for the likely less hot stove top (using the cast iron meant not turning it too high so that the smoke alarms went off) and wanting a little less rareness in it. One out of two ain't bad. No smoke alarm (or large quantity of smoke), but the middle still was very pink (about an 1/8th crust on either side, with about 1/2 slab of pink in the middle), and not that hot. We proceeded to eat with caution.

The ahi itself was very good--I definitely liked it more than I expected to. I commented to Joanne beforehand what was the chance we'd only have a couple of bites because we didn't like it. The crust/marinade was also very good and worked well with the tuna. But that pink! Joanne had concerns about the raw fish issue, so she stuck to the more cooked areas, but ended up having a sandwich. I figured I have enough sick days for work, so despite the joy that was the food poisoning/stomach virus episode in October, I soldiered on and nearly polished it off. It was definitely tasty. Hard to say if we'll try it again, though. In looking at prepared images afterwards, I cooked it about right. I guess we'll have to get over our pink trepidation.

Food bill

I've seen a number of posts on the personal finance blogs I read about how to spend less than $20 or 30 a week on groceries (or claims to that effect), and I just don't see how it's possible. A lot of this based on timing coupons with sales (in the marketing cycle, store discounts are often four weeks after the release of a coupon, meaning you combine discounts by holding onto coupons for a month), and then using a lot of coupons to stock up. Still, coupons don't cover produce, most meat, some dairy and what not.

Not that it's representative of anything, but my tab this afternoon at Costco came in under $180. Granted, a lot of that will last more than a week, but it's definitely not 6 weeks worth (or 3 weeks, since there's two of us). That's actually pretty good, as my normal Costco tab is north of $200. But this might be the first time I only got food. It broke down like this:

• $50: meat (ahi tuna, leg of lamb, shrimp, sandwich turkey)
• $42: produce (blueberries, rainier cherries, asparagus, spinach, carrots, kiwis, bananas, potatoes)
• $29: grains (2 cereals, bread, waffles)
• $29: snacks (dried fruit, crackers, frozen fruit cups, fiber one bars)
• $25: other (oregano, soup, naked blue machine)

There's some splurge there (ahi, shrimp and cherries weren't cheap), but still, $20-30 a week? Really?

My other issue with costco shopping (or really food shopping) is that I tend to think of the items I like and if the price is right, I buy them, regardless of how many other similar items I'm getting. This is particularly an issue with produce. The last Costco trip, I purchased kiwis and plums--packages of 12 and more than 12 I think. And fruit doesn't exactly last. So we had like 2 of each every day, sometimes 3. A rational person wouldn't have bought both (or maybe they would, if they are better than joanne and me about eating fruit), but when my previous purchase of plums was very, very good, and the kiwis were the largest I had seen in a while. But I digress...

I got the leg of lamb because the Streits were coming over for dinner. Myra is 4 days older than Owen, but will generally be 3 days older (born Feb 28th).



And Tim and Evelyn outside:



I always have the vision of having friends over and having it be completely casual, no big thing, but it always turns into a production. Tonight was no exception.



I guess that pic doesn't really do it justice, but it's the only one Joanne took. I got the leg of lamb without really knowing how I was going to prepare it. The package said it could be grilled, and that was enough for me. Joanne called and told me before I left Costco that leg of lamb is often used for kabobs, but I wasn't about to buy a 10 pound bag of onions at Costco, and I didn't forsee another shopping trip in my future.

When I got home, I reviewed my options. The two grilling books were not as helpful as one would hope (marinades that required too much time), but, as usual, How to Cook Everything didn't let me down--I went with the Grilled Butterflied Lamb with Coconut Milk (the book tends not to use fancy names). As written, the recipe called for:

• 1 leg of lamb, 3-4 pounds
• 2 cups coconut milk
• 1/2 tsp of turmeric or a few threads of saffron
• 2 medium onions
• 1 T. fresh ginger or 1 tsp ground ginger
• 1/4 cup cilantro leaves
• salt & pepper
  

I had to improvise a bit since we didn't have cilantro or regular onions. But the turmeric and/or saffron? Not a problem. In place of the onions, I used our remaining shallot and some green onions we had on hand. I didn't worry about the cilantro, as I'm not a big fan. And I didn't go "or" on ingredient 3--I used both. Funny thing about that--I assumed saffron, for whatever reason, was like a vanilla bean. A strand would be some long skinny thing. The saffron was in an envelope in the container, and when i pulled it out, the threads were, at most, a quarter inch long. So I used a little more than "a few" threads, making the marinade a very bright yellow (you blend ingredients 2-6 and then marinade for an hour or two, which fit our schedule).

In cutting the fat off the leg of lamb, I ended up making into four smaller cuts so that it wouldn't take as long on the grill. And for one of the very few times, I actually cooked a piece of meat right--I have a tendency to overcook out of fear of undercooking. In carving it for dinner, it had a very nice pink color. The recipe recommended medium rare. I'd call it a little more cooked than that, but not medium. I lucked out there.

The verdict? Tim, Sarah and Joanne all said it was very good. I thought so too, but my enthusiasm for it was tempered a bit because it tasted a lot like Tasty Kabob (a questionable name from a marketing perspective, but it is truth in advertising--they make kabobs and they're tasty), so it was not a new taste bud experience for me. Still, I was happy to discover what might be their secret--an overabundance of saffron.

When I mentioned this to Joanne after dinner (me not being "wowed" by the lamb), she was surprised. I explained my view that since it was something I was accustomed to, it isn't a "wow" thing. Like me, she gets the same dish at TK (she gets the filet kabob; I get the lamb), so I asked her if she is wowed by they filet, or if it's something she knows she'll like, and she agreed, that the "wow" comes when she hasn't had it in a while. I went twice in June, so...

Actually, what I made might be better than TK, because it wasn't overcooked--I would say the tendency of the lamb there is to be cooked past medium, so it isn't always tender. Tonight it was very tender. The Victorinox slicier went through it so easily.

Buckling

I finally did it. I'm a social networker.

Tuesday night I signued up for a Linked In account. Today, Facebook. The former had slightly more thought put into it--I've been thinking for the past couple of months about how little effort I put into professional growth and development, an issue which may or may not lead to some series of posts. Not that I expect it to be any cure about what ails me (professionally), but I can see it having some utility as a professional tool. The Facebook registration followed from that--in preparing my boss for a European marketing trip, I was doing some background research on who she was meeting with and found that a good number of them had Linked In or Facebook accounts with some biographical info. So I signed up for Facebook to get that info, not realizing you needed to be a "friend" to get it. That obviously does me no good--at least for that purpose.

My initial thought is that Linked In is clearly better from a professional perspective. Facebook is a gated MySpace, a site I have little use for. I did read a BusinessWeek column re Facebook's business advantages, but I think it comes down to the types of networks you're involved in, how you separate business/social and one's one initiative.

My initial view of Facebook is that, like MySpace (or this blog), it's a massive time sink, and completely unwieldy at any type of scale. What's the point of having 200 friends? How would you ever track what's going on? How many profile pages are active versus just there so one can have pages to look at? I can't see myself not being in the latter category--if I'm going to bother being active enough to create/add content, I'd rather do it here or picasa than a members only page that will get lost in the shuffle of the gobs of friends pages people have.

Or maybe I just don't know how to use it yet. I got involved in a conversation at work the other day in which the Operations person in other unit was complaining about how other people in the group did not want to grow/adapt/learn the new systems that were available. They were content to use tools as they've always used them rather than trying new approaches or even new programs (this was a conversation based primarily on file sharing and interoffice networks. I know, exciting stuff.).

So anyone have thoughts/experiences?

5 for 12

The common pre-Fourth soda sale was 5 12-packs for $12, commonly in the form of buy 4, get one for free. So I made the decision to fully participate in the Dewmocracy, an attempt to extend the Mountain Dew brand with the "election" of a new Dew flavor, either SuperNova (strawberry), Voltage (raspberry) or Revolution (Wild Berry). And I got the original and Livewire to say I got five different flavors.

A recap:

• The original: Nothing beats it. It is the top dog.
• Livewire: Not new, but my preferred alternate flavor. I loath Code Red, not so much because of the flavor but because of the not-uncommon situation that restaurants would offer Sierra Mist and Code Red, but not the original. This used to piss me off, and I would rant about it, but since I rarely ever get drinks at a restaurant anymore (except for a milk shake at our tri-monthly visit to In 'n Out (speaking of which, one will be build on an exterior pad at Fiesta Mall)), it's not really an issue anymore. And the blackout (black cherry i think) I've never tried. So Livewire kind of wins by default.
• SuperNova: my favorite in the dewmocracy, but I'm biased to the strawberry flavor. Much like Livewire, it's similar to like-flavored sodas, but with an extra kick. This is not to say I'd definitely pick it out in a blind taste test though.
• Voltage: It's pretty good. I actually went through it pretty quick, rather than mixing up the flavors. After drinking it exclusively for a couple of days, the first can of the original seemed a bit off. I could live with it winning, and the raspberry is a nice change of pace, as it doesn't have that "over-sweetness" that some people claim about in the original. It looks to have an insurmountable, Reagan in '84 lock on the election, as, at the moment, it is not losing any state (it's tied for the lead in 6 states)
  
• Revolution: Fairly pointless. I'm not sure if the ginseng is more pronounced or what, but it has provides a sensation that isn't quite right. It's drinkable but the other two are far superior. I did a taste test with my dad, who generally isn't open to such things. He thought it was OK, and noted that it seemed "lighter" like a 7-Up in texture. I don't expect him to ever have it again.

My life is hell

I made up a song to sing for Owen based on "99 bottles of beer on the wall" and sung it to him fairly often over the weekend, and now I can't get the damn thing out of my head.

The ditty goes like this:

99 bottles of boob in the fridge
99 bottles of boob
Take one out, suck it down,
98 bottles of boob in the fridge

And repeat.

PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!

A better plan

Since we've been in the house, we've been on SRP's Time of Use plan, which has higher rates during peak periods (weekdays only: 1-8 pm during the summer; 5-9 am & pm in the winter) and lower rates at all other times. During the summer, by timeshifting our power, we've save $10-30/month. With winter, there's little change--I've always had some intention of canceling TOU during the winter for the convenience factor, but have never actually done so.

SRP has also started to roll out "smart meters" which allows one to see their daily electric use. For June, you can see what the heat wave started, and on our particular bill, you can see where we adusted the thermostat up one degree, then when we finally added the blinds to the front windows, and the day after that when we turned the thermostat back down because it was too high for Grandma K:


In perusing the site, I came across a new plan, the EZ-3. Its peak period is only 3-6 pm during summer weekdays, and it uses the regular winter price planning (no time of use). But both its peak and off-peak rates are higher than time of use. But does the reduction of peak use make up for the increased cost of off peak? Let's run the numbers using the June bill:



THe assumption here is that our total peak usage will decrease by more than half--after all its only 3 hours versus 7, and we can make sure we are very thrifty with any electrical use between 3-6. Even if it's only a wash financially, it looks to be a much more convenient plan without having to deal with a change of plans in the winter, or waiting until after 8 pm to turn down the thermostat, or make dinner (this rarely happens), or do a load of laundry.

So, dear, I made the switch. Sorry I didn't let you know first.

More outstanding movie news

Jeffery Tambor said the Arrested Development movie is a go!

"After months of speculation. I think we have finally figured out for sure that we are indeed doing an 'Arrested Development' movie,' Tambor said. 'I am very excited about that. I love that cast and crew and I felt like we had more to say.'

Yes! Excellent!

After watching 3 seasons of the Office, I no longer say its definitely the best show ever, but it probably is, since it never really had UMMs (Uncomfortable Michael moments). By the way, that is a term I just made up, unlike a lot of things which I borrow from elsewhere. When season 5 starts, feel free to comment to coworkers, "that episode had a serious case of the UMMs".