I may have posted this link before, but it is so important, it must be reposted.
I must say, though, that I vehemently disagree with #21!
And given this household's preferences for scotch, we tend to spell it "whisky".
As many of you know, about a year and a half ago, Ms Eclectic and I went on a version of the Atkins diet. It is a low-carb diet that doesn't worry so much about fat or calories: just cut back on the carbs and eat lots of low-carb veggies.
We have had success with the diet. We both lost weight initially, and we have rarely been hungry. Unfortunately, my hankerings for pizza and desserts have kept me from losing any more weight, but I have found two things of importance:
It turns out that recent research has supported our move in this direction for dieting. As I wrote last month,
Here's the thing that got us onto that diet. We read a report that said the body burns more calories processing fat than it does processing the same caloric content of carbohydrates. And eating loads of fat doesn't increase your blood cholesterol. And, no, Atkins did not die of a heart attack.
And there are other studies that are moving in this direction [ht MA]:
Butter, olive oil, heavy cream, and bacon are not harmful foods. Quite the opposite. Fat is the best thing for those who want to lose weight. And there are no connections between a high fat intake and cardiovascular disease.
On Monday, SBU, the Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment, dropped a bombshell. After a two-year long inquiry, reviewing 16,000 studies, the report “Dietary Treatment for Obesity” upends the conventional dietary guidelines for obese or diabetic people.
For a long time, the health care system has given the public advice to avoid fat, saturated fat in particular, and calories. A low-carb diet (LCHF – Low Carb High Fat, is actually a Swedish “invention”) has been dismissed as harmful, a humbug and as being a fad diet lacking any scientific basis.
Instead, the health care system has urged diabetics to eat a lot of fruit (=sugar) and low-fat products with considerable amounts of sugar or artificial sweeteners, the latter a dangerous trigger for the sugar-addicted person.
This report turns the current concepts upside down and advocates a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, as the most effective weapon against obesity.
The expert committee consisted of ten physicians, and several of them were skeptics to low-carbohydrate diets at the beginning of the investigation. (Source.)
A column by a former Canadian ambassador [Michael Bell] in the Globe and Mail (behind a pay wall, unfortunately, but see below) from a few days ago blames Jewish settlers for an attack on a Jewish visitor. The Elder of Ziyon summarizes and quotes the G&M article and then sets the record straight:
The only problem is that Seidemann was attacked by Arabs.
He was visiting a Palestinian friend in an Arab neighborhood of Jerusalem, Sur Bahir. He admits having been targeted previously for being a Jew in Arab neighborhoods. Representatives of the Arab community visited him and expressed regret. The Jewish doctors that treated him all pretty much asked what he was doing in a neighborhood where Jews are routinely attacked if they step foot.
There are no Jews there.
As far as I know, outside of "ultra" religious idiots in Mea Shearim who hate people driving in their neighborhood on Shabbat, there have been very few instances of Jews throwing rocks at moving cars.
There are certainly no "established patterns" of Jews throwing rocks at Arab cars (or cars driven by Israeli leftists.)
However, incidents of Arabs throwing rocks at Israeli cars happen virtually daily. This rock throwing has caused serious injuries and deaths.
Jews (and Arabs who look like Jews) who accidentally enter Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem have been almost lynched and subjected to barrages of rocks thrown by dozens of Arabs, egged on by photographers.
One rock throwing was caught on video just yesterday.
Seidemann freely admits it was Arabs who threw the rock that injured him.
But Bell, a former ambassador to Israel apparently is so obtuse, so suffused in his righteous anger to blame "settlers" for everything wrong in the Middle East, that he seemingly only glanced at the news about his "friend" Seidemann and filled in the blanks in his incredibly biased professorial brain.
There is a double bias here shown by the professor. Not only is he willing to exaggerate events to blame Jews, he is willing to ignore Arab violence that happens every day in Jerusalem.
The charitable explanation is that Bell is a complete and utter moron who cannot be trusted to read simple English sentences. The alternative is that he purposely chose to twist Seidemenn's words to blame his favorite bogeyman, the "ultras."
Bell's grasp of basic facts about Israel are no more accurate:Such is the conundrum of Zionism today: The mainstream's goal being the establishment of a Jewish democratic national state; the religious nationalists' being the control of the land as the instrument of redemption, in some cases at whatever cost. The seed of defiance stems largely from the latter's drive to settle the densely Palestinian populated Samarian mountain ridge. Largely these high points but not only the ridge. [sic] Mr. Seideman has been most active respecting the Elad settlers' movement in Silwan, a Palestinian neighborhood just outside the Old City's walls, beneath which the earliest foundations of Jewish Jerusalem lie.
This is barely understandable English, further proving that The Globe and Mail's editor was asleep when this came in. Still, anyone who has driven in Judea and Samaria sees that Jewish settlements are generally not near "densely Palestinian populated" areas, the Arabs generally live in valleys while the settlers usually gravitate towards hilltops, and most of the area is quite empty. Well over 95% of Arabs live in Areas A and B where there are few if any Jews.
Also, Silwan was originally a Jewish neighborhood of Yemenite Jews The Jews were driven out, attacked in 1921 and again in 1929.
Who knows who attacked the Yemenites? Maybe Professor Bell can write an article blaming the settlers. I mean, who else could have attacked Jews when Arabs and Jews lived so peacefully together before "occupation" according to morons like Bell? It makes just as much sense as what he wrote here.
The idea that such an ignorant person was an ambassador - a job that requires a tiny bit of knowledge about the host country - is nothing less than astonishing.
I've seen a lot of media bias over the past decade, but this is off the charts.
(h/t Daniel, This Ongoing War)
UPDATE: Yisrael Medad tweeted Seidemann:@ymedad Of course I didn't. I just saw the article now, and immediately notified him of his error.
— Daniel Seidemann (@DanielSeidemann) December 3, 2013@DanielSeidemann It's not "an error" if it's predicated on an entirely bogus hypothesis blaming Jews based on "established patterns"
— ymedad (@ymedad) December 3, 2013
Also, a commenter writes:I actually was a student under Professor Bell when I attended the University of Windsor, and I will attest that it is more out of bias than it is ignorance. As being, quite possibly, the only pro-Israel student in a class that had 25-30% Arabs, he certainly puts a lot of blame of the conflict upon the religious Israelis, but he's fully aware that the Palestinians are not saints either.
I have tried replacing my laptop with an iPad or phablet (and keyboard) and storing files in the cloud. Several times. It seems it should work, but it doesn't for me. Matt Yglesias says most people aren't quite there either.
One problem is that I don't like the iPad software supposed equivalents to my laptop software. E.g., I don't like the "conversation" version of gmail, but that's all that seems available in the gmail app on iPad.
Another problem is that storing and using files from the cloud will take some learning for me.
It will probably happen at some point. Just not yet.
The sitting and presiding mayor of London, Ontario, is under indictment already for other charges.
The CRA [Canada Revenue Agency] said the foundation had strayed from its charitable purpose and had become overly focused on issuing tax receipts. And an audit found $8 million raised for hungry school kids and to fight HIV/AIDS went into the pockets of Joe Fontana and fellow directors of the charity.
For more, see this.
From this site:
In October 2011, she apparently posted this photo to the social networking site Vkonttakte.
But for those who do not understand the subject line, see this.
Update: It looks as if the pressure is mounting for people to study economics with EclectEcon. There are even subliminal messages out there, like this recent graph of the number of visitors to the blog:
The news keeps getting worser and worser:
A couple of weeks back, cancer patient Bill Elliot, in a defiant appearance on Fox News, discussed the cancelation of his insurance and what he intended to do about it. He’s now being audited.
Insurance agent C Steven Tucker, who quaintly insists that the whimsies of the hyper-regulatory bureaucracy do not trump your legal rights, saw the interview and reached out to Mr Elliot to help him. And he’s now being audited.
As the Instapundit likes to remind us, Barack Obama has “joked” publicly about siccing the IRS on his enemies. With all this coincidence about, we should be grateful the President is not (yet) doing prison-rape gags.
Meanwhile, IRS chief counsel William Wilkins, in his testimony to the House Oversight Committee over the agency’s systemic corruption, answers “I don’t recall” no fewer than 80 times. Try giving that answer to Wilkins’ colleagues and see where it gets you.
As you know from this, I was in Regina, Saskatchewan last week and weekend for the Grey Cup, the championship game of CFL (Canadian Football League). I play trumpet in the Roughrider Pep Band and was there in that capacity. Here are some thoughts:
Every year my older son, David Ricardo Palmer, and I line up with the crowds outside Walmart on Boxing Day (the day after Christmas). We rarely, if ever, buy anything*, but we enjoy being with the crowds and experiencing the joys. In the past few years, people have rushed into the store looking for big-screen TVs and other electronic goods. But what will be the big-rush items this year?
*One item I bought last year just reached out to me and was totally irresistible. I laugh every time I see it:
Hanukkah begins at sundown today, and U.S. Thanksgiving begins at midnight tonight.
It is a result of a rare coincidence between the lunisolar Hebrew calendar (whose dates reflect both the moon phase and the time of the solar year, and which can have between 353 and 385 days per year) and the Gregorian calendar. Because the calendars are not calculated the same way, Chanukah appears at a different time each year on the Gregorian calendar.
Thanksgiving Day has fallen during Hanukkah at least twice between 1863 (when Thanksgiving was proclaimed a U.S. federal holiday by President Abraham Lincoln) and 2013: in 1888 Thanksgiving was the first day of Hanukkah, and in 1899 it was the fourth day. Thanksgiving occurred later in those two years than is possible under current U.S. law (as a result of changes between 1939 and 1941); as a result of this confusion, some media reports have mistakenly claimed that Thanksgivukkah has never occurred since Lincoln.
Because the Gregorian and Jewish calendars have slightly different average year lengths, over time they drift out of sync with each other. As a result of this, Thanksgiving Day will not fall entirely within Hanukkah again in the foreseeable future. (One physicist has calculated that, if the Jewish calendar is not revised, Thursday, November 28 will not fall during Chanukah again until the year 79811.)  However, since the Jewish day does not begin at midnight, but on the sunset before it, those celebrating both holidays will light the second candle of Hanukkah 2013 the evening of Thanksgiving Day, the first candle having been lit on Wednesday, November 27; there will continue to be occasional years in which Hanukkah and Thanksgiving partially overlap, with the first night of Hanukkah beginning in the evening of Thanksgiving. For example, 2070 will be one such year, when the first night of Hanukkah will be the evening of Thursday, November 27. 1918 was another such year.
Nearly two years ago I auditioned to be in a documentary series about how the War of 1812 affected Southwestern Ontario between Niagara and Detroit. I was initially offered a role of a 32-year-old, and I immediately wrote to the producers that I was flattered that they thought I could play such a role. They, of course, rescinded that offer and instead offered me the role of Governor Isaac Shelby (of Kentucky), who was a general during that war. The filming for my very minor role was done in August, 2012, and will be on TVO sometime during the winter of 2014. Here is my very brief role, in its entirety, in Episode One.
I recorded this snippet on my smartphone from a disk sent to me in advance of the TVO showing of the series.
In this scene, I am assuring the women of Amherstburg that we Kentuckians will not destroy their homes so long as they do not harbour any of their men folk, whom we would consider to be soldiers for the British. The narrative over the video suggests that I might be playing General Harrison giving these assurances, but that isn't exactly what I was told nor what the credits say (and is especially bizarre since General Harrison is played by a different actor).
Oh well, another gig, another credit.
Coincidentally, Shelby, Michigan, less than an hour north of where I was born and raised, was named for Governor Shelby:
Shelby was originally established as Churchill’s Corners in 1866, named after Walter H. Churchill who was the first postmaster. It was renamed Shelby in 1885 when it was incorporated as a village - after General Isaac Shelby, who along with his famous Kentucky Rangers, took back Detroit from the British in the War of 1812.
It's interesting that in the full narrative of the documentary, Governor Shelby's role in the War of 1812 is not mentioned even once.
And you know what? If I hadn't played this role and done lots of reading about it, I'd have had no idea who Shelby was, what he did, or why that village was named Shelby.
On the face of it, it looks as if Iran is giving up next-to-nothing in the deal and will now have the economic sanctions lifted, during which it can repatriate zillions of dollars worth of foreign assets.
Stratfor is far from optimistic but hopeful. See this.
The logic here suggests a process leading to the elimination of all sanctions in exchange for the supervision of Iran's nuclear activities to prevent it from developing a weapon. Unless this is an Iranian trick to somehow buy time to complete a weapon and test it, I would think that the deal could be done in six months. An Iranian ploy to create cover for building a weapon would also demand a reliable missile and a launch pad invisible to surveillance satellites and the CIA, National Security Agency, Mossad, MI6 and other intelligence agencies. The Iranians would likely fail at this, triggering airstrikes however risky they might be and putting Iran back where it started economically. While this is a possibility, the scenario is not likely when analyzed closely.
Apparently Stratfor thinks that speaking quietly and carrying a big stick is still a viable option in the Middle East.
Melanie Phillips heaps scorn on this view [see this]. [update: the link and quote are now correct]
Phillips goes on to list 17 different points about the agreement that should be raising eyebrows everywhere.
The Canadian gubmnt is also concerned about the apparent lop-sidedness of the deal [see this]:
Canada vowed Sunday to keep its sanctions regime against Iran after a preliminary deal on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, calling for a more conclusive accord. ...
But Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird insisted that Ottawa would keep its "tough" sanctions "in full force" until negotiators clinch a permanent agreement, because "Iran has not earned the right to have the benefit of the doubt."
I worry that Phillips is right. Elsewhere I have pondered whether it is a case of John Neville Kerry-lain and "Peace in our time."
At one time in my life, I wore custom-tailored shirts. I worked carefully with the tailor and had the shirts made to compensate for different shoulder sizes and slight variations in my arm lengths.
I don't do that anymore. But I do find it difficult to buy shirts "off the rack", so to speak. The sleeve lengths are never satisfactory (and not just because of the minor variations in my shoulders and arms).
What I'd like to buy are shirts with 16" necks and 33 1/2" sleeves. You can't get these, except maybe with custom-ordering, and that's fairly pricey.
My first-world-problem, though, is that in too many stores these days, you can maybe find 16" necks, but the sleeves are listed as either 32-33 (i.e. probably about 32.5") or 34-35 (i.e. probably 34.5"). The former are an inch too short and they look funny; the latter are an inch too long, and unless they can be tightened at the wrist with extra buttons, look equally funny.
So I won't buy the standard, off-the-rack shirts anymore. Instead I buy only shirts that are 16-34. Their sleeves are a bit too long, but they suit me better than 16-33, which is what most clothiers would have me wear. But it isn't all that easy to find even 16-34 shirts these days at many stores. I guess the inventory costs of carrying such a wide variety of sizes and colours are too high for most stores.
There seem to be two leading competitors in the single-cup-coffee-maker war that has been raging for the past several years. Keurig, on the one hand, uses a system that has a wide variety and that allows people to make their own K-cups. Tassimo, on the other hand also has a wide variety (see photos below) and employs barcodes to identify how much hot water to run through the system, from espressos to giant-sized cupfuls of coffee.
About two years ago, Ms. Eclectic bought a Tassimo. I don't think the coffee from our Tassimo is quite as good as the coffee we used to make. But it's good (better than adequate) and the ability to decide what kind of coffee we want, each time we make a cup, is great. We have a HUGE inventory of Tassimo disks, and part of the fun of having coffee (or tea) each morning is deciding, "Hmm. What'll I have today?" Here are some of the disks we have:
"But wait! There's more!"
"But wait! There's even more!"
No more photos, but yes, we have tonnes more on other shelves.
Last month when I was in Michigan, I noticed that the Walmarts and JCPennys I visited carried only Keurig-related products. They had no Tassimo machines or disks. They also carried non-Keurig machines that use Keurig K-cups. And I see that this week's advertising for Canadian Tire features only those machines which use K-cups. I have begun to wonder. Is this a duopoly battle in which one rival will emerge victorious? Or is this a market in which the two can survive?
At first I thought of the VHS-Betamax war. In that war, one technology had to emerge as the victor because people rented, borrowed, and exchanged videotapes so often. And there are some similarities: Tassimo, like Sony and Betamax, has been less aggressive (to put it mildly) about licensing their technology for the makers of other coffee machines. I think Sony learned their lesson in the videotape wars and was a bit more open in licensing BluRay technology in the HD video disk wars.
Of course the Coke and Pepsi rivalry came to mind, too. This is a type of competition that can support two or more major rivals, apparently ad infinitum. People have different tastes and different loyalties, and there is no reason there cannot be more than one (or two or three or more) successful firms in this market. But this market is not like the Tassimo-Keurig war because soft drinks do not require consumers to purchase machinery with different technologies.
Maybe the best analogy is the razor war: Gillette vs. Schick. There's a hardware component and a replaceable component, and nothing is interchangeable between the brands. Both survive, however, because there is no requirement of compatibility between different users. People don't rent or borrow or exchange razor blades. Similarly, I expect there is little exchange between customers of the Keurig or Tassimo systems.
Is the battle for shelf space and consumer adoption in the single-cup-coffee-maker business being won by Keurig? It looks that way, judging from what I have seen in the US and judging from the number of people I know who have bought Keurig machines lately. But in our area, Tassimo still seems at least as strong and popular as Keurig.
But over time, Tassimo might well fade unless they do several things:
Cheerleading in the CFL (and probably many other places) is basically an artistic, high-energy, athletic skin show. The routines the cheerleaders go through are beautifully and/or intriguingly well-choreographed, and the cheerleaders have to be supremely well-conditioned to perform 5-8 times a day while they are out here at Grey Cup.
I may be biased (in part because one of my former students is one of them), but the choreography of the Saskatchewan Roughrider cheerleaders is especially intriguing. The people move gracefully from one position on the floor to another, morphing seamlessly into new positions and shapes, shifting different people from front to back, etc.
By a slim edge, the best I've seen (cheerleaders often perform just before the Regina Pep Band, and so we've been able to see several different shows) are the cheerleaders from Edmonton. They have great skill but also seem quite lively and alluring. Their choreography is good (though not the same as the Riders cheerleaders) but just overall I enjoyed their performances more than any of the others.
I have always believed that "loan" is a noun and "lend" is a verb. I have gone so far in my writing as to change the economic term "loanable funds" to "lendable funds". And I yell at the tv whenever someone says something like, "I'll loan you that."
Internet correspondent MA has pointed out to me, however, that modern dictionaries have long seen the use of "loan" as a verb as acceptable. Here is just one example.
Although a surprising number of critics still voice objections, loan is entirely standard as a verb. You should note that it is used only literally; lend is the verb used for figurative expressions, such as “lending a hand” or “lending enchantment.”
So the title of this posting would not be acceptable, even with modern usage. And I don't care what the dictionaries say, using "loan" as a verb just doesn't sound right to me.
There's much more at About.com. From that site, for those who really care,
- "Although most expert users of English dislike loan as a verb ('I loaned him my pen'), except in financial contexts, it must be acknowledged that the usage is sanctioned by dictionaries. If you are not offended by 'Friends, Romans, countrymen, loan me your ears' or by 'Distance loans enchantment,' you may go along with the dictionaries and you will always have a defense."
(Theodore M. Bernstein, Miss Thistlebottom's Hobgoblin's, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1971)
- "Some people are bothered by the word loan as a verb, preferring to use lend in its place. There's not much reason for the anxiety--loan has been a verb since around the year 1200, and I think an 800-year probation is long enough for anyone--but it's now little used in America. My advice: don't be bothered by loan as a verb but, if you want to avoid irritating those who have this hangup, it's never wrong to use lend."
(Jack Lynch, The English Language: A User's Guide, Focus, 2008)
- "The verb loan is well established in American usage and cannot be considered incorrect. The frequent objections to the form by American grammarians may have originated from a provincial deference to British critics, who long ago labeled the usage a typical Americanism. Loan is, however, used to describe only physical transactions, as of money or goods; for figurative transactions, lend is correct: Distance lends enchantment. The allusions lend the work a classical tone."
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., 2000)
- "These are sometimes interchangeable, sometimes not. Only lend carries the figurative senses of adding or giving, as in lend strength to the cause or lend color to an otherwise routine event. But for other senses, as when property or money pass temporarily from one owner to another, either word could be used. . . .
"In American and Australian English, the verb loan is readily used as an alternative to lend in such applications--but not so much in contemporary British English. The word was used in Britain up to C17, but a curious resistance seems to have developed there during C18 and C19, when the Oxford Dictionary (1989) citations are all from the US, and the word somehow acquired provincial associations. Fowler (1926) noted that it had been 'expelled' from southern British English, but that it was still used 'locally in the UK.' Yet Gowers writing after World War II found it returning to British government writing (1948, 1954) and weighs in against it in his 1965 edition of Fowler as a 'needless variant' (1965). This seems to be the basis on which British usage commentators argue that loan must be used only as a noun (except in banking and finance) and lend as a verb. Some British dictionaries (Collins, 1991) and the Canadian Oxford (1998) still echo the inhibition, while data from the BNC [British National Corpus] shows that many British writers are comfortable with it."
(Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Cambridge University Press, 2004)
My granddaughter Lara was visiting last month. While she was here, she commented that I seem to have a lot of pink shirts. I guess she's right:
Okay, so one of them is pretty dark to be called pink, and one of them has a blue pinstripe. But counting those, I have 8 pink shirts.
"Gramps, why do you have so many pink shirts?" Lara asked.
"I think there are two reasons, Lara. The first one is that I like the colour pink. The second is that they were usually on sale, so I stocked up on them."
Even though I like pink, I like other colours for shirts and have "a few" in other colours, too. I expect that both of the reasons I gave Lara are correct. If the pink shirts had not been on sale, and if other colours had been on sale, I would probably have fewer pink shirts and more shirts of other colours. It's the substitution effect at work.
Careful observers will notice that
It was a classic example of the failure of central planning.
There was an abundance of hubris by the planners, who believed they could do better than markets (sound familiar?).
There was an abundance of predictable bureaucratic behaviour in response to incentives as subordinates padded the numbers to satisfy their superiors (and out of fear for their lives if they didn't meet optimistic production quotas).
There was an abundance of force used to make peasants go along with the massive centralization that occurred (sound familiar?)
There was an abundance of stupidity (sound familiar?) as, for example, bureaucrats confiscated peasants' cooking implements to melt them down to make steel.
And there was an abundance of death: executions, murders, starvation, and cannibalism. Somewhere between 20 million and 36 million people died because of Mao's "Great Leap Forward".
I have been saving this piece from the NYTimes for over a year. It is a painful summary of the death and devastation that occurred from 1958 - 62. Some of the Amazon reviewers claim the author of Tombstone, which is summarize in the NYTimes piece, is lying, but for the most part it seems well-regarded and factual.
THIRTY-SIX million people in China, including my uncle, who raised me like a father, starved to death between 1958 and 1962, during the man-made calamity known as the Great Famine. In thousands of cases, desperately hungry people resorted to cannibalism.
The toll was more than twice the number of fallen in World War I, and about six times the number of Ukrainians starved by Stalin in 1932-33 or the number of Jews murdered by Hitler during World War II.
The horrors of life after central planners' decisions went awry are well-documented in many countries. Bureaucrats falsify numbers, higher-ups believe someone is hiding something, and those at the top set impossible goals, wanting to believe the padded numbers and biased information provided to them and dismissing anything contrary (sound familiar?).
At the same time, the higher-ups suffer little. The granaries are well-guarded, and the centralized crop is used to generate foreign exchange to fund larger projects.
How can people write about the evils of capitalism when there are so many horror stories about the evils of centralization in the 20th century? How can people write about the evils of capitalism when we see the failures of central planning in Venezuela, North Korea, or even in otherwise well-functioning markets?
Here's how: As one of my friends says, “Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.” This statement, known as Kip's Law, was first enunciated by Kip Esquire. Too bad he stopped blogging.
Sure, markets are not perfect. But we can look around and see how much better they are than centralization.
To read more about the tragedy in China, begin with the Wikipaedia entry "Great Leap Forward". It sets the death toll at between 18.5 and 42 million.
I have always enjoyed my visits to Regina. Something clicks between the members of the economics department and me, between the Saskatchewan Roughriders and me, and between Ms Eclectic's relatives out here and me.
I cannot think of a more appropriate, fun, interesting way to capture and reflect this joy than to have a urinal dedicated to me in the men's room at the University of Regina Department of Economics:
I gather the wording on the original draft for the plaque commemorating this dedication read something like:
The John "P" Palmer
(Because he is #1)
I think the more sedate version of the plaque in the photo is just fine, though.
I first met David Henderson in the fall of 1971. It was my first term of teaching at The University of Western Ontario, and he was here for that year taking courses that would qualify him as an undergraduate honours graduate (courses that, by the way, were the equivalent of Masters' level courses at most schools in the US).
I'm delighted that we have been able to stay in touch with each other off and on over the years, especially in the past few years via Facebook. I think one of the reasons is that David has a love of life, of learning, and of people. This outlook is captured beautifully in a post of his at EconLog a few days ago.
I had been wondering why I didn't connect at all with Bryan's March 9, 2012 post,"My Beautiful Bubble." Like him, I have very specific tastes and I judge everyone. So why do I love interacting with everyday people--at the supermarket, the drug store, heck, even the DMV? Well, my wife put her finger on it. When my friend Fred Jealous, as we were getting ready to patrol the streets of Seaside, along with some black ministers, the night of the Rodney King verdict, said, "David loves a challenge," my wife replied, "David loves people."
David not only loves to connect, he does connect daily. He takes people, all people, seriously; and he interacts as if he is on a constant mission. But he seems to love the entire process.