Peggy sent me this short questionnaire that is supposed to tell me what kind of animal I am. Here are the results:
You are either a Gorilla or a Porcupine personality.
But you may also be a Warthog personality.
The site says I can be only one of those animals, but when I read the descriptions, part of each one fits me and parts of the descriptions are nothing like me.
Maybe that means I’m really a pushmepullyou.
Peggy sent me this short questionnaire that is supposed to tell me what kind of animal I am. Here are the results:
You are either a Gorilla or a Porcupine personality.
But you may also be a Warthog personality.
The site says I can be only one of those animals, but when I read the descriptions, part of each one fits me and parts of the descriptions are nothing like me.
Maybe that means I’m really a pushmepullyou.
Peggy sent me this short questionnaire that is supposed to tell me what kind of animal I am. Here are the results:
You are either a Gorilla or a Porcupine personality.
But you may also be a Warthog personality.
The site says I can be only one of those animals, but when I read the descriptions, part of each one fits me and parts of the descriptions are nothing like me.
Maybe that means I’m really a pushmepullyou.
Voted #1 for afternoon tea in 2007. Click here to see what a posh afternoon tea setting should be like.
We gotta go there next spring.
Now for all the readers, primarily North Americans, who don’t know the difference, Afternoon Tea in a posh setting is not the same thing as “High Tea”.
From Wikipaedia,
Afternoon tea is a light meal typically eaten at 4 o’clock. It originated in the United Kingdom, though various places that used to be part of the former British Empire also have such a meal. However, changes in social customs and working hours mean that most Britons only take afternoon tea on special/formal occasions.
Traditionally, loose tea would be served in a teapot with milk and sugar. This would be accompanied by various sandwiches (customarily cucumber, egg and cress, fish paste (bloater), ham, and smoked salmon), scones (with butter, clotted cream and jam — see cream tea) and usually cakes and pastries (such as Battenberg, fruit cake or Victoria sponge). The food would be often served in a tiered stand….
High Tea (also known as Meat Tea[1]) is an early evening meal, typically eaten between 5 and 6 o’clock in the evening. It would be eaten as a substitute for both afternoon tea and the evening meal. The term comes from the meal being eaten at the ‘high’ (main) table, instead of the smaller lounge table. It is now largely replaced by a later evening meal.
It would usually consist of cold meats, eggs and/or fish, cakes and sandwiches. In a family, it tends to be less formal and is an informal snack (featuring sandwiches, biscuits, pastry, fruit and the like) or else it is the main evening meal.
On farms or other working class environments, high tea would be the traditional, substantial meal eaten by the workers immediately after nightfall, and would combine afternoon tea with the main evening meal.
But then the entry there adds, quite correctly and culturally specifically,
In recent years, High Tea has become a word for exquisite afternoon tea.
I hasten to add, “This is far from standard and accepted usage of the term.” From About.com,
Many people use the term “High Tea” to describe the event I’ve mentioned above [a long description of a proper, English afternoon tea], probably because it sounds more elite. But High Tea is a much different thing. It was served later (around six in the evening) and consisted of a full, dinner meal for the common people. Tea was still served, but there would also be meats, fish or eggs, cheese, bread and butter, and cake. It was more of a man’s meal, than a ladies social diversion.
Also see this, from What’s Cooking America:
High Tea is often a misnomer. Most people refer to afternoon tea as high tea because they think it sounds regal and lofty, when in all actuality, high tea, or “meat tea” is dinner. High tea, in Britain, at any rate, tends to be on the heavier side. American hotels and tea rooms, on the other hand, continue to misunderstand and offer tidbits of fancy pastries and cakes on delicate china when they offer a “high tea.”
Afternoon tea (because it was usually taken in the late afternoon) is also called “low tea” because it was usually taken in a sitting room or withdrawing room where low tables (like a coffee table) were placed near sofas or chairs generally in a large withdrawing room.
Voted #1 for afternoon tea in 2007. Click here to see what a posh afternoon tea setting should be like.
We gotta go there next spring.
Now for all the readers, primarily North Americans, who don’t know the difference, Afternoon Tea in a posh setting is not the same thing as “High Tea”.
From Wikipaedia,
Afternoon tea is a light meal typically eaten at 4 o’clock. It originated in the United Kingdom, though various places that used to be part of the former British Empire also have such a meal. However, changes in social customs and working hours mean that most Britons only take afternoon tea on special/formal occasions.
Traditionally, loose tea would be served in a teapot with milk and sugar. This would be accompanied by various sandwiches (customarily cucumber, egg and cress, fish paste (bloater), ham, and smoked salmon), scones (with butter, clotted cream and jam — see cream tea) and usually cakes and pastries (such as Battenberg, fruit cake or Victoria sponge). The food would be often served in a tiered stand….
High Tea (also known as Meat Tea[1]) is an early evening meal, typically eaten between 5 and 6 o’clock in the evening. It would be eaten as a substitute for both afternoon tea and the evening meal. The term comes from the meal being eaten at the ‘high’ (main) table, instead of the smaller lounge table. It is now largely replaced by a later evening meal.
It would usually consist of cold meats, eggs and/or fish, cakes and sandwiches. In a family, it tends to be less formal and is an informal snack (featuring sandwiches, biscuits, pastry, fruit and the like) or else it is the main evening meal.
On farms or other working class environments, high tea would be the traditional, substantial meal eaten by the workers immediately after nightfall, and would combine afternoon tea with the main evening meal.
But then the entry there adds, quite correctly and culturally specifically,
In recent years, High Tea has become a word for exquisite afternoon tea.
I hasten to add, “This is far from standard and accepted usage of the term.” From About.com,
Many people use the term “High Tea” to describe the event I’ve mentioned above [a long description of a proper, English afternoon tea], probably because it sounds more elite. But High Tea is a much different thing. It was served later (around six in the evening) and consisted of a full, dinner meal for the common people. Tea was still served, but there would also be meats, fish or eggs, cheese, bread and butter, and cake. It was more of a man’s meal, than a ladies social diversion.
Also see this, from What’s Cooking America:
High Tea is often a misnomer. Most people refer to afternoon tea as high tea because they think it sounds regal and lofty, when in all actuality, high tea, or “meat tea” is dinner. High tea, in Britain, at any rate, tends to be on the heavier side. American hotels and tea rooms, on the other hand, continue to misunderstand and offer tidbits of fancy pastries and cakes on delicate china when they offer a “high tea.”
Afternoon tea (because it was usually taken in the late afternoon) is also called “low tea” because it was usually taken in a sitting room or withdrawing room where low tables (like a coffee table) were placed near sofas or chairs generally in a large withdrawing room.
On Facebook and elsewhere, I list my political views as “Libertarian”, which in my mind means favouring individual freedom and responsibilities over state or gubmnt interventionism.
I’m far from being a hard-core libertarian, though, as this quiz revealed. Depending on how I answered some of the questions, my score was between 25 and 35 [out of a maximum possible of 160!]. Here is the assessment of scores in that range:
16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.
31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.
As you go through the survey, you get the impression that to get a really high score, one must be a wacko-anarchist, something I think of as substantially different from a libertarian. But, then, check out some of the scores listed in the comments here.
In today’s NYTimes, Paul Krugman writes
As far as I can tell, America has never fought a war in which mercenaries made up a large part of the armed force, as is the case in Iraq.
Similarly, so far as I can tell, America has never educated its children in schools operated by such a large proportion of mercenaries (i.e. for-hire teachers vs. nuns) as it does today, a point made by Milton Friedman in his discussions with General Westmoreland when the US was considering moving toward an all-volunteer army (see Greg Mankiw’s earlier posting on this topic).
Because of the attack on The World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, we in North America tend to think we are on the front line in the war on terror. But Timothy Ash says we’re mistaken [h/t to Judith]. Actually we think we’re on the front line but we aren’t, while the Europeans seem to think they’re not on the front line but really are.
To return from the United States to Europe is to travel from a country that thinks it is on the front line of the struggle against jihadist terrorism but is not, to a continent that is on the front line but still has not fully awoken to the fact.
Only a fool would rule out the possibility of another terrorist assault on what is now styled the American homeland, but the fact is that in the six years since 9/11, there have been several major attacks (Madrid, London) and foiled plots in Europe. In the United States, there have been no major attacks and, as far as we know, just a few averted conspiracies. All the evidence suggests that American Muslims are better integrated than those in Western Europe. Last week’s arrest of a group apparently planning a 9/11 anniversary attack in Germany suggests that the threat to the heimat is greater than that to the U.S. homeland.
An invisible front line runs through the quiet streets of many a European city or town where there is a significant Muslim population. Whether you live in London or Oxford, Berlin or Neu-Ulm, Madrid or Rotterdam, you are on that front line — much more than you ever were during the Cold War. This struggle is partly about intelligence and police work to prevent those who have already become fanatical, violent jihadists from blowing us up at St. Pancras or the Gare du Nord. …
Iraq is a sideshow in this larger struggle. President Bush may claim that Iraq is the front line in the war on terror, but even some of his senior commanders don’t believe that. To be sure, the Iraq war has become an added grievance for disaffected Muslims everywhere, although note that Germany’s nonparticipation in the Iraq war did not keep it safe. Nor should we avert our eyes from the further uncomfortable truth that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will be celebrated by violent jihadists as a victory.
But the larger truth is that a British soldier returning from Basra to Bradford (a city with a large Muslim population) will be coming from one front line to another. This invisible front line is not a military but a cultural/political one. …
If we are calm, clear-sighted and resolute, we will eventually win this struggle and remain free. A continent that has rid itself of the horrors of imperialism, fascism and communism will see off this lesser menace too. But it will take many years, and we had better shape up to it.
Last week I wrote about a Winnipeg school that has banned junk food and about the black market that emerged in the wake of the prohibition.
What if, in addition to the ban, the school set up its own sales but charged double the prices one might pay in nearby convenience stores? The higher prices would reduce the quantity demanded and have the desired result of inducing students to eat less junk food, via the substitution effect.
I doubt if the de facto Pigouvian tax (i.e. the administratively set higher prices) by itself would have much effect if the black market were allowed to continue unless the tax were so small that the transaction costs of operating in the black market were larger than the perceived gains to the students, and so the ban would have to be continued.
If the school considers this option, I recommend they just put in vending machines with high prices and make no public statements about the prices. Announcing that they are charging high prices to discourage the consumption of junk food would raise red flags and cause controversy.
When students object to the high prices, the school can then claim that the proceeds are all used for X, where X is something that would otherwise be paid for from fungible funds so that indirectly the net proceeds would end up in the general fund of the school. Perhaps the best way to proceed would be as follows:
I had long thought that one reason modern developed societies have more gubmnt intervention is that there is a positive income elasticity of demand for gubmnt-provided insurance [i.e. as we become wealthier, we politically demand that the gubmnt look after us more, especially regarding unanticipated negative events].
It turns out there is a strong alternative explanation. According to John Lott, gubmnt intervention in the economy really took off after women were given the right to vote. His analysis is presented in an article in the Journal of Political Economy, and is summarized in his recent book, Freedomnomics:
There is a close relationship between marital status and women’s voting patterns — generally, as divorce rates have increased, women have become more liberal. Over the course of women’s lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending. But for married women this gap is only one-third as large, and married women with children become even more conservative. But divorced women with children suddenly become 75 percent mor likely to vote for Democrats than single men. [pp. 164-5]
[and from the footnote to the above quotation] Interestingly, men raising children on their own are only three percent more likely to vote Democratic than single men without children.
Of course, given some recent trends among Republicans in the US (and Conservatives in Canada), it is no longer absolutely clear that Democrats (or Liberals in Canada) are the only interventionists out there.
. .
digression: I note that Amazon.ca, Amazon.uk, and Amazon.com prices still do not fully reflect recent movements in the exchange rates!
