think about Le Chatelier’s Principle to answer this question

Apparently I've been dated. Seriously. And I'm not that old.


This weekend I was rockin' out to some excellent Howard Jones (thanks brooke) tunes in my nifty rental car with an excellent sound system when my passenger said to me, "Howard Jones? I don't recognize him."


I must admit that this was shocking to me. I mean, people don't have to listen to Howard Jones but I thought that they'd at least know him.


And then today, I was writing the word "granular" which reminded me of "glandular" and then "Angeler" and my brother's impression of Tony Danza on Whose the Boss? came into my mind, "Angeler, it's glandular!" Sheer hilarium.


So, in keeping with tradition, I turned to the person next to me to share the hilarity. She asked me what I was laughing at, so I began, "So, you know Whose the Boss? Did you ever watch that show?" And her reply was equally as shocking: no. My goodness! So I continued, "Well, you know Tony Danza?" And again!: no, I've never seen that show. Confused, I mumbled something about how I was laughing about somethingfunnybrotherimpressionerumfbllm... and trailed off before it became abundantly clear that I had been dated!

I don't know how I feel about this. What's next? A generations who knows nothing of Bill Nye the Science Guy?!?! It must not be! kel and I are on it though. Never fear.

a·nach·ro·nism

1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.

2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time: "A new age had plainly dawned, an age that made the institution of a segregated picnic seem an anachronism" (Henry Louis Gates, Jr.)

"i've still got it"

I love conversation. I do. I frequently blame it on the fact that I am a member of my family and that's the way the genes crumble (somehow I feel like that phrase only works with cookies). Still, any way I try to explain it I come back to the unmistakable fact that I love to talk and more importantly, I love to talk with other people (notice that I'm cleverly excluding the obvious fact that I talk to myself all the time... wait... oh shoot...).

And as you all know, I can rarely keep a good conversation, especially when the person I have talked with is worth being quoted, to myself.

And, for me, this is why life is worth living, because there are people like this in the world.

Enjoy:

"I'm just a big, dumb, hot guy."

This one was just as good in context as it is out of context.

"Coconut smell is like nuclear weapons. It should be outlawed."

The jury is still out on this one.

And some dialogue of a conversation on Valentine's Day:

"For example, I ask people, 'If you were a blueberry, what would you like to be in?'"
"Easy. I'd be in a pancake."
"Well, I give them certain options, of course."
"Oh... sorry."
"Would you be in a muffin, pie, or cheesecake?"
"Bleh, cheesecake... definitely a pie."
"Pie?!? No, no, no, a muffin. I would be a muffin."

And I've asked several other people that question since then and can you believe it?!? Everyone has wanted to be in a muffin! I would love to hear a good argument for that one! Come on, people. Pie! (And no, I wasn't thinking of Bette Midler's Sesame Street featured song when I answered the question in case you were wondering).

"Welcome to Snome.
In Snome you'll find such creatures as the Bi-icorn and the Diclops. In fact, I saw a Diclops riding a Bi-icorn through the meadow the other day.
I can see that you are a visitor here.
I'll let you digest that while I play the pan flute."

And this one... well, I guess this is what comes out of my brother and I trying to spell words with only 12 Scrabble tiles to choose from. He almost got away with it too.

la·con·ic
–adjective
using few words; expressing much in few words; concise: a laconic reply.

how exact do we have to be on these things?

After attempting to have a philosophical conversation (and wishing to high heaven that I sounded like one... a philosopher that is... no success) my philosophy major friend threw out the word "fiat". He was talking about (I would say "we" only I think that would give me much too much credit for the random poorly articulated comments I was making) whether or not there was an absolute ethic or not and whether God was the instigator of that ethic or merely another being that followed that ethic. Is there an ultimate good and bad? My friend believes that there is an absolute ethic. But he explained to me that whether or not God was the creator of this ethic or simply has an obedience to this ethic was something he still had to think about. A wonderful question and one that does not shake my understanding of God in the least. In fact, by trying to understand God in this way and considering such a question, I find that I can come closer to God. Is it strange that it doesn't matter to me what the answer to this question is? My friend thinks that that it is, and that such an attitude is the basis of one of the major flaws of having philosophical discussions at all: that my opinions and actions won't change as a result of the discussion. I felt powerless when I tried to respond to this and my rebuttal sounded something like, "Yeah, but in the end... does it really matter if we change or not? Is that our goal?" What? What does that mean? Anyway... Needless to say, he looked at me strangely and said, "And that is why we don't ask these kinds of questions in church."

Well, perhaps my aspirations to become a philosophy graduate student are proving to be more difficult than I first believed.

Still, I found one man who has a possible philosophy on one of my biggest soap boxes. And my friends, perhaps he is right? His is the philosophy I feel is the closest to mine so far. I'll share:

"...miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized..."
-J.E.T.
(let me know if you would like a full citation)


And so, without further ado,

fi·at

1.	an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat.

2.	a formula containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction.

3.	an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, esp. by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

[Origin: 1625–35; <>fierī to become]

these things take forever

Not to complain, but to complain. I'm a little weary of students saying, "I'm no good at biology." Seriously, folks it couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, I can understand saying, "I'm no good at remembering the Kreb's Cycle perfectly" or "I'm no good at sequencing the genome of a nematode." But seriously folks, you're no good at biology? You ARE biology. I hate to break it to you, but that means you were born "good at biology". Biology is intuitive no matter who you are. Really, I'm not joking. So! What do I tell the student that says, "I don't know... I'm no good at biology"? Seriously... what do I say? Today I said, "No, I won't have that said in this discussion section. If there is anything you learn from me this semester it is going to be that you are good at biology. Folks, if you are struggling with a biological conundrum, just relate it to yourself and think, 'What would I do in this situation?' and 90% of the time, you'll do the same thing that a bear, deer, or fish would do. We're all the same. What makes sense to you will make sense to them." And it's true. If I find myself without food the food that I normally eat, I'm going to find the next best thing. If in fact there is nothing with which to replace my food, I'm going to go look for a place that does have food. And if I never find food, I'll go extinct. Intuitive. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.

And I said "caveat" today... I couldn't help it... it kept coming up in my head. After I said it, I apologized to the class. I think they were a little confused to be honest.