Economic "building" mode

Ron
There were a few good years, when the Orioles had stars like Rifkin, Palmero, and so on.  The O's made the playoffs, had winning seasons, the stands were full and it was hard to get a ticket.  The the O's went into a slump for a few years.  They tried to "buy" their way into a winning season.  Sammy Sosa was a star and was obtained at high cost.  He was good for a few months, but by the All-Star game, he was out. 
The Orioles went into a "building" mode.  They went and did it the hard way, taking kids out of college, running them through the farm team system, teaching fundamentals of baseball.  Pitching and hitting. 
Turns out that building a team works much better than buying a team.  For the price of a Sosa, you can get a whole AAA team of good prospects. 
Our economy is similar to the baseball team.  Like our team, our economy is now in a deep slump.  This is not a winning season for the economy. 
However, it seems that our managers and team owners in Congress have decided that they want to "buy" our way out of the economic slump.  This is lunacy.  You can no more buy your way out of an economic slump, than you can buy a winning team.  You need to address the fundamentals, whether in baseball or in economics.
What are the fundamentals in economics?  What works and what fails?  This information is well known by economists.  I am very surprised that we hear nothing about fundamentals from our esteemed economic leaders.
Just like hitting, pitching and teamwork are fundamental in baseball, so too we have honesty, predictability, fairness, education, training, openness, ownership rights, freedom, and spirit as fundamental for economic success. 
We know that top-down control does not work.  Look at the Soviets or any Communist country.  We know that graft and corruption do not work.  Look at any Arab country where the "baksheesh" is rife. 
The experts and non-experts know what develops a good fundamental base for economic development, and what does not work. 
So why are these so-called experts in economics all singing the tune of "quick fix monetary stimulus" in four part harmony and full orchestration?
I say, let's get back to the fundamentals, and forget the quick fix.  It won't work, it will waste trillions, and we still will need to address the FUNDAMENTALS.

Baruch is pronounced Bah-rookh (ending with a clearing throat sound....sorry!)

Pondering guilt through others

Ron

In my police related work, I often see information related to a protective order.  Now I am looking at such a record.  I notice that the subject (person being restricted) is a man that was conceived just about the time that i was changing my life style and becoming religious.  My thoughts wander to what if.  What could I have done to help raise this boy who became a man that beat his wife and thus was put on a protective order? 
I mean, I was an adult, when he was born.  I could have theoretically been around and helped to direct this boy to become a better man than he has.  Sure, when I was that age when he was born, I was a young man, and held no blame regarding men who commit crimes.  But now, that I am already a grandfather, do I hold any blame?  Perhaps a small amount. Perhaps more.  I have lived in my city for 22 years.  There are many 22 year old men who are committing crimes near to where I live. 
This I ponder. 
"Keep it real" they say.  Even the criminals.  Especially the bad boys, the gangstas.  The 22 year old wannabes.  Keep it real.  It means, don't lie to me, bro.  If you think, feel, so tell me, don't put up a "front".  Don't act in a way to fool the world about you.  Keep it real.  Be honest with us.
So, why doesn't Keep It Real and keep it honest, also apply to stealing and murder?  Keep It Real honest, don't steal.  Keep It Real honest, don't murder. 
Pondering this too. 
Young boy, don't shoplift, don't bully the little guy.  Older boy, don't do drugs.  Keep It Real.  Honest.

Maybe they could teach "honesty" in school.  Honesty doen't conflict with "separation between chrch and state:.  Does it?

What attitude started the male-dominant role?

C4

I know that you have moved on, but I still want to make a point, and maybe you can use it in a future show.

In my blog (http://baruchatta.blogspot.com/2007/11/linton-aryans-and-aristocracy.html)

I make the point that the NOBILITY in Europe had a certain life-style and outlook.  This outlook included an aversion from work.  In fact, any member of the Nobility who worked for a living, was ejected from the Nobility class.  (This situation made for much of English comedy; someone was posing as nobility, or a noble lost his financial support.)

That said, commoner men would strive to be like the Nobility class, to suppose a higher "rank". Now even though a commoner had to work to survive, still he could come home and make AS IF he was a Noble when at home. 

I say again, that he would make AS IF he was a Noble when at home. 

That means, of course, that he would not do any housework.  Housework was for commoners. 

You may ask, however, that the wife and extended family womenfolk would still be doing the chores.  Wouldn't that make the women feel like commoners?

The answer is, oddly, no. Just the opposite.  In this Feudal society, the actual status of the family stemmed from the head of the household, the man.  If the man was a Noble, then the whole family was nobility.  So, in a left-handed sort of way, the women achieved a sort of higher class status by accepting all of the chores and the actual lower class status.  As long as the Husband/Father was idle at home, and thus a semi-noble, then the women would also be of this status. 

Of course, in our times (I am talking about the 1970's and onwards) the woman's movement and others have completely missed this point, and blame the male for that situation in those times.  And of course, in our times we have eliminated this nobility class (mostly) and such concepts as "a man and his castle"; now obsolete, and thus the abandoned division of household labor.  But in those ancient times, it was the women who accepted their role, not the men enforcing the role.  We see from recent history (for example, the woman's movement) just how much power men really have to enforce such subservient roles on women, if the women themselves were not volunteering for the role. 

 

 

 

Calories

It turns out (and I have done research) that walking and running use up the same number of Calories.  It doesn't matter whether you walk a mile or run a mile.  You will burn the same number of Calories.  The number of Calories burned is 100.  Of course, if you run, you will burn Calories faster, depending on how fast you run.  If you do a 6 minute per mile pace, then you will run ten miles per hour and burn 1000 Calories per hour.  If you walk three miles per hour, then you will burn 300 Calories per hour.  But the number of Calories per mile seems to be rather constant.
Also constant is the amount of Calories contained in a pound of fat.  That would be 3600 Calories in a pound of fat.  If you are fat, then each pound of fat on you was put there by your eating 3600 Calories.  If you want to lose a pound of fat, you would need to eat 3600 Calories less, or exercise the equivalant of 3600 Calories.
Thus, to lose a pound of fat by exercise alone, you would need to walk for 36 miles.  This may seem like a lot.  It may seem far.  But it doesn't need to be done all at one go.  You could walk 1.2 miles per day for 30 days.  This would be a pound a month.  Twelve pounds a year.  And 120 pounds in 10 years.  Do you intend to be around in 10 years?  Then make plans!
Actually, an hour walk is three miles or 300 Calories.  So if you walk an hour per day, that should burn about three pounds per month.  36 pound per year. 
So why are so many people so fat?
Obviously, it is also a matter of eating too much.  You can eat a lot in very little time if you want.  For example, a burger with fries and a shake - say 1200 to 1500 Calories.  That's 12 to 15 miles.
Of course, everyone burns some Calories even if he or she doesn't walk.  The number ranges from 1800 Calories per day for smallish women, to 4000 per day for muscular men.  This number is dependent on the weight of your muscles in your body.  Fat doesn't burn any Calories at all, at least not enought to be a factor.  So even if you do not exercise, your body still burns a number of Calories.  But if you exercise, the number of Calories burned goes up according to the amount of exercise.
That is why you warm up when you exercise.  The Calories that you burn are almost all turned to heat energy. 
The definition of a Calorie is the amount of heat necessary to raise one liter of water, one degree Centigrade.  In approximate terms, your body volume (of water) is the equivalent to your weight in kilograms (divide your weight in pounds by 2.2). 
Normal body temp is 37 degrees Centigrade.  Average weight is 100 kilograms (not really, but it will make the calculations eaiser, and anyway, 100 kg is 220 pounds, so if you are just a little bit overweight, you may eaisly weigh 100 kg.)  So if a 100 kg man walks one mile, he will raise the temperature of his body by one degree to 38 degrees.  Obviously, his body temperature is regulated by body mechinism (sweating, etc) so his temp remains a constant 37 degrees.  So where does the heat go?  If he was cold before, cold hands or cold feet, then they are warmed up.  If he was already warm, then the heat leaves the body somehow.  Or eventually he will die of heat exhaustion. 
A person who is sitting and is comfortable is still losing heat to outside the body.  If he burns 2000 Calories per day, that means that each hour, on average, he burns 2000/24 Calories.  (83 per hour)  But you burn less when sleeping, so if you burn 50 Cal per hour sleeping for 8 hours, that is 400 Cal.  And so that leaves 1600 Cal for 16 waking hours, or 100 Cal per hour.  So our comfortable person, sitting, is really buring 100 Calories per hour, and those would raise his temp up one degree Centigrade if all the heat created would be contained and not released.
That is why you get warm when you exercise. 
So, with me, I am about 110 pounds overweight, I think.  That would be 50 kg.  And that would be about 400,000 Calories or about 4,000 miles.  Walking 4 miles a day, that would be 1000 days or about three years.  Ok, let's get going!!!!!!!

 

"I want someone that learns X-teen hours a day"

This is so good, that I have to copy it. See the whole thing at
http://www.bangitout.com/articles/viewarticle.php?a=2478

"I want someone that learns X-teen hours a day" - No you don't! Who do you think you're fooling? Let me tell you what you, and all Stern girls want: You want to live in a suburb of NYC (i.e. Teaneck), you want to go to Israel for succos, Arizona for Pesach, to send your kids to a modern orthodox yeshiva, modern orthodox camps, and you want to have tons of shiny jewelry! Unless you have someone sponsoring your marriage (i.e. your parents or in-laws) and your husband is a kollelnic with zero responsibilities, than try to be more realistic. If you find a buchur who makes a legitimate effort to go to minyan 3x a day and schedules in time to learn daily, in addition to having a steady income, than you have found yourself a quality buchur and you should be quite satisfied! [For the meidels who have just returned Israel: Save this and read it again in a year when you get more in
tune with reality! Right now you're probably just assuming that I'm off the derech and practice avoda zarah.]