Hezo Kittie

Men and Women in Conversation

My dad cooked a bunch of food tonight because our house was pretty much cleaned out. He spent a significant amount of time at the stove or barbecue. At the end of the night, my mom was saran wrapping the leftovers and putting them in the refrigerator, and she exclaimed, "Why did you cook so much food? I can't fit any of this in the refrigerator!"

My dad looked at her with an exasperated expression as he held his hands out and replied, "What do you want me to do? Huh?" before just walking away.

Whenever my parents have fought, I've always just completely avoided it and pretended it didn't happen, especially when I was really young. Even though I didn't intervene because I'm not involved, I'm not going to pretend things like this don't happen, whether its with a spouse or at work or with friends.

The stereotype is that men think their wives nag them too much. The reality is that men and women communicate differently, and to ignore this and say that all genders are equal is, well, ignorant. Men have a tendency to use direct language, because speech is generally used as a means to transport factual information. Why we do this is beyond me, but it's true most of the time. When my dad heard, "Why did you cook so much food?" he took it literally. It was interpreted as a personal attack, an un-thank you of sorts for providing and preparing dinner.

In reality, the question was rhetorical. My mom was merely vocalizing her thoughts on how she was going to tackle this Tetris-like Fridgidaire problem, without intending to take any shot at my dad for 'making too much food'. It didn't help that the elevated tone of her statement sounded even more like an attack, when the tone was basically irrelevant to the situation. Men tend to only raise their voices during arguments, so they automatically think anyone speaking loudly is waging war.

Ethics is an Absolutely Necessary Prerequisite to Free Markets

I started watching The Wire a few days ago, and in it the main drug cartel has a virtual monopoly of a large section of the Baltimore housing projects, called "terraces". An exploration of the drug trade is a good way to weigh the pros and cons of free markets (because they're obviously unregulated).

In one episode, a low-ranked drug dealer went into the accounting office of the drug cartel (contrary to popular belief, dealers don't actually stick all the cash in Winn-Dixie grocery bags before throwing them at strippers. They do count and allocate it.) and asked the accountants why business started to suddenly spike. The accountant merely told him that they changed the drug formula to be half as potent, lowering expenses while simutaneously doubling the demand, since the crack fiends aren't getting as high.

In a monopoly, they can and will pull shit like this on the consumer. The normal counter is a start-up business that sells better drugs for less money than the monopoly. This shouldn't be hard for a competitor to do while also making a profit because the monopoly's expenses and prices are way off balance.

Instead, the competitor in the show surveyed the situation and realized the monopoly was getting sloppy in their handling and transactions. So they simply decide to barge in with shotguns, shoot a couple of people, and grab the drugs.

A little regulation wouldn't hurt.

The homicide detective McNulty told the dealer D'Angelo, "I don't care about a junkie getting high. I come here for the bodies."

The show is fascinating so far because it's not merely a horrific portrayal the effects of drugs on an impoverished neighborhood; it's the nature of the trade itself. Also refreshing is the complex depiction of both the cartels and the police force. There is no "good team" in this game.