A couple of baseball stories I hadn't heard, in re Nolan Ryan's second no-hitter

I was paging through my dad's copy of Nolan Ryan's autobiography and ran across the following anecdotes from his second no-hitter, which was called by notorious funnyman umpire Ron Luciano.

Here's Luciano talking about how much speed Ryan had that night:

I called three straight strikes on Mickey Stanley: "Boom! Sounds low on the corner. Boom! Sounds like the inside corner of the plate. Boom! Sounds like you're out."

Stanley turned around and said, "Thank you."

I said, "What?"

"I couldn't hit one of those pitches no matter what," Stanley said. "Those were the greatest pitches I ever heard."

The last batter to the plate was Norm Cash, and we'll let Ryan take it himself from here:

I looked at Norm stepping into the batter's box, and I knew what he was holding in his hands wasn't a baseball bat.

"Ron, what's he got?"

Luciano acted as if I was bothering him. "What're you talking about?"

"Check his bat!" I shouted. "Check that thing."

Luciano took the piece of wood out of Norm's hand and looked it over. I found out later it was a leg he had ripped off the snack table in the clubhouse.

"Norm, you can't bat with this old piano leg." Ron was scolding Norm like a child. "Get rid of it."

"But, Ron, I've got no chance with a bat. Lemme try this..."

Ryan in his younger days, of course, was a right-handed Randy Johnson: you took your life in your hands when you stepped in the box -- and everybody knew it -- because (a) he threw the ball about a million miles an hour, and (b) he never was quite sure just exactly where the thing was gonna go when it left his hand.

You guys remember John Kruk's All-Star at-bat against the Big Unit, right? Johnson's first pitch was a screaming fastball that would have been straight at Kruk's head if only John had been eight feet tall. Kruk hit the ground in abject little-girl terror, and then proceeded to strike out on the next three pitches, on every one of which he swung while literally falling backwards out of the batter's box. I can't believe nobody's ever posted the video of that at-bat to YouTube; I laughed 'til my sides hurt.

Ray Chapman is famous mostly for being the only guy ever to get killed by being hit by a major-league fastball; but he also once walked away from the plate when batting against Walter Johnson with an 0-2 count. The umpire hollered at him, "Hey, wait, Ray, you got another strike."

"Keep it," Ray answered shortly, "I don't want it."

I can only presume Kruk had never heard that story, because watching him that night you sure did get the feeling that the only reason Kruk didn't become the first guy in history to strike out on one pitch (namely, that first screaming wild pitch) is because he didn't realize that was an option.

[pleasantly reminiscent sigh] Good times, man.

"America: Land of Lawyers" Dept

While opening up a prepackaged "Burnett’s Beef Round London Broil" this morning, Mom noticed the following stern warning, evidently deemed necessary by Burnett's legal department:

"Exercise care when removing from oven, product will be hot."

Well, unless I'm cooking, in which case there's an excellent chance I will have forgotten the part about turning the oven on...

Where some of our clichés come from, according to Aliya

My charming friend Aliyá Shaikhina, from Almaty, just sent me the following cute little essay she found someplace. I can't vouch for the historical accuracy of the piece -- for example, "saved by the bell" may be correct (I know that the Victorians were in fact paranoid about being buried alive and really did rig up bells like that) but I'm pretty sure the bit about the "dead ringer" isn't. Big chunks of the little essay have rather the air of being history invented to explain the cliché. Still, I certainly don't know that it isn't true, and if it isn't true then it's certainly inventive; and it's lots of fun to speculate about, if nothing else.

The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be. Here are some facts about the sixteenth century:

Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.

Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying, "It's raining cats and dogs."

There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.

The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the phrase "dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on the floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entrance way. Hence the term "thresh hold."

In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."

Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and "chew the fat."

Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.

Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the "upper crust."

Lead cups were used to drink ale or whiskey. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.

England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside, and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the "graveyard shift") to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be "saved by the bell" or could be considered a "dead ringer."

And that's the truth...Now, whoever said History was boring!!!

I'm not sure that was history, but it certainly wasn't boring. So my thanks to Aliya for the chuckles.

I got the answer right

As you know, I find it indescribably hilarious that the Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (has there ever been a Congressional leadership team whose batting average for deliver on its agenda was lower? 'cause I don't think you can have negative batting averages) pompously lectures the Iraqi government on how the Iragi government isn't accomplishing enough. Of course all this means is that Dennis Hastert and Trent Lott have competition in the Incompetence Stakes, but still, the unconscious irony is delicious.

So I don't suppose it's a surprise that I like this clip that somebody has popped out onto YouTube:



(And yes, I know it's 3:00 a.m. and I should be sleeping. Believe me, if I could be, I would be...)

UPDATE: Blast, what's wrong with it? OK, here's a simple link to the video since the embedded version appears not to be working.

While trying to find that one again, I ran across this quite similar one. I'm not nearly as confident as the producer seems to be that Republicans would be an improvement (um...does the name "Dennis Hastert" ring a bell?), and I have no doubt the quotes were taken out of context, but the blooper reel concept is still pretty funny and well done. I'll keep looking for the original one, though, which had different bloopers.



And here's a link for that one while we wait for embedding to come back to life.

Sneaky statistics tricks by the Right

I keep seeing a set of statistics on conservative blogs like Ace and Insty that purports to show that the U.S. is doing better on greenhouse-gas omissions than other countries. Here's the set of statistics showing growth in greenhouse-gas omissions since Kyoto was signed:

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

This doesn't surprise me all that much because Kyoto was pretty much a joke all along. But I always suspect statistics, and one basic rule of thumb is this: if they quote you percentage increases, ask what the base is. I got especially suspicious when the blog that seems to have started all this decided to give a partial list of individual countries -- and the worst offender was Maldives at 252% while number 4 was Luxembourg at 43%, and number six was Iceland. Now this is a joke, right? Doesn't anybody who knows anything about statistics know that if you start from a tiny base, practically any change will be a "huge" change in percentage terms? I mean, Luxembourg's tininess is proverbial, and Maldives has, what, maybe sixty people in the whole country? Hang on while I look it up...oh, sorry, Maldives has a whoppin' 300,000 people in the whole thing. Ummm...I think the global warming panic is just one more piece of idiocy for the next edition of Charles Mackay's classic, but I'm pretty positive that whatever problem is out there, America's ramping up by 6.6% is going to cause one heckuva lot more trouble than the Maldives' ramping up by 252%, or even 10,000% for that matter.

Fortunately somebody else had apparently been curious, too, and so they had shamed the Thinker into linking to the absolute numbers. So here, children, is why you never trust political partisans bearing statistics:

Maldives 242% -- they went from roughly 0 million metric tonnes to roughly 0 million metric tonnes.

Luxembourg 43% -- they went from roughly 2 million metric tonnes to roughly 3 million metric tonnes.

Iceland 29% -- they went from roughly 1 million metric tonne to roughly 1 million metric tonne.

United States 6.6% -- we went from roughly 1,513 million metric tonnes to roughly 1,612 million metric tonnes.

Kinda puts a bit different spin on it, wouldn't you say? Plus, you could see all the countries, not just "selected" countries, which makes you sort of wonder why the blogger trumpeted the fact that Norway jumped up 24% but skipped over Denmark (down 25%).

At any rate, I did a simple calculation from the spreadsheet that had the absolute numbers on it, and came up with the following comparison of the increase in emissions during that period for the United States, and the increase for the rest of the world put together:

United States: 99 million metric tonnes.
Everybody else: 1,028 million metric tonnes.

The American Thinker can tell itself that George Bush is saving the world if it wants to but I don't think it has that great a case.

Meanwhile, I think the world is way more likely to be destroyed by the consequences of sloppy and dishonest thinking than by anthropogenic global warming. So a pox on both the American Thinker and the global warming hucksters, is what I say...

Oh, by the way, China?

Try 456 million metric tonnes.

The "Fat ATtrition Swaps and Options" Market

Well, the first draft is complete.

At various American companies, especially in the days immediately following one of the Major Gluttony Festivals (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Labor Day, etc.), it is a tradition for co-workers to agree to give each other incentive to lose weight by making an agreement that looks something like this: we all agree that in the next eight weeks we'll each lose 8% of our current body weight. And at the end of the eight weeks, anybody who didn't in fact lose the whole 8%, will pay a fine of $300, and all the people who DID lose the whole 8% will divide that money up amongst themselves equally. This game provides lots of incentive...lots of incentive to lose weight, and (much more amusingly for the spectators) lots of incentive to nobble the competition. For example, donuts begin mysteriously to appear upon participants desks...you get the idea.

Being somebody who isn't worried about his weight, I've never been interested in playing the game. But being somebody who has spent his professional career in risk management, the moment I heard the rules I immediately thought, "Ooo, I'd think you'd want to hedge, and wouldn't it be fun to play the secondary market?"

For example, let's say that you and I and Jim Bob are the only three players, and seven weeks in I realize that I'm going to come up a pound or two short -- but you're on track to lose four pounds more than you need to. What if I could buy two pounds from you? It would be worth it to me to pay up to $299 for those two pounds, because otherwise I'm gonna be out $300. Now, let's say you think that if I go on a desperation fast there's a 25% chance I'd manage to lose the weight, and you wouldn't get any money at all, but that leaves a 75% chance I'm gonna fail and you're gonna get $150. So you probably wouldn't want to sell the weight for $20, but you might be willing to take a sure $120 rather than a possible $150, and you'd certainly jump at a sure $200 instead of a possible $150. After some split-the-difference negotiation maybe we'd wind up agreeing to something like $220.

But what about Jim Bob? If I buy the weight from you then instead of getting $150 he gets diddly. So if he's managed to lose a couple of extra pounds, he'd be crazy not to jump in and try to underbid you. After all, he'd rather get $110 than get nothing. In fact, if I can get the two of you bidding against each other, I might get away with paying as little as $75 instead of $300.

But what about Eula May? Let's say I realize I need to buy a couple of pounds, and I know both you and Jim Bob are ahead of schedule; so I figure I'm gonna see if I can start a bidding war and get off cheap. What I don't realize is that Eula May, the West Desk gas trader, has spent the last seven weeks over in the corner quietly keeping tabs of the weekly weigh-ins even though she isn't playing herself -- and she figured out last week that I was in trouble, before I faced up to the fact myself. So she got in ahead of me and bought both your two pounds AND Jim Bob's two pounds...paid 'em each $40, and is sitting there waiting for me to come a-callin'. To my chagrin, the squeeze is on. With some hard negotiating I might be able to talk her into letting me have two of those pounds for, say, $200. So now I'm out $200 (which is at least better than $300); you and Jim Bob both lose your weight AND pocket $40; and Eula May walks away with a cool $120 despite the fact that she didn't bother to lose any weight at all.

Two things made me really want to write up the rules and create that secondary market:

1. It's actually a very interesting mathematical/logical puzzle to figure out how much I ought to be able to collect from you from damages if you sell me some pounds and then don't get around to losing them yourself. After all, you can't sell me pounds you lost if you didn't lose any. So how do you settle up if one person fails to deliver -- especially if, as a result, the other guy fails to make his weight and has to put $300 in the pot instead of sharing in the winners' windfall? What if three people failed to deliver to me, but one of them would have delivered except that yet another person failed to deliver to him...who owes how much money to whom? This turned out to be a very interesting problem to solve (my solution involved two sets of iterating algorithms, one to allocate deliveries and one to calculate damages).

2. It's hilarious enough watching the participants try to nobble each other. Now imagine if you have half the office interested in the outcome. "Hey, Kenny, let's go to Souper Salad; your lunch is on me." "No, dude, you need to come with me; I'll buy you lunch and dessert at La Madeleine." Okay, so now I know which one of you is long the Per-Share Redemption Value Index and which one of you is short...

So, back to where I started this post: the first draft is done. Here are the Official Rules for the basic game and the Secondary WLC (Weight Loss Credit) Market...or, as the less sensitive among us have been known to call it, the Fat ATtrition Swaps and Options market. (Give it some time, the penny will drop eventually.) I'd love any suggestions for improving it -- this is, after all, a first draft. As it stands, you can do forwards and options on WLC's; and you can do swaps and financial options (and anything else you dream up) against the Per-Share Redemption Value index and the Per-Share Damages Value index or any combination of the two. All in all, a nice set of toys to play with as a first cut, if I do say so myself.

And if you want to set up a WLC contest and secondary market in your own workplace or social circle, and you'd like a Microsoft Word copy of the Official Rules that you can play around with and adapt to your own taste, drop a comment after this post and I'll happily send you one, along with the Excel spreadsheet I use to perform all the calculations. I just have one request...I don't want any money, but this did actually take a while to work out, and I'd get a kick out of knowing how far it spreads. So if you use it, send me an e-mail to tell me how it worked out; and if you pass it on to somebody else, make sure my e-mail's on there and ask them to let me know how it worked for them in turn...and give Randy Guidry, who pushed me until I finished it, his share of the credit as well.

In fact let's just say that it's copyrighted by Ken Pierce and Randy Guidry and by God we're keeping the intellectual property rights...

OFFICIAL RULES

1. Even though the rest of the Rules are very formal and legal-sounding, it must be remembered that this whole exercise is about three goals: (a) getting healthy, (b) having fun, and (c) building camaraderie. We therefore urge anybody considering engaging in the “Secondary Market” we describe below to BE CAREFUL – as with any derivatives market, you can lose a whole lot more playing the derivatives side than you can lose by playing the simple ordinary physical game. The most you could lose by simply trying and failing to lose your weight would be the Premium Amount (say, $300); but playing the derivatives, if you were sufficiently careless, could cost you $300 times the number of people trying to lose weight – that is (for those of you not good at math) up to $4,500 if there were fifteen people signed up to lose weight. And big losses (especially if the big losers don’t pay up) would very much interfere with having fun and building camaraderie. So watch what you’re doing.

2. Statement of Intent. These Rules are guided by two fundamental principles:

2.1. It should be possible for a Physical Participant to ignore the Secondary Market entirely, in which case he/she should be able to reduce these Rules to: either I lose my target weight and get my share of the money from the people who didn’t lose my target weight; or else I fail to lose my target weight and I pay up.

2.2. In the case of a failure to deliver in the Secondary Market, the person who expected delivery should be made whole financially by the person who failed to deliver. If an unforeseen situation arises in which the rules set forth below to govern calculation of damages fail to come up with a clear answer (e.g., because some sort of infinite loop scenario is created), then the parties involved will resolve the issue by mutual agreement in good faith.

3. Physical Participants and the Bank

3.1. The “Bank” shall be formed by any number of individuals (each a “Physical Participant”) who mutually agree that they will each, upon a specified date in the future (the “Redemption Date”), be responsible for paying to the Bank a set dollar amount (the “Premium Amount”) which will then be remitted to persons redeeming Shares in accordance with the rules that follow.

3.2. The term “Initial Bank Balance” shall denote the result of multiplying the number of Physical Participants by the Premium Amount.

3.3. The Bank shall, on the Redemption Date, calculate a Per-Share Redemption Value as follows: Divide the Initial Bank Balance by the number of Successful Physical Participants (as defined below), and divide that result by one thousand (1,000); and the Bank shall publish this result to all interested parties.

3.4. The Bank shall, on the Redemption Date, calculate a Per-Share Damages Value as follows: Subtract the Premium Amount from the Initial Bank Balance, divide the result by one more than the number of Successful Physical Participants (as defined below), and divide that result by one thousand (1,000); and the Bank shall publish this result to all interested parties.

3.5. An “Initial Weigh-In” shall be held, at the beginning of the project, at which each Physical Participant’s “Initial Weight” shall be established, to the nearest pound.

3.6. Each Physical Participant shall then be assigned an individual Target Weight equal to his/her Initial Weight times a standard “Target Percentage,” rounded to the nearest pound; and a “Weight Loss Responsibility” equal to his/her Initial Weight minus his/her Target Weight.

3.7. A “Final Weigh-In” shall be held on or before the Redemption Date, at which each Physical Participant’s “Final Weight” shall be established, to the nearest pound.

3.8. For every pound by which the Final Weight is less than the Initial Weight, the Physical Participant in question shall earn title to one (1) “Weight Loss Credit” (“WLC”).

3.9. A Physical Participant holding title to a WLC may either apply that WLC to his/her Weight Loss Responsibility, thus reducing that Weight Loss Responsibility by one (1); or else transfer that title to a Secondary Market Participant under terms and restrictions set forth below; or else allow the WLC to expire unused; and this is true equally for WLC’s that he/she has earned by actual physical weight loss, and for WLC’s that he/she has acquired on the Secondary Market.

3.10. A Physical Participant becomes a Successful Physical Participant by reducing his/her Weight Loss Responsibility to zero by application of a sufficient quantity of WLC’s; and any Physical Participant who does not thus become a Successful Physical Participant, shall be deemed an Unsuccessful Physical Participant.

4. Secondary Market

4.1. Physical Participants may, if they wish, transfer the title to one or more WLC’s on a Secondary Market under the rules set forth in this Section 4.

4.2. Persons who engage in transactions under the rules of this Section 4 shall be denoted Secondary Market Participants.

4.3. An individual may be a Secondary Market Participant whether or not that individual is a Physical Participant.

4.4. Transactions on the Secondary Market are classified either as WLC Transactions (consisting of WLC Forward Transactions and WLC Options as defined below) or as Non-WLC Transactions (all other Secondary Market transactions).

4.5. Title to one or more WLC’s shall be transferred only as the result of a WLC Transaction on the Secondary Market.

4.6. WLC Transactions

4.6.1. A WLC Forward Transaction for a certain number of WLC’s (which number is denoted the Deliverable Quantity) shall be entered into by a Buyer who guarantees that he/she will accept title to the Deliverable Quantity on the Redemption Date in exchange for a certain quantity per WLC (the Price) either of United States dollars (the exact amount possibly calculated as a formula determined by the Per-Share Redemption Value or the Per-Share Damages Value) or of a certain quantity of Shares, from a Seller who guarantees that he/she (a) will possess title to the Deliverable Quantity on the Redemption Date, either having personally earned them as a Physical Participant, or else having acquired them either as a Buyer in a WLC Forward Transaction or by exercising the right to acquire them as a result of ownership of a WLC Physical Call Option (described below), and (b) will transfer said title to the Buyer in exchange for the specified Price multiplied by the Deliverable Quantity.

4.6.2. A WLC Option is an option on WLC’s, either a WLC Call Option or a WLC Put Option, defined as follows:

4.6.2.1. The purchaser of the WLC Option is denoted the Option Holder, and the seller is denoted the Option Writer.

4.6.2.2. A hypothetical WLC Forward Transaction (the “Underlying”) is constructed, but not immediately executed, in such a way that:

4.6.2.2.1. If the WLC Option is a WLC Call Option, then the Option Holder is the hypothetical Buyer of the Underlying and the Option Writer is the hypothetical Seller.

4.6.2.2.2. If the WLC Option is a WLC Call Option, then the Option Holder is the hypothetical Buyer of the Underlying and the Option Writer is the hypothetical Seller.

4.6.2.2.3. The hypothetical price to be paid by the hypothetical Seller shall be denoted the Strike Price.

4.6.2.3. The Option Holder may choose during the Option Exercise Round (see below) either (a) to exercise the WLC Option, that is, to convert the WLC Option into the Underlying, at which point the WLC Option ceases to exist and the Underlying is executed, or else (b) to allow the WLC Option to expire unexercised, in which case nothing further is done.

4.6.2.4. The Option Holder is obligated to remit a negotiated cash price (the “Premium”) to the Option Writer, whether or not he/she chooses to exercise the WLC Option.

4.6.3. More complex transactions may be constructed by combining multiple WLC Transactions – for example, a recallable sale would involve one party’s selling a WLC Forward Transaction to a second party while simultaneously purchasing from that same party a WLC Call Option to repurchase the WLC’s if he/she should find it necessary. However, all Physical Participants and Secondary Market Participants agree to engage in no complex transactions involving delivery of WLC’s that cannot be reduced to a simple combination of the afore-defined WLC Forward Transactions and WLC Options.

4.6.4. All WLC Transactions must be registered with a person designated by the Bank (said person being denoted the “Transaction Recorder”) immediately upon execution, in order to facilitate the Final Settlement process defined below.

4.6.5. The Transaction Recorder shall not engage in Secondary Market transactions.

4.6.6. Immediately upon notification of a WLC Transaction, the Transaction Recorder:

4.6.6.1. Shall confirm with each Secondary Market Participant engaged in said WLC Transaction, the validity of the WLC Transaction.

4.6.6.2. Upon confirmation, shall publish the number of WLC’s bought or sold and the Price(s) paid, but not the identities of the Secondary Market Participants engaged in the WLC Transactions in question.

4.7. Non-WLC Transactions may be defined in terms of the obligation to deliver on the Redemption Date an amount of cash determined by a formula including either the Per-Share Redemption Value as published by the Bank, or the Per-Share Damages Value as published by the Bank, or any combination of the two as defined by the parties to the transaction; but the settlement of such transactions is a private matter between the parties. For convenience, we define here three standard types of swap transactions and two standard types of option transactions based on each type of swap transaction.

4.7.1. A Fixed-for-Floating Shares Swap shall defined as a swap in which one party (the “Shares Payer”) agrees to deliver on the Redemption Date a certain number (the “Notional Quantity”) times the Per-Shares Redemption Value as published by the Bank (the “Shares Price”), and the other party (the “Fixed Payer”) agrees to pay a certain number of dollars (the “Fixed Price”) times the Notional Quantity.

4.7.1.1. A Call Option on a Fixed-for-Floating Shares Swap shall be defined as a Fixed-for-Floating Shares Swap that is automatically rendered null and void if the Shares Price settles below the Fixed Price; said Call Option being entered into upon the Fixed Payer’s providing a non-refundable consideration (the “Premium”) to the Shares Payer.

4.7.1.2. A Put Option on a Fixed-for-Floating Shares Swap shall be defined as a Fixed-for-Floating Shares Swap that is automatically rendered null and void if the Shares Price settles above the Fixed Price; said Put Option being entered into upon the Shares Payer’s providing a non-refundable consideration (the “Premium”) to the Fixed Payer.

4.7.2. A Fixed-for-Floating Damages Swap shall defined as a swap in which one party (the “Damages Payer”) agrees to deliver on the Redemption Date a certain number (the “Notional Quantity”) times the Per-Shares Damages Value as published by the Bank (the “Damages Price”), and the other party (the “Fixed Payer”) agrees to pay a certain number of dollars (the “Fixed Price”) times the Notional Quantity.

4.7.2.1. A Call Option on a Fixed-for-Floating Damages Swap shall be defined as a Fixed-for-Floating Damages Swap that is automatically rendered null and void if the Damages Price settles below the Fixed Price; said Call Option being entered into upon the Fixed Payer’s providing a non-refundable consideration (the “Premium”) to the Damages Payer.

4.7.2.2. A Put Option on a Fixed-for-Floating Damages Swap shall be defined as a Fixed-for-Floating Damages Swap that is automatically rendered null and void if the Damages Price settles above the Fixed Price; said Put Option being entered into upon the Damages Payer’s providing a non-refundable consideration (the “Premium”) to the Fixed Payer.

4.7.3. A Shares-for-Damages Swap shall defined as a swap in which one party (the “Damages Payer”) agrees to deliver on the Redemption Date a certain number (the “Notional Quantity”) times the Per-Shares Damages Value as published by the Bank, and the other party (the “Shares Payer”) agrees to pay the Notional Quantity times the Per-Shares Redemption Value as published by the Bank.

4.7.3.1. A Call Option on a Shares-for-Damages Swap shall be defined as a Shares-for-Damages Swap that is automatically rendered null and void if the Damages Price settles below the Shares Price; said Call Option being entered into upon the Shares Payer’s providing a non-refundable consideration (the “Premium”) to the Damages Payer.

4.7.3.2. A Put Option on a Shares-for-Damages Swap shall be defined as a Shares-for-Damages Swap that is automatically rendered null and void if the Damages Price settles above the Shares Price; said Put Option being entered into upon the Damages Payer’s providing a non-refundable consideration (the “Premium”) to the Shares Payer.

5. Final Settlement

5.1. At the Final Weigh-In, the number of WLC’s created by each Physical Participant shall be established, and this number shall become each Physical Participant’s initial WLC Balance; the initial WLC Balance for any Secondary Market Participant who is not also a Physical Participant shall by definition be zero (0).

5.2. Option Holders intending to exercise their rights under one or more WLC Options shall then declare to the relevant Option Writer and to the Transaction Recorder their intention to do so or else shall allow their WLC Options to expire unexercised, and any resulting WLC delivery obligations shall be recorded by the Transaction Recorder; which process of declaration shall be denoted the Option Exercise Round.

5.3. Delivery of WLC’s shall take place in a series of WLC Delivery Rounds, each such Round being executed as follows:

5.3.1. For each Secondary Market Participant who has an obligation to deliver WLC’s, the Bank shall add up the total number of WLC’s he/she is obligated to deliver in the Secondary Market, which total shall constitute his/her initial WLC Delivery Obligations Total.

5.3.2. For each Secondary Market Participant who has a claim to receive WLC’s, the Bank shall add up the total number of WLC’s he/she has the right to receive in the Secondary Market, which total shall constitute his/her initial WLC Delivery Claims Total.

5.3.3. Each Secondary Market Participant shall compare his/her WLC Delivery Obligations Total to his/her WLC Balance, the ratio of his/her WLC Balance to his/her WLC Delivery Obligations Total being denoted his/her WLC Delivery Percentage.

5.3.3.1. If his/her WLC Balance is greater than his/her WLC Delivery Obligations Total, he/she shall transfer title as required, in full, under all Secondary Market transactions that had placed him/her under a WLC Delivery obligation, thereby (a) satisfying all such obligations and reducing his/her WLC Delivery Obligations Total to zero (0), and (b) reducing his/her WLC Balance by a corresponding amount.

5.3.3.2. If his/her WLC Balance is less than his/her WLC Delivery Obligations Total, he/she shall partially deliver on each such obligation by the WLC Delivery Percentage (the number of WLC’s delivered being rounded to ten decimal places), thus (a) reducing his/her WLC Balance to zero (0) pending receipt of WLC’s from Secondary Market Participants against whom he/she has an outstanding claim to receive WLC’s, and (b) reducing his/her WLC Delivery Obligations Total by an equal amount.

5.3.3.3. His/her WLC Balance shall then be increased by the total number of WLC’s he/she receives in this round from other Secondary Market Participants against whom he/she has an outstanding claim to receive WLC’s, and his/her WLC Delivery Claims Total shall be reduced by a like amount.

5.3.4. Once all deliveries under this First WLC Delivery Round have been completed, new WLC Balances, WLC Delivery Obligation Totals, WLC Delivery Claims Totals and WLC Delivery Percentages shall be calculated for all Secondary Market Participants.

5.4. Upon conclusion of the Option Exercise Round, and upon the conclusion of each WLC Delivery Round if any are necessary, it shall be determined whether there remain one or more Secondary Market Participants having a WLC Balance and WLC Delivery Obligation Total both greater than zero, and if so, then another WLC Delivery Round shall be executed, until no such Secondary Market Participants remain.

5.5. Upon completion of the final WLC Delivery Round, or of the Option Exercise Round if no WLC Delivery Round is necessary, all Physical Participants wishing to redeem their shares and having a WLC Balance high enough for successful redemption, shall submit to the Bank their WLC Balances, at which point the Bank shall:

5.5.1. Declare which Physical Participants have been determined to be Successful Physical Participants.

5.5.2. Calculate and publish the Per-Share Redemption Value.

5.5.3. Calculate and publish the Per-Share Damages Value.

5.6. Once the Bank has published the Per-Share Damages Value, it shall settle all WLC Transactions as follows.

5.6.1. Any Secondary Market Participant having a WLC Delivery Claims Total greater than zero (0), shall be denoted a Defaultee.

5.6.2. Each Unsuccessful Physical Participant whose WLC Delivery Claims Total is greater than or equal to the sum of his WLC Delivery Obligations Total and his Weight Loss Responsibility, shall further be denoted a Critical Defaultee.

5.6.3. Any Secondary Market Participant having a WLC Delivery Obligations Total greater than zero (0), shall be denoted a Defaulter.

5.6.4. For each Defaultee, a Share of Responsibility shall be calculated for each of that Defaultee’s Defaulters, by dividing the number of WLC’s that that particular Defaulter failed to deliver to that Defaultee by the total number of WLC’s that the Defaultee failed to receive.

5.6.5. An initial set of Damages Payable Balances shall be established for each Defaulter – one such balance for each Defaultee to whom the Defaulter failed to deliver – and shall be set initially at $0.00.

5.6.6. A Critical Damages Receivable Balance shall be established for each Defaultee, the value of which shall be determined by whether the Defaultee is a Critical Defaultee.

5.6.6.1. If the Defaultee is a Critical Defaultee, that Defaultee’s Critical Damages Receivable Balance shall be set to 1,000 times the Per-Share Damages Value if the Defaultee is a WLC Critical Defaultee

5.6.6.2. If the Defaultee is not a Critical Defaultee, that Defaultee’s Critical Damages Receivable Balance shall be set to $0.00.

5.6.7. A Damages Receivable Balance shall be established for each Defaultee, and shall initially be set equal to that Defaultee’s Critical Damages Receivable Balance.

5.6.8. If there is at least one Critical Defaultee, then a series of Damages Assessment Rounds shall commence, and shall continue until all individual Damages Payable Balances and all individual Damages Receivable Balances remain unchanged for two consecutive rounds. Each Damage Assessment Round shall proceed as follows:

5.6.8.1. Each Damages Payable Balance shall be set to the greater of either zero ($0.00) or else a value calculated by (a) dividing the relevant Defaultee’s Damages Receivable Balance by the relevant Defaulter’s Share of Responsibility with respect to that Defaultee, then (b) adding to that the sum of all cash amounts owed to that Defaultee by that Defaulter as a result of WLC Transactions, then (c) subtracting from that the sum of all cash amounts owed to that Defaulter by that Defaultee as a result of WLC Transactions, then (d) adding to that the sum of all Shares owed to that Defaultee by that Defaulter as a result of WLC Transactions, multiplied by the Per-Share Damages Value, then (e) subtracting from that the sum of all Shares owed to that Defaulter by that Defaultee as a result of WLC Transactions, multiplied by the Per-Share Damages Value.

5.6.8.2. Each Defaultee’s Damages Receivable Balance shall then be reset to the sum of his/her Damages Payable Balances and his/her Critical Damages Receivable Balance.

5.6.8.3. If at the conclusion of the round at least one Damages Payable Balance and/or at least one Damages Receivable Balance has changed since the conclusion of the previous round, another round is executed.

5.6.9. At the conclusion of the final Damages Assessment Round, if any, any Defaultee whose Damages Receivable Balance is greater than $0.00 shall be deemed a Damaged Defaultee, and any Defaultee whose Damages Receivable Balance is $0.00 shall be deemed an Undamaged Defaultee.

5.6.10. All Physical WLC Transactions between any Defaulter and any Damaged Defaultee to whom he/she failed to deliver WLC’s, shall be considered null and void and shall be replaced by said Defaulter’s obligation to remit to said Damaged Defaultee, in cash, the relevant Damages Payable Balance.

5.6.11. Any obligation to deliver Shares that a Secondary Market Participant may have under a WLC Transaction not rendered null and void under the previous paragraph, shall then be converted into a cash obligation equal to the Per-Share Redemption Value multiplied by the number of Shares said Secondary Market Participant is obligated to deliver.

5.6.12. Any claim to cash that a Defaulter may have had under a Physical WLC Transaction between himself/herself and any Undamaged Defaultee to whom he/she failed to deliver WLC’s (including claims to Shares that were converted under the previous paragraph to claims to cash), shall be reduced in proportion to the percentage of said Defaulter’s WLC Delivery Obligation to said Defaultee that said Defaulter failed to deliver.

5.6.13. Any WLC Transactions not settled under one of the previous two paragraphs shall be settled as follows:

5.6.13.1. The obligation to deliver WLC’s shall be considered to have been met in full.

5.6.13.2. Any cash obligation associated with a WLC Transaction (including obligations to deliver Shares that have been converted to obligations to deliver cash under the procedures established above) shall be payable in full.

5.6.14. All cash obligations between any two Secondary Market Participants resulting from settlement of WLC Transactions, as adjusted by the procedures set forth above, shall then be summed / offset to the highest degree possible, resulting in at most one Net Cash Obligation between those two Secondary Market Participants.

5.6.15. The Bank shall then:

5.6.15.1. Notify each Secondary Market Participant of all Net Cash Obligations owed by that Secondary Market Participant to other Secondary Market Participants, and of all Net Cash Obligations owed to that Secondary Market Participant by other Secondary Market Participants; and make available upon request all calculations used to derive said Net Cash Obligations.

5.6.15.2. Collect from each Unsuccessful Physical Participant the Premium Amount.

5.6.15.3. Remit to each Successful Physical Participant an amount equal to one thousand (1,000) times the Per-Share Redemption Value, minus the Premium Amount.

5.6.16. All Net Cash Obligations shall be payable immediately upon notification of the relevant Secondary Market Participants by the Bank.

5.7. Neither the Bank nor the Transaction Recorder shall bear any responsibility for settlement of any Non-WLC Transaction, nor for ensuring collection of any Net Cash Obligations owed by any Secondary Market Participant to any other Secondary Market Participant.

5.8. All Secondary Market Participants and Physical Participants agree, by their participation, to indemnify the Bank and the Transaction Recorder against any claims of damages arising from any inadvertent miscalculations or delays in publication or notification.

---

There you have it...y'all have fun now, hear?

Always glad to know that the people who have authority that could be abused, are blessed with a sound sense of proportion

Just imagine the life of crime this little delinquent might have wound up leading had the authorities not taken prompt action.

A nice couple of hours

I took Rusty and Sally out to see Enchanted Saturday night at the Alamo Drafthouse. You can fold the armrests out of the way so that the kid on each side can snuggle happily up next to you. The movie is a delightfully cute little movie. The kids discovered that they really like both the Alamo's French fries and the stuffed potato skins. The milkshakes were outstanding. The only real drawback to the evening was when Rusty very politely offered me a sip of his milkshake and I took one, having momentarily forgotten that he had, upon being asked to select a flavor for his milkshake, chosen strawberry.

So the cool thing here is that earlier that evening I had been taking Kinya to therapy, and Anya and Natasha were as usual going with her, and there was only one seatbelt left -- and Rusty offered to stay home so that Sally could go, even though I know he badly wanted to go. I have been trying for a very long time to get the concept of being a gentleman across to him; so this was a very major deal and a cause for celebration.

Man, I do like my kids. There are parts of my life that kinda suck right now but my kids...don't know what I'd do without 'em. Even when they're mad at me.

Meanwhile I have hopes that I'll get to take some of them to West Virginia with me. Since that would make it feasible for me to have the rest of them spend the New Year's holiday at Duane's house, thus keeping Dessie from having to move out for that week, I think we might be able to establish a win-win scenario. (But of course if we can't work something out I'm fine with sticking to the temporary settlement; I did after all agree to it of my own free will.)

Thanks again for all the prayers for my kids.

A triumph for Bill Gates

Apparently Microsoft's replacement for Vista is a MAJOR improvement...

What a beautifully executed satiric takedown.

HT: Instapundit

Well, that gift was a success

Note: This story is included especially for the well-defined Natasha fan base among my blog readership, whose continuing, loyal interest in that young lady impresses and touches me very much.

Natasha's eighteenth birthday was last weekend, and that meant buying her a present. Now, I am totally not a gift person, and it's always a hit-or-miss thing when I try to figure out what would be a good present for somebody. In this case, though, Anna and I came across some gargantuan novelty house-slippers made up to look like two big fully stuffed puppy-dogs. Cute as could be, and Natasha is crazy about animals, and Anna assured me that Natasha would like them -- in fact at first Anna intended to buy them for Natasha herself, but then later she found something she thought Natasha would like better. So I gambled on those.

Well, when I gave them to Natasha a couple of days later, Natasha, who is not exactly noted for being demonstrably affectionate, leaped up and gave me a hug of sheer delight. So I thought, "Whew, okay, I think I avoided gift-disaster for this year at least."

Two days later I showed up to give Kinya a ride to the fitness club where she does physical therapy most evenings, and Anya and Natasha decided to go along as well. Natasha walked out the front door headed for my car, and from the driver's seat I observed in a mixture of amusement and astonishment that she was wearing those house-slippers, clearly with every intention of going to Lifetime Fitness thusly shod. As she walked up to the car, I said rather diffidently, "Um, Natashenka, you do realize those shoes are meant to be worn around the house, not out and about town, right?"

Natasha chose the always-sound rhetorical tactic of answering my question with a question of her own. "Papa, these shoes are mine, right?"

I chuckled. "Of course they are."

Firmly: "Then I'm wearing them." End of conversation, and off to Lifetime went the girls, myself...and two very self-satisfied stuffed puppy-dog house-slippers.

So, um, I think that present was a hit.

"Well-Crafted Double-Barreled Non-Baptist Anti-Texan Zinger of the Day" Dept

From a collection of deadly insults, the title of which collection I unfortunately can't remember even though I bought it just two days ago (in my defense, I promptly gave it away to a friend who I thought could appreciate it better than I):

"If God had wanted Texans to ski, He'd've made bulls*** white."

I'll tack on to this one of my favorite anti-Texan jokes, in which one sees a Texan actually doing his pitiful best to be polite and not to be obvious about how superior he considers himself to be to the rest of the world...

A Texan tourist is sitting in a pub in Kilkenny (the one place in Ireland I'm not really interested in visiting, for obvious reasons) and the locals, who are in a hospitable mood thanks to the Texan's having prudently introduced himself by buying a round for the house, ask him what he thinks of Ireland.

"It's real purty; I like it a lot."

"And how will it be comparin' with Texas, then?"

The Texan attempts to be tactful. "Well, they're both real purty, just in awful different ways."

"Would you be tellin' us, then, what these differences might be?"

The Texan considers his words carefully. "Well, y'all have all these purty little farms with those purty little cottages and those meanderin' stone walls, and there ain't no front yards within a hunnert miles of Midland anywhere near as green as y'all's, and it's like vis'tin' a whole country made outa postcards. Only thang is...well, lemme put it this way: back home on my ranch in Texas, if I git up at dawn and walk outta my front door and get into my F-150 pickup truck, and if I commence to drivin' due west, and if I keep on drivin' th' whole day long, well, when th' sun goes down -- I'll still be on my own ranch."

The little Irishman next to him nods his head companionably. "Ah, yes, I too once had such a car..."

On deadly violence as a form of gratitude

Note: This post was originally part of the previous one but I reconsidered and decided they should be two different posts...and then added a response to a comment plus a couple of Aggie huntin' jokes...

I have said nothing to this point for awhile about Duane and Desiree Liong, whose spare bedroom I still inhabit. That is because there are no words adequate to describe those two incredible individuals, whose graciousness and generosity are apparently as limitless as Christ's own -- precisely, I believe, because they have, as Christians are called to do, allowed themselves to become channels through which Jesus pours out upon me daily his very own graciousness and generosity.

But while it is true that I can't find words to describe my gratitude, my parents recently found an effectively concrete way to express some of theirs. I drove up to West Virginia to spend Thanksgiving with my parents, Thanksgiving this year being a Dessie holiday with respect to the kids, and my mother was thrilled and delighted to find out I was coming...but she had a prayer request to make upon hearing the good news. This request was that she would bag her deer on the first day of deer season without wasting any time, since deer season opened the week of Thanksgiving and she wanted as much time as possible to spend with me.

We interrupt this anecdote to deal (cheerfully, I hasten to add) with an inevitable objection from the highly valued liberal bloc amongst my readers: For you urban types who think there's something perverse about the idea of praying for success in killing a deer...um, who exactly do you think created lions and tigers and sharks and all those other predators? When my niece watches wild-animal-kingdom shows, she cheers for the predators -- when the wildebeest or gazelle or whatever gets caught up to and dragged down she gives the cheetah a pump fist and a hearty "Yes!" -- and I'd be mighty curious to hear anybody give a rational explanation of what's wrong with such an allegiance. Though naturally y'all are welcome to cheer for the wildebeest if you prefer. (Los-ahs! Oh, oops, did I say that out loud? My bad.)

God, not being an urban Democrat [evil editorial chuckle], granted my mom's prayer with dispatch, as she nailed a nice fat doe at dawn on the first day of deer season, which was the day I was due to drive out from Houston. Amused by this, I told Duane about it, and his eyes widened. "Deer meat? Your parents have deer meat?"

"Sure."

He sighs wistfully. "Oh, man, it's been so long since I got to eat any deer meat. Do you think your parents might be willing to send a little back with you?"

Well, when my parents found out that Duane and Desiree liked venison, their response was instant and emphatic: "How much can you carry back with you? How much room does their freezer have?" After all, as my mother said a few days later as they loaded up their biggest ice chest, "Take those two as much of that deer meat as you can make fit in there; I can always just go shoot another one for us."

But Duane's joy was short-lived: I didn't get back until very late on the night before Desiree and the twins left to go see grandparents in the Phillipines for two months. For lunch the next day, while I was gone to work, the Liongs had some of the venison steak -- and Desiree then informed Duane, apparently, that he was not to eat any more of that venison until she got back from the Philippines and could get her fair share of it. A co-worker suggested the other day that, considering how much I brought back with me, Duane could probably get away with sneaking a steak or two out of there without getting caught; but Duane mournfully (mock-mournfully, you understand) said, "I think she counted them."

So what with Duane and me both sitting around the house all day missing our families, chez Liong is not exactly Party Central at the moment. I think we'll have six Level 70 World of Warcraft characters apiece by the time Desiree gets back. (Actually, I won't, because I am in the middle of an apartment search, since Duane's parents are coming back with Desiree in February and will need the spare bedroom, and so I don't really have much spare time. But I think last Sunday Duane started the day by creating a brand new WoW character and ended it with the character at Level 26; so he's genuinely a threat to set records.)

---

Now, as I said, this post was originally part of the previous one; and so I am bringing over with it Jim's comment:

Yo dude,

Thoughts and prayers for you and your family.

Oh, and for the record, liberals hunt deer too. In fact, a real good environmentalist would encourage deer hunting. After all, the conservative anti-environmentalists got rid of all the rest of the predators that keep the deer population in check. :)

Jim, thanks for the prayers. And you will notice that I very carefully specified urban liberals. Believe me, growing up in "Little Dixie" in southeastern Oklahoma, where (at least in my youth) even the Republicans were registered as Democrats because the only way to influence who got into office was to vote in the Democratic primary, I know that a Democratic voting card is not nearly enough to keep you and your kids from calling in sick to work and school for the whole first week of deer season. [chuckling] In fact when, as inevitably happened every year, some moron shot his friend because he thought he was shooting a deer, odds were pretty good the moron was a rich Republican coming down from the city to play cowboy.

Having mentioned the subject, I can't resist telling one of my favorite Aggie jokes, which I've probably told before but it never gets old. (Stream-of-consciousness reference to Rodney Dangerfield: I like his line that runs, "I told my wife that I'm like wine -- I get better with age. So she locked me in the cellar.")

These two Aggies go out huntin', and, bein' Aggies, one of 'em shoots the other one. As soon as he realizes his mistake, he rushes his friend to the emergency room, and then paces back and forth in the waiting room, until the doctor walks out, looking grim. The Aggie rushes up to the doctor: "Doc, Doc, tell me, is my buddy gonna make it?"

The doctor slowly pulls off first one glove, then the other, obviously weighing his words. Finally he speaks: "Well, let me put it this way...he'd've had a helluva lot better chance if you hadn't slit his throat and gutted him."

--

And since we're telling Aggie hunting jokes (or at least I am), here's one more for the road:

These two Aggies go out huntin', and, bein' Aggies, one of 'em shoots the other one. As soon as he realizes his mistake (I promise this is a different joke, by the way), he calls 9-1-1 on his cell phone.

AGGIE: Please, please, you gotta help me, I shot my friend by mistake and I don't know what to do.

OPERATOR: Calm down, sir. First I need to know, is your friend dead?

AGGIE: I think he is, I think I killed him, oh God oh God oh God...

OPERATOR: Sir, sir, please calm down. Before we do anything else, let's make sure your friend really is dead.

AGGIE: Hold on a sec... [gunshot] ... Okay, what now?

An update

I want to say how deeply I appreciate the support I get from you guys who read this blog. It means a very great deal.

Obviously I'm not posting much these days. Part of it has to do with the fact that the last month has been an intensely busy one this month; but of course as you guys no doubt suspect, it's mostly that the divorce is not going well and I'm trying not to talk about it. I do, however, want to give you guys an update in rather carefully general terms, as I know that you guys care very deeply about my family and that for a number of you this blog is your only means of knowing how things are going.

About the difficulties of trying to find a way to cooperate with Dessie in order to come to mutual agreement about the terms of divorce and the general welfare of the children, the less said the better, I'm afraid.

Of the nine children in the house (Anya, Natasha, Kasia, Kristina, Sean, Kegan, Merry, Rusty and Sally), there is one who pretty much thinks the divorce is 100% my fault and who as much as possible avoids being with me or speaking to me; and about that relationship, again, the less said in this forum the better.

The relationship with Natasha is obviously complicated by the fact that I have no legal relationship with, or responsibility for, that young lady, having ceded any guardianship rights when I left the house a few months ago. So, for example, when I was told she was ill one day I had to point out that I had no authority to check her out of school. I don't know what arrangements Dessie and the Browns made between themselves, nor does Dessie have any obligation to inform me of any problems or issues involving Natasha. Furthermore, I have pretty strong opinions about the respect and deference due to her parents, and I like her parents very much and feel a lot of regret for the pain they've suffered as a result of agreeing to get involved with Dessie's and my Kazakh kid project; but my impression (which could be wrong) is that there's lots of conflict and hard feelings between Dessie and Natasha and Natasha's parents, and I don't want to make things worse by getting in the middle of THAT, especially when I don't really know what's going on. On the other hand, I love the kid; and I feel quite a bit of moral responsibility for her, since she's in the situation that she's in pretty much entirely because of my meddling; and she calls me "Papa" just as do Anya and Kinya, with whom she shares a room; and I pay her an allowance calculated by the same rules as the other kids'. So that one's complex. She turned eighteen on Saturday, though, which changes the legal picture considerably...it doesn't change her relationship with me, but it changes her relationship with Dessie and her parents, and is likely to change her own behavior in unpredictable ways. We'll see what happens. In the meantime, she and I have been getting along fine, at least.

That leaves seven other children, with all of whom my relationships seem to have stabilized and indeed, in the case of five of the seven, improved rather dramatically over the last couple of months. Mostly they seem to have taken the eminently sensible view that whatever Mom and Dad are fighting with each other about, is Mom and Dad's problem; so I don't get this how-can-Evil-Dad-treat-Saintly-Mom-so-bad nonsense from them -- a good thing, since I could only defend myself from such charges of wrongdoing by telling them a great many details of their mother's behavior that I have no intention of telling them, for many reasons, including but not limited to (a) I feel strongly that children ought not to have to sit and listen to their parents' getting trashed even if the trashing is justified, and most especially of all when the trasher is the other parent, this constituting in my opinion a form of child abuse, plus (b) I'm sure I don't see the whole situation objectively and therefore no matter how hard I tried to be fair I wouldn't manage to be, plus (c) you ought not criticize people when they aren't there to defend themselves and Dessie and I spend as little time in each other's vicinity as possible, and (d) to put it bluntly, it's none of the kids' business.

As long as Dessie's not around, in fact, the kids and I do very well. When Dessie is there, of course, the kids lock down emotionally. I don't for a moment imagine that this is because The Bad Parent has shown up; I'm sure that when I'm not around Dessie and the kids do fine. But obviously the kids can't be themselves when Dessie and I are in the same place because everybody's tension levels go through the roof. That problem is of limited effect, however, because the family courts in their wisdom guarantee each parent a certain amount of time with the kids without the other parent, and after one disastrously misguided attempt to be generous and let Dessie share time on one of my weekends, I've had the sense to protect that space pretty carefully. So (with the exception of the kid who considers me to be Evil Dad) generally speaking when the kids and I are in each other's company these days, it's a thoroughly positive experience -- and indeed, in a couple of cases I'd say we enjoy it more than we have in years.

But of course we enjoy it far less frequently than we used to, and I miss them terribly. I try very hard not to whine about it around the kids, who have enough problems of their own without being burdened by mine as well; but that doesn't change the fact that in coming home every day to a house without my kids in it, I am painfully reminded every day that I live in exile from my own heart.

I have said nothing to this point about Duane and Desiree Liong, whose spare bedroom I still inhabit. That is because there are no words adequate to describe those two incredible individuals, whose graciousness and generosity are apparently as limitless as Christ's own -- precisely, I believe, because they have, as Christians are called to do, allowed themselves to become channels through which Jesus pours out upon me daily his very own graciousness and generosity.

But while it is true that I can't find words to describe my gratitude, my parents recently found an effectively concrete way to express some of theirs. I drove up to West Virginia to spend Thanksgiving with my parents, Thanksgiving this year being a Dessie holiday with respect to the kids, and my mother was thrilled and delighted to find out I was coming...but she had a prayer request to make upon hearing the good news. This request was that she would bag her deer on the first day of deer season without wasting any time, since deer season opened the week of Thanksgiving and she wanted as much time as possible to spend with me.

We interrupt this anecdote to deal (cheerfully, I hasten to add) with an inevitable objection from the highly valued liberal bloc amongst my readers: For you urban types who think there's something perverse about the idea of praying for success in killing a deer...um, who exactly do you think created lions and tigers and sharks and all those other predators? When my niece watches wild-animal-kingdom shows, she cheers for the predators -- when the wildebeest or gazelle or whatever gets caught up to and dragged down she gives the cheetah a pump fist and a hearty "Yes!" -- and I'd be mighty curious to hear anybody give a rational explanation of what's wrong with such an allegiance. Though naturally y'all are welcome to cheer for the wildebeest if you prefer. (Los-ahs! Oh, oops, did I say that out loud? My bad.)

God, not being an urban Democrat [evil editorial chuckle], granted my mom's prayer with dispatch, as she nailed a nice fat doe at dawn on the first day of deer season, which was the day I was due to drive out from Houston. Amused by this, I told Duane about it, and his eyes widened. "Deer meat? Your parents have deer meat?"

"Sure."

He sighs wistfully. "Oh, man, it's been so long since I got to eat any deer meat. Do you think your parents might be willing to send a little back with you?"

Well, when my parents found out that Duane and Desiree liked venison, their response was instant and emphatic: "How much can you carry back with you? How much room does their freezer have?" After all, as my mother said a few days later as they loaded up their biggest ice chest, "Take those two as much of that deer meat as you can make fit in there; I can always just go shoot another one for us."

But Duane's joy was short-lived: I didn't get back until very late on the night before Desiree and the twins left to go see grandparents in the Phillipines for two months. For lunch the next day, while I was gone to work, the Liongs had some of the venison steak -- and Desiree then informed Duane, apparently, that he was not to eat any more of that venison until she got back from the Philippines and could get her fair share of it. A co-worker suggested the other day that, considering how much I brought back with me, Duane could probably get away with sneaking a steak or two out of there without getting caught; but Duane mournfully (mock-mournfully, you understand) said, "I think she counted them."

So what with Duane and me both sitting around the house all day missing our families, chez Liong is not exactly Party Central at the moment. I think we'll have six Level 70 World of Warcraft characters apiece by the time Desiree gets back. (Actually, I won't, because I am in the middle of an apartment search, since Duane's parents are coming back with Desiree in February and will need the spare bedroom, and so I don't really have much spare time. But I think last Sunday Duane started the day by creating a brand new WoW character and ended it with the character at Level 26; so he's genuinely a threat to set records.)

Well, there's your update. I'm sorry they have been so infrequent.

I needn't say, but will say anyway with great emphasis, that your prayers are unspeakably appreciated, especially the ones you guys offer on behalf of my children.