Thursday, January 26, 2012

Do you want to woo hoo? (Thursday Scramble)

On Thursday Scramble, I take an old post from one of my blogs -- my blogs currently make up 24.8% of the entire Internet -- and repost it to all my OTHER blogs. This post appeared in 2008 on my blog "Thinking The Lions." Thinking The Lions focuses on funny stories about me, and the things I do with my family, and the things I do when I'm supposed to be working, and the things I do when I'm supposed to be doing the things I do. Also, I post poems there on Fridays.

*******************************************************************************************


Always carry the pooping toddler behind you, not in front of you.

That way, when the pooping toddler poops, it will not fall directly into your path, causing you to step in it, which will cause you to think oh my god this is possibly the grossest but most hilarious emergency I've ever been a part of, and which will also cause you to stop, take that sock off, and then continue on your way to the potty chair, which you have left upstairs, and upstairs is an awful long ways away when you are carrying a naked, pooping, and now upset toddler at arm's length.

That's what I learned last night, as I was helping to clean up the kitchen after tacos and smoothies made in the new blender using the high-end "Whole Foods" fruit we had, both of which we had because Sweetie got them for St. Nick's Day.

I'm not sure why "St. Nick's Day" exists, or even if it does exist outside of my family. I always wondered if it existed outside of my family when I was a kid, too, when we would, in the beginning of December, get candy in our stockings. Never presents or anything, just candy, which always included one of those giant, straight-up-and-down candy canes, the kind that would splinter when you bit them, so that if you sat on the brown couch eating them and watching channel 18 -- channel 18 was the only channel worth watching most of the time back then, because it was the only non-network channel, so it showed reruns of shows and cartoons in the afternoon, as opposed to showing "Phil Donahue," a show that by my memories was on at least 17 hours a day on all three networks in the late 70s and early 80s-- if you sat on the brown couch eating your candy cane and watching Channel 18, you would have parts splinter off and fall on your chest and be covered with sweater-fuzz, making them inedible. You would also get little tiny peppermint shards sprinkled down your chest and stomach, giving you a minty smell and a crackly feel the rest of the day.

No other kids ever seemed to get stuff for St. Nick's Day, which was why I thought maybe it only existed in our family, but, then again, I was the kind of kid who never really knew what was going on, either, so maybe everyone was getting St. Nick's presents, and I just didn't know it because I spent most of my time in fourth grade reading the "Emil" books and playing one-on-one football on recesses with Kevin Donnerbauer, the kid with only one thumb, and what time I didn't spend doing that I spent drawing "vipers" from Battlestar Galactica and getting beat up by Dean Larsen. None of which really lead one to conversations about whether or not the other kid celebrates "St. Nick's Day."

When I married Sweetie, I learned that she, too, celebrated St. Nick's Day, and that she celebrated it through presents, which seems odd, since Sweetie is always telling me how poor she was growing up, stories about poverty that make me feel even more guilty than I do most of the time about my relatively-privileged background. I, as a kid, generally got presents like the Millenium Falcon with Actual Cargo Bays for hiding Han Solo, or my "official" Dallas Cowboys helmet, or the Lego set that let me build an actual Lunar Landing Module (which I still remember was called the "LEM," even though I don't remember why it was called the "LEM") or any of the the 1000 other toys and junk my parents got us for Christmas, and that still wasn't enough, as most years there were plenty of junky things we didn't get. Realizing that, that I was so spoiled and privileged and didn't appreciate it, serves the valuable purpose today of making me feel guilty, guilt that I channel into areas that society desperately needs, like "working hard" and "giving to charity" and "telling my own kids how lucky they are that they have so much stuff, compared to how little stuff I had," which is only true comparatively speaking, because I had a lot of stuff, but my kids have more stuff, and they, too, do not think they have enough. Yes, The Boy has a great big TV in his room and a DVD player and a Playstation 3, but he still pines away for an Internet connection that would let him play Playstation online against other players, even though the other player he would mostly play against is his friend, who lives next door, and who would probably come over to play anyway, bringing his own TV and Playstation 3, so that they could harness the awesome power of the Internet to play a game against each other sitting two feet apart.

So the guilt I carry around lets me lay some guilt on The Boy and his sisters for having so much stuff, something that I do to relieve my own guilt and also to make sure that they have guilt when they grow up, so that they will work hard and give to charity and be good people and guilt-trip their own kids, and the Circle of Guilt will continue.

I don't guilt-trip the Babies! yet, because they're too little to feel guilty about anything, and also because they don't really want anything. We have not yet bought them that many toys -- all of their toys except the slide and their car fit into a laundry basket -- but we have bought them toys, and they generally ignore those toys and play with anything else.

Mr Bunches, for example, carries around a small red practice golf ball that Middle gave him. It's made of foam rubber and he has it with him at all times. I've never known anyone to have a "Security Golf Ball" but he does, and he gets upset if he can't find it. He got so upset the last time it was lost (we found it behind the Only Surviving Plant in the house) that Sweetie took precautions and found a second one, a Spare Emergency Golf Ball that is kept carefully hidden in the Babies!'s room. We all also make sure, at all times, that we are aware of the Red Ball: "Where's his red ball?" we ask each other, when moving Mr Bunches from one room or level of the house to the next.

He can't be fooled, either -- give him a different color practice golf ball and he'll throw it aside. Give him a different kind of red ball and he'll squeeze it to test it out, and if it doesn't give a little like The Red Ball, he'll toss that aside, too.

Losing his Red Ball is one of the few things that upsets Mr Bunches. He's pretty easygoing. The only other things I've seen upset him are when someone leaves the room he's in, and being whisked away to poop on the potty chair rather than on the living room floor, where he thought it was okay to poop because, after all, he was naked.

Mr Bunches was only naked because I felt sorry for him and also because I needed both hands free to clean up the smoothie mess that I'd created making smoothies on the blender I'd given Sweetie for St. Nick's Day, a blender that was big and expensive and more big and expensive than a St. Nick's Day present should be, but I tend to give Sweetie big and expensive presents because, like I said, I feel guilty about my privileged background and Sweetie manages to dredge up more guilt by telling me stories about her own unprivileged background.

I might tell a story, for example, of how I had all these Star Wars action figures and I used to set them up in elaborate scenarios in my room in which the dresser with its four shelves was the Death Star, because the books on the bottom shelf could be the trash compactor, and then I might say that I wished I'd kept those Star Wars figures because maybe they'd be worth money, and then Sweetie will say something like this, a story she actually told us:

"I didn't have action figures or dolls when I was a little girl. We couldn't afford them. I had marbles, though, that my grandma gave me. I used to pretend the marbles were people and play with them and make them go shopping."

Imagine hearing that on the heels of your story about having an actual Boba Fett that shot missiles. Then imagine yourself standing in the department store thinking "Should I get her that blender she asked for even though it's very expensive?" and as you think that, you remember that Sweetie, as a kid, had to have her marbles have adventures, things she couldn't even dress up or fix the hair of or whatever it is that girls do with their dolls and toys.

And then imagine standing in that department store, pushing your Babies! in their stroller, and feeling terribly guilty about having been so privileged, and deciding that yes, you will buy her the blender, and you'll also get her some other stuff because she deserves it, but then you get distracted and think How would a marble be a person? And did they have names? Were they, like "Judy The Marble?" Did she make them walk, or just roll them to the Marble Shopping Mall? And then before you can get the blender or answer those questions, Mr F leans over and starts trying to knock over the pile of Christmas dinner plates you're stuck in front of.

Mr F got to try to knock over a lot of things last week, as we finished up the shopping for Sweetie's St. Nick's Day present. Her entire present was that blender that she asked for, and a bunch of high-quality fruit from Whole Foods, and a Whole Foods $10 gift card (which I threw in to top it off, but which is useless because $10 at Whole Foods will get you one grape) and a book of smoothie recipes that had lots of recipes for smoothies made without yogurt, because Sweetie likes smoothies but hates yogurt. Or I should say, Sweetie wants to like smoothies, something she tells us all the time:

"I want to like smoothies," she'll say, "But I just don't like that yogurt."

When I ask why it's so important that she like smoothies, she answers: "Because they're cool."

Finding the blender was the easy part -- the department store had blenders, lots of them, some of them as high-priced as $159. I did not get guilt-tripped into buying that. Marble People or not, I don't buy $159 kitchen appliances. I settled on a tough-looking red blender that had an "Ice Crusher" feature. That sounded good (if not very romantic or Christmas-y) to me. Getting the fruit was also easy. It was the book that was tough, because I had Mr Bunches and Mr F with me in their stroller, and I had to go to three different bookstores to find just the right book of smoothie recipes, which meant three different nights of pushing the Babies! through bookstores, bookstores with shelves that were very close together and packed with books that were ripe for the plucking, so that as we walked down the aisles Mr F and Mr Bunches would reach out and grab books and toss them on the floor, and I would quickly scoop the books up and put them back more or less in the region they came from, hopefully also getting all of the "Teddy Graham" crumbs and smudges off of them. So if you are shopping for a book at any of those stores, the odds are that the book you want is about five feet further down the aisle, and you'll want to wipe it off a little before buying it.

I also could not stop the stroller, because they'd get really antsy then, and start arching their backs or taking off their socks and shoes and throwing them, and if there's anything that gets you judged to be a bad parent, it's having barefoot kids out in a store in December in Wisconsin. Plus, people don't think it's so cute the third time a shoe gets flung at them.

Most of the shopping, then, was done with me handing them "Teddy Grahams" and trying to calm them down and distract them by talking to them and singing Mr F's favorite song ("All I Want Is You" from the "Juno" Soundtrack) quietly as we walked through the aisles, and when that didn't work, I'd try to quickly scan the books as we walked by. When I'd see a book I thought would be good, I'd scoop it up and keep pushing the stroller, checking out the book with one hand and pushing the stroller with the other hand, eventually looping back to drop the book off more or less where I'd gotten it (I could tell by the trail of "Teddy Grahams.")

I had to do that because in public, I'll do anything to keep the Babies! happy, and also because I'm a pushover. I think I'm a tough dad, but I'm not, and I just give in to the Babies! demands no matter what the cost to me personally is. I will let them, for example, out of the cart while we're at the drugstore picking up cold medicine, even though I know that it will be physically impossible for me to hold both of their hands and get out my wallet to pay. I let them out of the cart and hold their hands and then, when it comes time to pull out my wallet, I let go of Mr Bunches' hand for just one second I hope and pull out the $20 Sweetie gave me, but it's no use: Mr Bunches has taken off towards the back of the store, laughing, and I have to scoop up Mr F and tell the lady behind the counter "put the change in the bag" and then I carry Mr F with me while I chase Mr Bunches around the rack of cold medicines in the back of the store, twice, before grabbing him and going up front carrying both boys to grab the bag, which hopefully has my change in it, and head outside.

Even then, I'm such a pushover that I feel bad for Mr F, who didn't get to run around the pharmacy, and I wonder if I should give him a chance, too. But Mr F gets his own special treatment, like when I keep playing The Tackle Game with him even though I'm afraid that he's given me a concussion.

The Tackle Game is Mr F's favorite. He invented it, and as you'd expect of a game invented by a two-year-old, it's pretty simple and also violent. In The Tackle Game, I sit cross-legged on the floor, and Mr F goes into the other room and then comes running at me while I say "No no no no no" in a scared voice (note: I'm not acting) and he then plows into me and we fall over backwards and I tell him he's very strong and how'd he get so strong? Then we do it all again, for about an hour. And I keep playing The Tackle Game under the most adverse conditions, like when Mr F the other night caught me just behind the temple with his forehead, causing him to momentarily cry until I calmed him down by tossing him in the air a few times. He was fine. I, though, was seeing stars and had a splitting headache, one that instantly set in and spread down to my jaw and my neck, and one that I still kind of have, two days later. But I kept playing The Tackle Game, and didn't let on to Mr F that I thought maybe I had a concussion.

That pushoveriness is how Mr F and Mr Bunches ended up running around buck naked on St. Nick's Eve, or the night of St. Nick's Day, or whatever. We'd eaten dinner, which was tacos and chips and non-yogurt-containing smoothies that I'd made using Sweetie's new St. Nick's blender, and I was helping clean up before taking the Babies! upstairs for their bath, and Mr F started getting into the wedding cabinet, which is the only thing in our house anymore that both contains glass and is in arm's reach. It's a curio cabinet with glass doors that's filled with wedding mementos and champagne glasses and pictures from our wedding and things like that, and we'd move it, but it's really heavy and it wouldn't be right to put it in the garage, anyway, so we guard the wedding cabinet using the high-tech method of taking the piano bench and the round table and laying them down in front of it, a giant barricade that completely fails to slow down Mr F, who likes to open and close doors, hard, to hear the bang! they make. Mr F frequently gets into the wedding cabinet doors, which make a satisfying glassy sound. He hasn't yet noticed that every single thing inside that cabinet is breakable, but it's only a matter of time.

While I was cleaning up last night, Mr F got into the wedding cabinet, and I got him out and tried to distract him from that by dropping him on the couch. That's "The Treatment," a game he and Mr Bunches like. In "The Treatment," I hold them and swing them back and forth and say "1... 2... Treatment!" and then drop them on the couch.

And, yes, "The Treatment" is a lot like "Cloverfield," but there are subtle differences that experts will note. Differences like: In "Cloverfield," I'm a monster, who walks around roaring Cloverfield! and then picking them up and dropping them on the couch, while in The Treatment, I am just Daddy, or sometimes Dr Slider, and I do not roar, but I do count. Cloverfield The Monster would never count. He's a monster.

"The Treatment" did not work on Mr F, who headed back to the wedding cabinet, so I took the next most logical step, which was to strip him down to his diaper. You would have to live in our house for a while to understand why that was the next most logical step, but it was. And it worked: soon, Mr F was down to his diaper and we were hollering, as he ran by, "Woo-hoo!" which is what we do when nearly-naked two-year-olds run around our house. (We even call it "Woo-hooing." "Do you want to woo-hoo?" we'll ask the Babies!, who will answer with "guck.")


Then, Mr Bunches wanted in on the Woo-Hooing, so he came over to me and I stripped him down to his diaper, too, but that wasn't enough: he wanted the diaper off.

So I put my foot down. As he pulled at his diaper and looked up at me and made pleading noises that were kind of like words but not really, I said: "No. You've got to leave the diaper on."

He pulled at it more and pulled at my leg.

"No," I said, firmly. "The diaper stays on."

He whined a little, looked sad, and pulled at his diaper, forlornly. So I caved in and said "Fine," and stripped the diaper off, which Sweetie might have objected to but it was my day to be in charge, so she didn't say anything other than that I sure am a pushover, and I then stripped off Mr F's diaper, too, letting them run around naked while we continued cleaning. I figured, they'll get some naked woo-hooing in before their bath, and I can get this cleaned up so that we can just relax," and I went back to cleaning the blender, but within about two minutes, I heard Sweetie yelling that Mr Bunches was pooping, and I rushed out there to see Mr Bunches by the Only Surviving Plant, with Sweetie holding a magazine under his butt.

I picked up Mr Bunches, who looked surprised, and held him at arm's length as we went through the kitchen, where he dropped part of the load and I stepped in it, forcing me to stop and hold Mr Bunches in one arm while I took off the now-needed-to-be-burned sock, at which point Mr Bunches got terribly upset and started crying, so I got the sock off, and got him upstairs into his room and sitting on the potty chair.

By then, Mr Bunches was thoroughly upset and was bawling, and I didn't want him to form some kind of permanent negative pooping attitude -- what if he ended up always being constipated because he was worried that if he pooped he'd get scooped up and whisked around? What if he went crazy because he was so scared of pooping? How would that affect my plans to have him and Mr F star in their own show on Disney so that I can retire? -- so to fix that, I told him it was okay, and then when that didn't work, I cheered.

"Yay!" I said, and started clapping. He looked surprised, but stopped crying and looked at me. "Yay!" I said again, and cheered some more. "What a good boy! Yay! Hooray! Good job!" and I kept clapping while he sniffled and then cheered up and then he gave me a hug.

We cleaned him up and then, still naked, I took him back downstairs to clean up the mess. I forewarned Sweetie and Middle to cheer for him, too, so Mr Bunches walked, naked, into the kitchen, to a standing ovation of Mommy and his sister clapping and cheering, while Mr F looked a little jealous, like he was wondering if he should poop, too.

With a lot of bleach, we got the floor clean, and we got the Babies! up to their bath and got them dressed, and spent the rest of St. Nick's Night playing The Tackle Game and watching their new movies they'd gotten for St. Nick's Day, and I had learned a valuable lesson, which was this:

Next time, put more ice cream into the smoothie.

Airlines can no longer lie to you, but you'll still be pretty ignorant.


Airlines, effective today and unlike almost every other business in the entire world, now have to tell you not just what they will charge you to do business with them, but what the government is charging you... to do business with airlines.

At issue are "teaser fares," or the price airlines tell you on a commercial you'll pay to fly from (as one example put it) "Los Angeles to Fargo, North Dakota." (Seriously: Has anyone ever made that flight?) Airlines, effective today, must include the not just the price, but all fees and taxes -- which, properly understood, should read "but all taxes and other taxes," because a fee, when imposed by government, is a tax --

While total ticket costs won’t change, airlines and travel agencies now must show an all-in number that combines the base fare with all required taxes and fees, according to the U.S. Transportation Department. Airline charges for optional services such as checked bags or in-flight Wi-Fi aren’t covered.

Gone will be the “teaser fares” promoting trans-Atlantic flights for as little as $150, which can surprise fliers when they discover the total with all charges is closer to $800, said Charlie Leocha, a founder of passenger-rights group Consumer Travel Alliance in Springfield, Virginia.

“This is about truth in advertising, and it won’t be as deceptive anymore,” Leocha said. “They will have to show you the prices you can actually buy a ticket for. There’s no such thing as a ticket to Europe for $150 total.”

(Source.) As usual, like everything government does, the Trilateral Commission is behind this and trying to pry your guns from your cold, dead fingers, or something:

“If the government can hide taxes in your airfares, then they can carry out their hidden agenda and quietly increase their taxes,” Miramar, Florida-based Spirit says on www.keepmyfareslow.org. The website includes links to members of Congress.

(Same source.) While some media are reporting (accurately) that almost no other business must tell you the price+taxes (the grocery store that lists a candy bar at a whopping $0.99 doesn't have to tell you that the actual cost is $1.06 after taxes), other media are happily misinterpreting the data to make airlines look awful, as that same article does:

AMR Corp.’s American was promoting a “travel deals” flight from Nashville, Tennessee, to Tegucigalpa, Honduras, for $286 one way on its website. With the return leg and taxes and fees, the total cost was $641.40.

See, the thing is, that source (Bloomberg Businessweek) just compared an apple to some weird tropical fruit we'd never buy in a million years unless a celebrity endorsed it. AMR advertised a one way ticket, and to prove how deceptive that is, Bloomberg Businessweek, acting as propagandist for the new rules, compared it to a round-trip ticket.




The new rules will not, so far as I can tell, require airlines to only advertise round-trip fares.

What's interesting is not just that people who fly are too stupid to know there are taxes, and too weak to then decide not to buy a ticket once the "full cost" is disclosed, but that also this regulation comes from "conservative" Republicans, who are (on paper, and at debates where their supporters jeer US soldiers) against regulation.

The regulation in question, issued by the Department of Transportation, has been under consideration since 2006 -- when, as I recall, there was a Republican in charge of the White House. The DOT being an executive branch department, Worst President Ever was at the helm when Transportation began mulling regulating airlines more heavily, imposing higher costs on them to disclose full prices by changing their advertising routines and how they display fares on their websites.

What problem was being addressed by this new regulation? According to an amicus brief filed in a lawsuit challenging the rule,

it took a consumer over 20 minutes to conduct one incomplete apples-to-apples comparison of flight and fee offerings on a single city pair search using airline websites.

OVER 20 MINUTES!



That brief is fascinating reading: The DOT took fifty pages for its rule and preamble. (The brief in support of the rule took only 38 pages, about 1/5 of that being used for mandatory court-ruled disclosures.)

Yesterday, I listened to a podcast that seems to have not yet made it to the DOT or other government officials. In "What do Hand-Washing and Financial Illiteracy Have In Common?" the Freakonomics folks pointed out that doctors, who should know better, have in many cases a lower rate of hand-washing on the job than many other people (at one hospital, only 9% of doctors washed their hands when they should.) Extrapolating that out, the Freakonomics people asked whether financial literacy -- teaching people about finances -- works to help people make smarter decisions.

The alternative to teaching people smarter decisions was a thought balloon from one law professor suggesting that instead of requiring everyone to know everything about finance -- we all already have not just our day jobs but our secondary job as tech support for our computers and phones and tablets -- we should encourage the growth of a "cadre" of financial advisors who would not have any particular interest -- life insurance salesmen and stock brokers are not financial advisors, they're salespeople -- but who would, for a fee, give people advise and help them make decisions.

THAT is a wonderful idea, and one we already do in a great many areas: we have doctors to provide health advice, mechanics to provide car advice, lawyers to provide legal advice, and so on. In any area where problems can become complex and dramatic, we have disinterested fiduciaries who can be consulted to provide information.

Except finance.

The answer to finance is to teach people, but that may not work. I meet plenty of smart people who don't understand financial questions and who don't read the billions of pages of disclosures we all get every day. South Park has made fun of the fact that nobody reads that "I agree" statement before clicking it, but the other day, I saw a lawyer sign an agreement concerning a royalty without bothering to read it.

A lawyer.

Which, I'll admit, I do, too.

So will disclosing the actual price of airline tickets help people better understand what they're paying for? The current, unbundled system may cause people to spend

OVER TWENTY MINUTES!

trying to figure out airfares, but I don't expect that's causing people to give up in frustration and never fly. And the unbundled system helps disclose exactly how much of the price you pay goes towards being on the plane as opposed to having your luggage on the plane as opposed to having government regulations about the plane as opposed to just plain old taxes that get imposed on travelers everywhere.

So, to help consumers, we are going to provide them less information about what, exactly, they are paying for.

Imagine this: Right now, foods are required to contain a myriad of information about ingredients, and comparing those ingredients (as I do, since having a heart attack) can be difficult and time-consuming. Suppose I took a of me spending

OVER 20 MINUTES!

at the grocery store trying to figure out which Mini Wheats I wanted to buy as a replacement-for-Doritos-snack.

And suppose that led the Department of Whoever Is In Charge Of Food to conclude that this was wasteful, and instead, the boxes should simply say "Good" or "Bad."

It'd be easier for me to decide, wouldn't it? So shouldn't that be the rule? Car-buying is complicated, what with all the features and mileage and disclosures and add-ons and options. Why not just have a rule that says "One car, one price, no haggling, no little seller sheet," because deciphering all that information is time-consuming.

This rule is a quick-fix designed to help consumers who really don't need help -- airline travelers are far more likely to earn over $100,000 per year and 60% of all airline travelers have a college degree -- so that politicians can feel good about themselves while, in the long run, doing nothing, because consumers will now know less about how their price was calculated and will understand less the actual cost of things.

Also: How long until airlines are forced to disclose that your flight will in no way resemble the careless whisting of a feather through magical terrain?

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

I would really like a chance to know what it is I'm thinking...

This is a Sponsored post written by me on behalf of livecitizen for SocialSpark. All opinions are 100% mine.

Do you like to talk and read about politics?  And if so, what’s your political alignment – red, or blue?

Or I should say, what do you think it is, and what is it really, as those two questions might not have the same answer.  Lots of people think they’re one thing, and they’re really another, or a mixture of both.  Or their views change over time.

Take me, for example: I always liked to think of myself as a conservative.  I even registered to run for office as a Republican, about 15 years ago.  Then, one day, I was writing about politics – health care – and it occurred to me just how liberal I seemed . I’d just never thought of myself as a liberal, and yet suddenly there I was.

I bring this up because I just found out about this great new political site, LiveCitizen.  It’s a community political debate platform that lets people like me and you (you’re reading this blog, so you must like politics) discuss social and political issues – and while doing so, LiveCitizen helps you gauge just where you REALLY stand on the spectrum.

See, users can, when they sign up, say “red” or “blue” for their political persuasion – but LiveCitizen then uses that person’s activity over time to help them decide whether to stay with that color or not.

That’s an intriguing idea, and one that sets LiveCitizen apart from the rest of the Internet: It’s not just a chance to think about and talk about politics, but a chance to get some feedback on your own views.  And that’s something to think about.  It’s easy to say “I’m a Republican” or “I’m a Democrat” because that’s what you’ve always been but what’ll happen if after looking at how you actually think you realize you’re not as this or that as you thought you were?

Re-examining your own beliefs is the best way of challenging them and making sure you believe things for the right reasons, rather than out of habit.  I’m going to join LiveCitizen over at www.livecitizen.com; hope to see you there!

http://www.livecitizen.com/?utm_source=socialspark&utm_medium=paidblog&utm_campaign=campaign1

Visit Sponsor's Site

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Federalism: Blogging The Federalist Papers, Introduction:


This week, Obama made his State of the Union speech, talking about how much he'd like to frack for oil under mortgage bankers or something.

(I didn't watch.)

This week there was also the 65,789th debate among the current crop of candidates for the Republican nomination, in which Newt Gingrich claimed that Mitt Romney was unfit for the presidency because the moderator wouldn't let the crowd cheer for the execution of a gay soldier, or something.

(I didn't watch.)

And also this week, the Supreme Court issued a decision in which it said that the Founding Fathers would have disapproved of attaching a GPS unit to the car of a wife of a suspected drug dealer, and that therefore such activity violated the Fourth Amendment. This was after the Supremes also held that the Founding Fathers would have liked gory novels but that gory video games would be patently unconstitutional. Or something like that.

(I didn't read either of those opinions.)

This all got me thinking, though: we are in the midst of a debate about what our government should be, what protections we should have, what the Constitution means, and how our country should work.

Technically, we've always been in that debate. Since the dawn of the Constitution, we've been discussing what the Constitution allows and what it should not allow and often times we've framed that in terms of what the Founding Fathers meant by what they put in there.

As though that should matter.

Why should we care what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution? Does what a bunch of dead guys felt about a government that treated a majority of the people under it as second-class citizens or property matter, anymore?

Yes, and no.

It matters, I suppose, because words have meaning and not words have meaning, by which I'm saying that what the framers of the Constitution wrote and what they did not write means something about what those words mean. Did they think that speech, religion, and the press were all equally important rights and therefore lump them into the First Amendment, rather than giving them one Amendment each? Why did they select certain words and not others? Why elaborate on powers the Congress or the Presidency would have in the Constitution, and is the list exhaustive, or illustrative?

Those are important considerations, to be sure.

Then again, it doesn't matter at all what they thought, for two reasons: first, we've amended the Constitution what, 17 times since the Bill of Rights was adopted? Not to mention passing statutes that change how constitutional procedures operate. So we've changed the meaning of the Constitution. It's stupid to ask why, for example, the Framers adopted the electoral college when we now directly elect Senators and have laws dictating who the Electors must vote for: we no longer adhere to the Framers' interpretation of the Electoral College. We've got our own interpretation of that.

Plus, the Constitution can be changed, so what the Framers wanted doesn't matter a whit if we want it: Want Video Games to be on par with Religion? Pass an Amendment that says:

Congrefs shall pafs no law respecting the Freedom To Shoot Fake Prostitutes In Ye Video Gamese.

And now the Constitution protects that.

Still, as the debate goes on, as I see people on Twitter commenting on how stupid the Electoral College is, as I see that there are people who will actually vote in as President a man who has as part of his platform arresting "activist" judges who disagree with him (any reasonable definition of "activist" judge would include the 5 who voted in the majority on Bush v. Gore, so Republicans don't know what they're really voting for there), I thought to myself that maybe it was time that I started helping clear things up, explaining what the Framers actually meant and comparing that to what's going on now and what people are proposing go on and by doing that, help explain to people why things work the way they do and why they shouldn't work any other way.

The problem is, I never read the Federalist Papers, despite being a political science major. I never read them or Common Sense or much of anything; I'm not sure what it was I learned in college, other than "don't rollerblade down hills in Shorewood without making sure there's not soft tar or you're going to need skin grafts," which, sure, THAT was very educational.

So I'll be reading the Federalist Papers for the first time, and blogging about them, and explaining them as best I can, in what might well be an ongoing series if I remember to do it.

And I'll begin with the Introduction, written by Publius, or Alexander Hamilton.

The text of the original paper is in red:

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world.

So, are you getting this? At the time the Constitution was being debated, there was a real fear that the "United" States would no longer be "United." The old government, the Articles of Confederation, with its weak, limited ...

... weak, limited...

...federal government was falling apart, and consider what that would have meant: Instead of 13 united states banding together to form one country, we'd have had up to 13 separate little countries in a balkanized eastern seaboard, all of them racing to settle and colonize the western regions.

Europe, in our lifetime, had to decide to tear down, a bit, the barriers that kept it being separate countries in order to compete economically.

With nothing less than the future of the entire country at stake, Hamilton went on:


It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.



So Hamilton then raised the stakes and challenged his readers: Not only our little country is at stake, he's saying, but the fortune of mankind, and his challenge is to decide not just the form of government, but whether our government can be one which arises by thoughtful deliberation, not "accident and force."

This past year, Congress repeatedly couldn't agree on debt ceiling legislation, and ultimately tried to force itself to act by nominating a superCongress which would pass legislation because the alternative was automatic, draconian cuts.

So what kind of government have we slid into?


This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.


Okay, so bear with Publius here. Adding the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism needs to be read in context with the happy it will be sentence: What Hamilton is telling people is that the Constitution that was newly proposed and very controversial is important not just to narrow American self-interests, but to the public good: That continued his theme that what America was doing -- this idea, this Constitution -- was a service to the world.

"Yeah, sure, it'll be great for us," as I read it, "but really, we owe it to the world to adopt the 3/5 compromise and a Commerce Clause that someday will be used to try to force people to buy health insurance."

Only he put it better.



Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.


Or, to put it more bluntly: there's some guys who have a bunch of power at the state level, or who would profit from Balkanizing this continent, and they're going to place their own greed over the interests of the American people and humanity, so expect a big fight.

Greed and a thirst for power that can be used for one's own aggrandizement jeopardizing Constitutional elements? Good thing that never happened again in our history!

Oh, also: The Republicans have for some time been focusing on lower-level state offices in hopes of taking over state legislatures so they can redistrict to capture more seats in Congress, while at the same time urging people to be discontented with the electoral college so they can split up some "winner-take-all" states that traditionally have gone to Democrats by narrow margins, with these efforts funded by a handful of very rich men who then get elected representatives to do things like hold up funding for scientific research in hopes that federal money can be diverted to their own programs.

I don't know what made me think of that. It just popped into my head.



It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears.

Recently, I took issue with some people on Twitter who were commending Rick Santorum for being "sincere" in his beliefs, and saying that Newt Gingrich was an intellectual because he was the smartest guy in the GOP race.

Sincerity of belief is no virtue when that belief is wrong, and opinions, even sincere ones, can be wrong, especially if founded on false facts. If I sincerely believe that you are an idiot because you disagree that the world is flat, I'm wrong and not to be commended for my sincerity. I may be blameless but I am not respectable.


So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists.

See? The lesson of people who believe other than we do is that we should make doubly sure we are right.

And also: just because someone advocates for the "right" position does not mean they are doing so for good and pure reasons. Insurance companies advocated for the individual mandate in ObamaCare before litigating against it. Why? Not because ObamaCare was, in their idea, a good move -- but because without the individual mandate, they would have had a much harder time making money hand over fist.

By the way, did you know that in 2011, three years into the Second Great Depression, health insurance companies were on their third straight year of record profits?




Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.

Let's talk about ambition and avarice, briefly. These days, people think "Why would someone want to be President?" It's described as a thankless job that earns "only" $400,000 per year and demands a lot of the person.

But consider: becoming president means that you'll be well-off, if not rich, after 4 or 8 years of working. And running for president often is itself a lucrative business move: what has Rick Santorum ever done since leaving the Senate? Other than make millions from (in part) sitting on the board of a hospital that allows unauthorized exorcisms as autism treatment and at which patients have been raped and murdered?

If a person is already rich, which many take as a disqualification for public office, avarice at least can be removed from the list of motivating factors. But it would be worthwhile to ask people why do you want to be President, and demand not bland platitudes, but real answers.



Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.



Here's something you rarely hear from Republicans, who adore the Founding Fathers in all other respects: The Founders almost universally abhorred political parties. So when Reagan says above all, speak no ill of fellow Republicans, he is elevating to the status of virtue the love of party, which the Founding Fathers would have found morally repugnant.

A true strict constructionist would never join a party, and would remain suspicious of anyone who does.


And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose.

Good thing that never happened again in America, too.


To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty.

Wait, what? Did Hamilton just presage calling people "socialist"? He DID. Back in the 18th century, Alexander Hamilton correctly guessed that a large number of people would paint people who think government can work as "fond of despotic power and hostile to ... liberty."

Alexander Hamilton wrote the Tea Party's operating manual.



An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty;

Wait, what? A Founding Father... a Founding Father... thought we needed a powerful government to secure liberty?

Let me see if I've got this straight... thinking... thinking...
Got it:

Alexander Hamilton was a socialist!

I mean, besides the fact that he advocated for the national bank and liked free trade and all that. SOCIALIST!




that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.

Ha! Take that, Tea Party: "a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of people."

Why would Hamilton think that people who wanted a restrained, weak government were more dangerous than people who advocated for a more efficient federal power? Perhaps because regardless of where our rights come from, they can only be protected by an efficient government.

Perhaps.

And if the government isn't so great at its job it becomes easier to, I don't know, set up a system whereby you give billions of dollars of loans to people on "stated income" and then secure those loans with liens on real estate and then securitize the whole thing in a massive game of hot potato, only to nearly destroy the entire Western Hemisphere's economic system before demanding that the federal government then hand you money to keep your business afloat long enough to process fraudulent foreclosures on those homeowners, so you get the money and the land.

Perhaps.



History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.


People who begin as demagogues and end as tyrants?





In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY

THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION

THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT

THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT

ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION

and lastly,

THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.


In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.1 This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it.

Does anyone still believe in "states rights?" They do?

Weirdos.

Also: Anti-Founders.



For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.


PUBLIUS.

Hamilton had a footnote, which I love. Footnotes are my favorite things, next to semicolons. On the issue of whether the 13 states were too different to be bound to a single government, he footnoted:



1. The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.


It's important to remember that "The same idea" lost.





Thursday, January 19, 2012

I could've won $1200 buck for being a temp in a terrible office?

This is a Sponsored post written by me on behalf of Contest Factory for SocialSpark. All opinions are 100% mine.

My worst workspace conditions ever were when I was a temp at this computer company in Milwaukee.  I worked there for two months, with the title “administrative assistant.”  My workspace was a desk that was sort of wedged into the side of a series of cubicles, so technically I worked in the space between the cubicles, not even high enough to warrant my own three-and-a-half walls.  The desk was about three feet wide, and had a terrible chair, and was mostly taken up by the computer I had (the oldest one in the company), and I directly behind me was a cabinet where a bunch of old floppy discs were stored.

Not the greatest working conditions, but I made up for it by being not the greatest worker.

That was about 20 years ago, so there’s not much I can do about it now.  But if I had a terrible office NOW, I could enter it into the Pimp My Cube contest the Contest Factory is running.

The Pimp My Cube Contest is looking for the the absolute worse, most pathetic, messiest, cluttered, cramped, annoying, terrible work spaces.  Is your desk a cardboard box? Do you work in the corner of the basement by the trash compactor?  Did you just think “Hey, Star Wars!” when I said “Trash compactor”?  Me, too.

Anyway: if you have a terrible office, or horrifying cubicle, or cluttered workspace, the Contest Factory wants to hear from you.  Not to make fun of you, but to give you $1,200 in prizes:

o New high end computer system
o New Desk, Chair and Decorations
o New Entertainment Package with high end stereo, espresso machine etc.

To enter, just record and upload a video of your terrible cubicle, then get your friends and family and coworkers to vote your office the worst ever.  Videos will be chosen based on quality of video, terribleness of office, and number of votes, and you’ve got until January 31, 2012 to enter. As of now,  nobody has yet entered, so you’ve got great odds. And even if you don’t make the top three can win a second-prize $200 gift card chosen by random drawing.

So make that terrible cubicle work for you! Go take your video and get entered!

I wonder if that company would let me come back and make a video to enter my old workspace?...

 

Visit Sponsor's Site

Thursday Scramble! Lesbian Zombies Are Taking Over The World! (NSFW)

This is actually chapter 23; to begin the story at the beginning, click here. Or, to download the entire story in book form for free, click here.

WARNING: This scene is graphic!

Rachel, after awakening from her zombie state, fell in love with Bridget, who through the magic of a time warp, gave birth to their daughter Harper. Now, having been disintegrated by Harper to save her from the Bubbles, Rachel has been captured by Bridget's dad. No, that doesn't explain anything, which is why you should read the story.



"Let go of me," I said.

He pushed me back on the bed, his leering face only inches from mine. "No," he breathed. "Do you know what I've been through? I've literally been to Hell, died, had my body reconstructed into this monstrosity," and he pointed down at himself, "All to search for what is rightfully mine."

He paused.

"You."

Another pause, as he loomed over me.

"You, you are mine."

"I got that," I told him, trying to sound braver than I was feeling. He was lying on top of me and was heavier than I felt I could move.

"I created you, Rachel. Not literally. I did not myself carve up the women who would become your parts. I did not myself go and kidnap you from that concert. I did not drag your unconscious body down into the cellar where that mad idiot works doing things only he can do. I did not remove your chip and I did not pick out the limbs that would become the new you and then sew them together into this remarkably sexy package, binding them seamlessly by calling on energy from in between the dimensions."

He looked down at the stump of my left arm.

"Except for that one. I picked out that one, and that one in particular was the one that belonged to me." He stared back into my eyes and then put one of his hands, the one with the delicate nails, onto my breast, began kneading it and pulling it, roughly.

"Do you want to know why?" he asked.

"Don't touch me, please," I managed to whisper.

He took his hand and pushed harder against my breast, and I felt a cold sweat break out. Shifting his weight, he pressed his knee into my stomach, just below my ribcage.

"Don't tell me what to do, you lesbian zombie whore," he said, and my blood stopped in my veins at the threat in his voice.

With a tiny twitch of his weight, he pumped his knee into me. My breath whooofed out of me and tears sprang to my eyes and I gasped. He pinched my breast and then punched me in the face.

"Stop it!" Bridget yelled. I couldn't see her. I closed my eyes and tried to catch my breath as my legs were roughly pushed apart.

"You don't know what resources went into creating you, all to have a body that could hold on to that hand and all because that hand was the final ingredient in controlling the thousands of slaves we created," Bridget's dad said.

"Don't do this, Daddy!" Bridget yelled again.

"SHUT HER UP!" Bridget's dad roared and punched me in the face again. Before I could even catch my breath he pushed his knee into my stomach again and I gasped again, feeling emptied of air entirely. His hands were pushing in between my thighs and I wanted to fight him, I did, but I couldn't even catch my breath and my lungs were so empty it caused me actual pain inside my chest.

I heard a crack of metal on a head and Bridget screamed and The Me's voice said "Don't do that!" and there was a scuffle sound as Bridget's dad's hand pushed into me and I tried to fight and he said:

"Don't fight me. You have lost the one thing you were created to keep and since this body belonged to others before it became your demon soulless shell, you shouldn't care what I do to it." He pushed his knee down again and my body felt like it was turned inside out as I struggled to breath. He punched the side of my head and I saw stars.

"I would kill you, but I need the body alive. I must make sure you understand never to oppose me again," he said, and viciously raked his nails over my inner thigh. I would have screamed but I couldn't even suck in air, as he was keeping his knee pushed into my stomach now.

I began to black out.

I felt his hands in me, inside my thighs and on my breasts and one pushing into my mouth and the room went all spinny and then a voice crackled through an intercom:

"It's not here!"

Bridget's dad stopped staring at my pussy and turned his terrible face back to look at mine. Through blurred tunnel vision, I saw him purse his lips.

"That is very bad for you," he said. "But worse for your lovers."

He punched me again in the face, and said: "Kill them."

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Obama thinks maybe Lea Michele can convince you to vote for him. (Election 2012)


The Tennessean got its hands on a top-secret, "proprietary" (because even lower-level campaign hacks like buzzwords) list of people the Obama 2012 team thinks would be good endorsers. The list says a lot about... well, almost everything depending on how you interpret it.

While big names like Oprah Winfrey are getting all the publicity, the list (which is 7 pages long and captioned "Confirmed and Passed Surrogates") doesn't just focus on Hollywood types. It includes names like "Kaye Wilson," listed as "Sasha and Malia's Godmother." (Kaye is actually Eleanor Kaye Wilson, and she was profiled in the Chicago Tribune, which mentioned she got to greet foreign dignitaries as part of her duties taking care of the First Daughters.)

Also on the list? Vampire Weekend, the band that is too cool for you to listen to (but not too cool to get sued over unauthorized use of a cover model), Gloria Steinem (whose job is listed as "feminist," which isn't actually an occupation), Chris Pine (whose career includes playing a guy who threatened a cop with a gun but all was forgiven after he stopped that runaway train), Bebe Neuwirth (who I thought was dead), Bruce Hornsby, because fans of 80s-lite-rock are crucial to every re-election (but not The Range?) Maggie Gyllenhaal, and a listing for "Fergie Ferguson," Musician.

Fergie's real name, by the way, is Stacy Ann Ferguson. Just to clear that up, Obamans.

This one stuck out: Rob Dyrdek, "Professional Skateboarder/ Producer/Philant"; they left out "enterpreneur, producer, and reality TV star."

You can read the whole list and draw your own conclusions from it. My personal opinion? The list shows that some mid-level staffer on the Obama campaign has only a passing familiarity with pop culture.

Here's Vampire Weekend's best song, "Walcott."

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...