The Road Away from Hypocrisy
Posted: December 19, 2012 Filed under: Culture | Tags: feminism, hypocrisy, racism, sexism 3 CommentsI used to joke that nobody was allowed to be a hypocrite except for me. It was mostly a joke, but like most jokes there was a kernel of truth in it. I had my own hypocritical tendencies, just like everyone else, and somewhere in my mid-twenties or so (right around the time I started casually studying philosophy) I decided it was time to start facing my own hypocrisies and trying to winnow them out of my life.
Now before you give me any great credit for this, let me be clear about one thing: I do not make any claims that this made me a better person. I still had (and have) plenty of foibles, prejudices, and personal issues to resolve, and some of them I cling to with the tenacity of a dog with a bone. The difference is that I try to at least be aware of them and not sugar coat them with some blind lies. For example, I have come to accept that I am one of the worst drivers on the road. No, seriously. I am a menace to society. I’ll talk smack about other people’s driving all day long, but I don’t go around pretending that I am a model to follow. See? That’s what I mean when I say I am working on not being a hypocrite.
It’s not always easy for me, even now, because hypocrisy is easy. For me, it almost always starts by identifying some obnoxious behavior in someone else. One of my great flaws (what can I say, anything I do, I do it with greatness) is to be judgmental, and I do so love to judge. If I see someone else being rude, or loud, or pushy, or racist, or sexist, or any of a number of other things that I find offensive, I immediately categorize them in my head as “asshole, assorted”. Sometimes I even subcategorize them: “Asshole, loud”, “Asshole, racist”, “Asshole, sexist”. My favorite is the ones who categorize themselves into stereotypes, like “Asshole, Redneck”.
Did you catch what I just did there? That’s right, I just stereotyped someone. And isn’t that what sexism, racism, and all the other evil -isms of the world really come down to? And that’s one of the great hypocrisies I have yet to relieve myself of. I’ve at least gotten to the point where I can catch myself doing it, most of the time, but I haven’t gotten to the point yet where I just don’t do it, which is kind of contrary to my most dearly held principles of addressing every person as an individual. Not that I intend to like every individual, but I prefer to dislike people retail, not wholesale. It’s just got a more personal touch.
The one that I have struggled the most with, and the one that I didn’t even acknowledge until fairly recently, was the concept of “straight white male privilege”. Yes, I know, I’ve ranted before about how life’s not fair for men either, and I stand by everything I said. But one of the things that came out of that was that I was finally pointed toward a description of “straight white male privilege” (I put it in quotes like that because I still see it like that; I did mention I’m still coming to terms with it) that finally at least made some sense to me. In fact, I’m going to specifically ask you to go read that article. I’ll wait here until you come back.
…
All done? So yeah, that worked for me. It clicked. Mostly because before I read that, most of what I had heard focused on how easy straight white men had things in the world, and quite frankly, I’m here to tell you that the people who have it easy are rich. The rest of us have to work for it, just like everybody else. And if you’re smart or (even better) good-looking, that goes a long way too. And there are things that can screw you no matter who you are, like being physically or mentally challenged, or just plain ol’ fashioned bad luck.
And that’s the hypocrisy I’ve been struggling with the most. That refusal to acknowledge that yes, all of this is true, but it’s irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Because rich can happen to anybody, intelligence and good looks can happen to anybody, physical and mental challenges (unfortunately) can afflict anyone, and luck is a fickle bitch. But straight, white and male are all favored classes, and they also “just happen”, but not to just anybody. So I get that now.
And it sucks.
That’s not the world I want to live in. That’s not the world I try to live in. But the fact is, when companies are hiring, they look at my name and they can tell. “White Male” practically jumps off the page. I’m the default setting, and that’s makes a lot of people just that little bit more comfortable. I’m pretty sure I come across 100% hetero in an interview, and that makes a lot of people just that little bit more comfortable.
And it sucks.
That’s not the world I want to live in. That’s not the world I try to live in. But the fact is, I’m only aware of these things when I think about them. It’s not reflexive, because I haven’t lived it. Not that I would choose to; anybody who would deliberately choose to live a life harder than they need to should have their head examined. But I’m working on being aware of it so that I can ignore that “default setting” and approach people the way I intend to, as individuals, get to know them as they are. That’s not to say I’m going to like them, or that I’m going to be anything other than who and what I am. But if I am going to like someone, I want it to be for who they are, not what they are, and if I’m going to dislike someone, I want it to be likewise.
That’s the world I want to live in.
The Vacation of Reason
Posted: December 14, 2012 Filed under: Culture | Tags: college, culture, education 4 CommentsI have written before about why nobody should go to college, and yet I am myself still pursuing a college degree. I do this a little bit at a time, just a couple of classes a semester, while I work full-time and still try to produce brilliant, quality content every week for you, my discerning readers. Why do I do it? Is it arrogance? Is it hypocrisy? Is it good old-fashioned stubbornness? Now that I’ve reached the end of yet another in what is coming to seem like a never-ending parade of semesters, I have taken a moment to think about it, and the truth is: I’m not really sure.
Part of it, if I have to be honest, is that I like being in school. Heresy, I know, but for the most part I enjoy my classes. Once I get out of the general education requirements (most of which seem antiquated and bizarre, if not an outright bilking of students to support unpopular departments) I find that the material is fascinating. I am challenged in ways that I will not challenge myself, and as I grow older I have found the expansion of knowledge to be valuable for itself.
Also, and I won’t lie, there is something to be said for the idea of finally completing what I started so long ago. I made a lot of mistakes when I was younger, and if I can someday hang that magic piece of paper on the wall, it may not correct those mistakes, but it will at least lay some of those old ghosts to rest. It will also justify, in some small way, the vast amounts of time and money I threw down what seemed to become a bottomless pit.
Of course, like so many people of my generation, I was inculcated with the belief that you can’t succeed in life unless you have a college degree, and while I may finally have enough work experience and a strong enough professional network to nullify that once-certain claim, shaking it is as easy as a Depression-era kid shaking their need to hoard food and money. The need may be gone, but the fear is not; until I am independently wealthy I will never be secure, and perhaps not even then. After all, money comes and goes, but an education is forever (and so are student loans).
Most of all, I spent some time in deep introspection, and I realized that I can blame it all on my mother.
Now I know what you’re thinking, and you can stop. This isn’t going to be one of those typical sob stories about how my mother pushed me so hard as a child and why didn’t she love me enough. No, this is actually something quite different. Well, mostly. Mom did push me to achieve in school, but no more than any other kid. But what she really did was she went out and got her degree.
I remember when I was in high school, Mom went back to college. She worked full-time, had two kids, and she was always there for every performance (my sister was in choir, I was in theater). And yet somehow she found the time to take classes, to study, and keep going for years (it seemed like an eternity to me) until she finished her degree. She always said she was doing it for work, to get better opportunities and faster promotions, but all I remember to this day (and trust me, it’s been a long time now) is seeing her standing there in that gown, a newly-minted graduate.
It’s been a long road, and it’s still a long one left in front of me. But someday I’ll be standing there, in my gown, a newly-minted graduate. And on that day, I’ll finally be able to say “Here I am Mom. I finally caught up to you.” Even though she was behind me the whole time.
Buying Back Childhood
Posted: December 10, 2012 Filed under: Culture | Tags: childhood, culture, pop culture 1 CommentI was watching Comic Book Men recently and a guy came in to sell his Marvel World Playset. This caught my attention not so much because of the asking price (which was $600) or the fact that Kevin Smith bought it for his friend Walt (because Kevin Smith is awesome like that), but because of Walt’s reaction. It wasn’t that I thought Walt’s reaction was odd, or exaggerated, or even grossly out of proportion. As Mr. Smith said, “$600 for a piece of your childhood? How much would you pay to have five years old back?” I get it. I was there myself not too long ago. For our anniversary, my amazing wife got me a copy of the one that got away: Spider-Man #1, the Platinum cover.
This comic came out when I was 16. It was Todd McFarlane doing Spider-Man, my favorite comic hero of all time. There were (as far as I knew at the time it came out) four covers, and you could only buy three of them. The fourth was a retailer incentive, one per store. I wanted it so bad. I yearned for it. I never had a chance. It slipped through my fingers, and I never even thought of trying to buy a copy. It was “the one that got away”. Fast forward, literally, more than a lifetime later. My wife gave it to me as the greatest surprise I have ever received. Other than saying she would marry me, I don’t think she has ever done anything I have appreciated more.
Photo courtesy of He-Man.org, the fan site where you have the power!
So I get it. Recapturing that magic, going back to that moment when you had all of that in your hands… that’s worth so much. We talked about it for a while, and I asked her if there was any toy, any item she could think of that would take her back to her childhood. She couldn’t think of anything, and I don’t know if that’s the difference between her and me or just boys and girls. For me, it would be Castle Grayskull.
For me, it’s not just about having the coolest toy ever made (that comes later), it would be about recapturing one particular Christmas morning. A morning when I was so excited I couldn’t wait for Mom and Dad to wake up, I had to go downstairs and put my new playset together myself. I was a big kid, I could handle it. Only if I had it to do over I would do it right, and the trapdoor wouldn’t be busted for the next five years until I final lost it in a move.
If we want to get into the coolest toys I never had, well, that list would take a lot longer to put together. I mean, what parent can afford to buy all the love of a child who’s into Transformers, He-Man, G.I. Joe, Star Wars, and Voltron? It can’t be done. Don’t get me wrong, I got no kick coming. My parents always did more than right by me at Christmas and birthdays, and plenty of times in between. But let’s not kid ourselves: children’s entertainment in the 80’s was one long toy commercial, and I was an avid consumer.
Still, if I had to pick just one (I’m an adult now, I can do that, I swear) it would be the Vehicle Force Voltron.
Photo courtesy of Beyonder from Comic Collector Live forum
Sure, the Lion Force Voltron had the better show (although didn’t they both always fight “my most powerful Robeast”?), but as toys go you couldn’t beat this one. It was like twenty toys in one. I knew a kid up the block who had one, and I’m not ashamed to admit I was totally jealous. I played with it – I mean I played with him whenever I could. Nice guy.
All this thinking about toys and cartoons from my youth recently got me thinking, and I started getting into thinking about the shows I used to watch. I tried to find them on Netflix, but for some reason they’re not there. I did find Danger Mouse on Amazon, but they want way too much (although Christmas is coming Mom… and no, that wasn’t subtle. I don’t do subtle.) I also found the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoon, which I got for dirt cheap, which is good, because now I can finally see them all in order. And I picked up the first half of Silverhawks, which means I can see those in order. Well, half of them at any rate.
So yeah, Walt. I understand you. There’s no reason to feel ashamed. The truth is, you can’t put a price on your childhood. Or if someone does, that’s even better, because it just means you have a chance to finally buy it back, or a small piece of it at any rate.
How the iPod is Killing Political Discourse
Posted: December 7, 2012 Filed under: Culture, Internet, Politics | Tags: America, compromise, culture, digital media, internet, iPod, life, media, politics, society, technology 1 CommentI was discussing gun control with My Not So Humble Wife the other night, and something strange happened. She’s mostly libertarian like me, but unlike myself, she actually believes in putting certain limitations on gun ownership. Tanks, for example, are straight off her list for private ownership (no, I am not kidding, this was a serious part of the discussion). I personally see no problem with it for several good and sundry reasons that I won’t get into now, so she upped the ante to nuclear weapons. I couldn’t name even a theoretical reason why someone might want a nuke (self-defense? sport? cocktail party conversation starter?), and I had to concede that even my tank argument didn’t apply. Let’s face it, if you need a nuke to defend yourself against the government, the situation is already well beyond salvageable.
This is when things got weird: we talked it out and came to a reasonable solution we could both be okay with. She conceded that the government didn’t need to have gun registration laws (it’s no business of theirs who owns which guns), and I conceded that certain classes of people (namely felons) shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns, so background checks are acceptable. I couldn’t get her to budge on non-violent felons, but my big beef there is with drug laws, and that’s a different issue anyway, so I was willing to concede the point. We also both agreed that waiting periods should be abolished, because the technology exists to do immediate background checks, and those checks should be done everywhere, including gun shows.
What’s so weird about all of this? Watch fifteen minutes, or even five minutes, of political television and then ask me that question again. Granted, we came from roughly the same starting place, but we still had some strong views that we disagreed on, and we both gave a little to get to something we could agree with. It’s called “compromise”, for those of you too young to remember what it looks like. And I blame the iPod for its absence in contemporary politics.
Sounds crazy, right? Bear with me for a little while and you’ll understand. When I was a kid, we had one TV in the house (well, two, but the one in the basement was tiny, black and white, and got crap reception, so it doesn’t count). It got exactly two channels: whatever my sister and I could agree on, and whatever Dad decided to put on when he got home. Occasionally, when I was very lucky, my sister would be at a friend’s house before my folks got home and I would have a few hours of TV to myself, but that was a rare luxury and one I didn’t count on.
Growing up like that I had to learn the art of compromise. Granted it usually involved a lot of yelling, screaming, cursing, and more than a little hitting, but that’s politics for you. What I didn’t learn was an attitude of entitlement, one that said I could have whatever I want whenever I want and everyone else could go suck an egg. That all changed when the iPod came along.
Don’t get me wrong, the iPod was and remains one of the greatest inventions in human history. The chance to have your music, your way, whenever you want wherever you want is a glorious thing. But it shapes expectations; people become accustomed to having what they want, without having to negotiate with others. It’s not like the boom boxes and ghetto blasters I had as a kid, when “sharing” music was a very immediate and sometimes involuntary experience. Facebook and other social media have only exacerbated the phenomenon; people choose the stories they want to hear, and they shape the media they are exposed to before and as much as the media shapes them.
This sort of “a la carte media” has expanded into all aspects of life. If you can’t find a cable channel that caters to your specific tastes, there’s a YouTube channel that will. Streaming radio will introduce you to new music, unless you skip past a song you decide you don’t like in the first few beats. And there’s a website out there dedicated to every conspiracy theory known to man, and a few that aren’t.
What is the net result on politics? The politicians we elect reflect the media of our time. It used to be that politicians were like mass media: they appealed to broad demographics, even to the point of being criticized for chasing “the lowest common denominator”. But hey, at least they were accessible to everyone. Now every politician is like a personalized playlist, narrowly targeting key demographics with a hyper-partisan message, and who can blame them? The electronic graffiti that litters the walls of our social media pages screams for it, begs for it, demands the same hyper-partisan rhetoric they are only too happy to deliver. If we aren’t getting the politicians we want it’s only because we’re getting the politicians we’ve been asking for, and maybe deserve.
Anarchy X: The Tenth Commandment
Posted: December 4, 2012 Filed under: Anarchy X, Culture, Politics | Tags: America, Anarchy X, Covetousness, culture, law, philosophy, politics, religion, society, Ten Commandments, thoughtcrime 3 Comments“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come not to praise this Commandment, but to bury it. For all the good that it may have done in its social graces, so has it been undone in the policy sphere.
Let me begin by saying that I am a child of the Eighties. It was a decade known both affectionately and without irony as both “The Decade of Greed” and “The Decade of Excess”. If the Sixties were a party and the Seventies were a hangover, the Eighties were the day everyone went back to work, ready to get things done. It’s like the entire country decided one day that free love might be great, but everything else worthwhile costs money, and they were going to do whatever it took to get as much of it as they could.
You want to talk about coveting? Oh, they had coveting down. The official motto of the decade was “he who dies with the most toys wins”. It wasn’t enough to keep up with the Joneses. You had to beat them into the ground and then rub their noses in it. Everything had to be bigger and louder, faster and cooler, newer and just plain BETTER. Too much was never enough, and style always trumped substance. If you don’t believe me, let me point out that this was the decade that glam rock reigned supreme, and even Poison packed stadiums (sorry, Bret Michaels, you know I’m still a fan).
Is it any wonder my generation turned out to be a bunch of slackers? We had seen what commercialism and the desire for what the other guy has (y’know, coveting) had wrought, and we wanted none of it. Well, until we had kids of our own and needed to get a mortgage, but that’s a different story. The point is, I see the social value in this Commandment, truly I do. But I fear the policy implications far more.
Consider for a moment: what exactly is coveting? Is it an action? When you covet a man’s house, do you go inside of it? When you covet a woman’s ox, do you take it from her? When you covet your neighbor’s wife, do you bash him over the head and drag her off? Or even attempt to woo her away? The truth is, coveting something may drive you to do any of these things, but it is not the same as actually doing them. In the same way I might think about giving to charity, but go buy a burrito with the money instead. Do I get good karma for the thought, even though I don’t carry out the deed?
When crafting laws, it is important to make a distinction between action and motive. Motive is an element of a crime, but it is not a crime in and of itself (which is good for me, because as Prince wrote, “if a man is guilty for what goes on in his mind, give me the electric chair for all my future crimes.”) But the truth of the matter is that we do have crimes in this country that are based solely on what goes on in a person’s mind. They are called “hate crimes”.
Now I know there are those of you who are thinking “what does that have to do with coveting?” and that’s a fair question. To me they are one and the same. The motivation to commit an act is an element of thought, something that exists solely in the mind of the individual. Hatred, while it is something that we as a society should stand against, is no more or less repugnant that wanting something just because someone else has it. And just like covetousness, hatred in itself should not be a crime, nor should it be an additional element that can exacerbate a sentence.
Consider: if I were to propose a law against covetousness, such that if someone were deemed to have committed a crime out of covetousness, would that be acceptable? Would that be something that should warrant a harsher sentence than committing the same crime for another reason? If I stole your jacket “because I wanted it” rather than “because I was cold”, you still don’t have your jacket. By the same token, if a person has been assaulted, to me it does not matter why; the assailant should be punished.
When we start defining motivation itself as a crime, we are delving into thoughtcrime. For any literate person that should be enough to give them pause; for any moral person that should be enough to give them concern; for any just person, that should be enough to give them fear. Unfortunately, for politicians it doesn’t even seem to lose them a single moment of sleep.
UPDATE (12/16/12): I recently discovered The Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law, which I highly recommend to everyone. Of particular relevance to this post is “Part 7: The Axes of Evil”, which discusses culpability, responsibility, and depravity in relation to crime. In the issue of hate crimes, I would consider those a matter of depravity, which is an element of the crime to be considered when determining the total punishment to be served, but again (as I stated above) not something to be charged as a separate crime. In the same way that we would consider any other element of a person’s mental state, of course we should consider their total relationship to the victim, and that includes any specific prejudice they may have IF it was a motivating factor.
Dating Advice From Mythological Creatures
Posted: December 3, 2012 Filed under: Culture, Dating, Humor | Tags: advice, culture, dating, humor, men, mythology, women 9 CommentsMedusa
Dear Medusa,
I’ve been dating this girl for a few weeks now, and at first things seemed really great, but lately things haven’t been going so well. She’s started to criticize the way I dress, the way I talk, and even the people I hang out with. I like her a lot and I want to make her happy, but I’m not really comfortable with the way she’s been acting lately. My friends say I should ditch her, but I don’t think they “get” her the way I do, you know? What should I do?
Signed,
Conflicted in Love
Dear Blinded by Lust,
I know you think you are in love, but the truth is you’re not. You are in lust. True love is something that you have with someone who not only accepts you for who you are, but embraces you that way, and loves you that way. They don’t have to love your friends the way you do, but they have to at least be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as well. If you really want my advice, listen to your friends and leave this girl before you lose sight of the person you really are. Find a girl who isn’t going to try to change you into something that you’re not.
Sphinx
Dear Sphinx,
My boyfriend and I have a very rocky relationship. Sometimes things can be going along just fine, but then I’ll say something wrong and he’ll just fly off the handle. We’ll argue for a couple hours, and then we’ll realize that the whole thing was just a big misunderstanding. We make up and things will be fine for a few weeks, but then it happens again. He doesn’t normally have a short temper, so I’m starting to think it’s me. What should I do?
Signed,
Tired of Fighting
Dear Pythia,
My first question would be why you go a few weeks without problems. If you find yourself walking around on eggshells trying to make him happy, then you are in an abusive relationship and need to get out before things escalate. However if it is as you say and it is simply a matter of the occasional argument, then I have to wonder what you’re not telling me. If there are major communication problems in your relationship, you need to either find a way to resolve them or else you need to find someone else. Clear communication, on both sides, is the key to any successful relationship. You don’t want to be with someone long-term who is going to bite your head off because you misunderstood something they said.
Pegasus
Dear Pegasus,
[Letter edited for privacy.] Should I or shouldn’t I?
Signed,
Conflicted
Dear Star Struck,
Nay.
Fates
Dear Fates,
I’ve just started dating the most amazing guy. He’s sweet, he’s kind, and he’s generous. We’ve only been together for a week, but I’m already pretty sure he could be “The One”. How do I know?
Signed,
Ready for Commitment
Dear Overeager,
Ah, to be young and in love. The whole world seems fresh and new, and everything is in harmony. While we understand the desire to press forward and seize the moment, to try and capture it and spin about it a cocoon of certainty to last the ages, the future is as uncertain and unconstant for men as it is for gods. The only sure path is to worry not what the future may hold, but rather to embrace the present, enjoy today for what it is, and let things develop as they will. Tomorrow will come soon enough.
Furies
Dear Furies,
My girlfriend hates my family. I mean, not just hates, but HATES my family. I can’t really blame her, they’ve always been mean to her, but I still love them; they’re my family, you know? She’s made an ultimatum this year: either I spend Christmas with her or my family, but if I pick them I better find another date for New Year’s, if you know what I mean. I just don’t know what to do.
Signed,
Pulled in Two Directions
Dear Inconstant Son,
We know all too well what it is you mean: that you are an ingrate. Your family has provided for you, nursed you, sheltered you, and you are unsure as to what your proper course of action is? For shame! You should be whipped and reviled! As for this wanton that would tear you from the loving arms of your family, be assured: anyone who would make you choose between them and your family is not worthwhile, and they have only given you the easiest choice you will ever have to make.
Mermaid
Deer Mermaid,
There was this boy I liked and he liked me and we liked each other I don’t just mean liked I mean REELY liked liked and then his mommy got a new job in another place and he had to move away and now I’m sad and what should I do?
Signed,
Jenny
Dear Jenny,
You poor girl, there is nothing so wonderful as first love, nor is there anything so tragic as love’s first heartbreak. I too know all too well the inconsistencies of men; the sweet promises they whisper, and yet they never stay for long. Always they long for the things they have left behind: their treasures, their vessels, their air. Take strength from this, sweet Jenny, and learn from it. For even as you have loved and lost, surely you will love again, and as my dear mother used to say to me, “there are plenty of men upon the land.”
The Gift of Indulgence
Posted: November 30, 2012 Filed under: Culture, Dating | Tags: advice, culture, massage, men, spa, women 2 CommentsLadies, you don’t need to read this post; it’s really meant for the men in your life. If you have a man who doesn’t read this column (and shame on him!), set him down right now so he can learn. You’ll thank me.
Gentlemen, allow me to make your lives easy this year. With the holidays approaching, we all have the same problem: what to get for that special someone (or someones, if you’re that kind of player; I don’t hate the game). It’s a constant struggle, especially once you’ve been together for a while and you’ve gone through the usual things (chocolate, lingerie, jewelry, brand new car… okay, I’m kidding about the car, settle down). This year through pure luck I have stumble across the perfect gift, one that she will love you for and that you will get to enjoy too (and no, it’s not more lingerie, as much as you’d like to think otherwise).
Last week My Not So Humble Wife and I were tired and stressed out from life’s trials and tribulations, and she made a wonderful suggestion: why not go for a massage? Now I know what you’re thinking: “real men don’t get massages, except from certain types of establishments that I would NOT take my wife to.” Well that’s where you’re wrong (about the massage, not the establishments). Allow me to point out that professional athletic teams have sports massage therapists on staff for a very good reason, so it’s perfectly acceptable for “real men” to get a massage. As I was saying… I was expecting to just go in for a massage, but it was so much more. It was a spa day. You may have heard the lady in your life talk about a “spa day” with her girl friends before and had no idea what it meant, or perhaps like me you just imagined it involved manicures, pedicures, facials and saying nasty things about whoever wasn’t there. For all I know that’s what they do, but that wasn’t my experience at all.
When we arrived at Lansdowne Resort, it turned out to be a beautiful campus out in Leesburg, a sprawling estate that housed Spa Mineralé, the spa we were going to visit. The spa itself was beautiful, a serene and lovely room with a welcoming staff. Each of us was taken to our separate dressing rooms. I can’t speak to the women’s dressing room, and frankly I don’t care. My Not So Humble Wife tells me it was just as lovely as I described the men’s dressing room to her, so I’ll go with that.
In addition to having all the amenities imaginable, including a sauna, steam room, and whirlpool (because really, you know you’re worth it), I personally found it was the little touches that sold me. Individually wrapped combs for when you finished your shower (with house-branded shampoo, conditioner, and body wash provided, of course), razors, shaving cream and after shave in case you need to freshen up, and even individually wrapped combs so you can make sure you’re presentable. They even had mouthwash to make sure you were at your best. There were both separate men’s and women’s lounges as well as a joint lounge in case you wanted to see each other at some point. The lounges included tea and two kinds of trail mix, some light reading material, and the most sinfully comfortable chaise lounges I have ever been in.
Believe it or not, I still haven’t even gotten to the best part, or even the reason we went in the first place. Perhaps you recall mention of a massage? I was given a choice at booking between deep-tissue and Swedish massage. I was a little nervous since I had been told by more than one person that with the deep-tissue massage “they really dig in”, but since that’s what the wife was getting I could hardly back down- that is to say, I would follow her lead.
As it turns out, I had nothing to fear. What they call “deep tissue massage” is what we referred to in my youth as “massage”. If the Swedish massage is a lighter, gentler version I’m not sure exactly what it is they do other than gently pet you and tell you you’re pretty, although if anyone is willing to pay for me to find out I’m willing to take the risk and report back. I can say, however, that my masseuse was an expert, who did more in 75 minutes for the muscle pain I have been having than all the pills I have taken, and it was an amazing experience besides.
The entire staff deserves a moment of recognition. They were never intrusive, but they were always available, and very polite. They made me feel like a king the entire time I was there. It was one of the best experiences of my life, and I can’t wait to go back.
Needless to say, I’m pretty sure my wife knows what she’s getting this year. Gentlemen, if you know what’s good for you (in every sense of the word), you’ll take my advice and do the same.
Anarchy X: The Ninth Commandment
Posted: November 28, 2012 Filed under: Anarchy X, Culture, Politics | Tags: America, Anarchy X, false witness, House Un-American Activities Committee, HUAC, law, Ninth Commandment, perjury, politics, religion, society, Ten Commandments Leave a comment“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
If you had to pick just one Commandment as an example of why the Ten Commandments should be used as a system of law, I would choose this one. I know others would go with the Sixth Commandment, or possibly the Eighth Commandment, but for my money it just doesn’t get any better than this. For every other Commandment I can find some flaw, some reason to say “yes, but…”, yet this one is unique in that I believe it is not only excellent as personal advice but essential for a functional judiciary.
We have in America (and there are in many other countries as well) what is referred to as an adversarial judiciary system, one that relies in large part on people being honest about what they have seen or heard and even what they believe. While there are many critics of such a system (and the U.S. judicial system in particular), it is generally thought to be superior to the inquisitorial alternative. Certainly I believe it is, and regardless of which type of system you use, in either case false testimony would be damaging to the proceedings.
In the broader context of society, I also think that it is worth keeping this Commandment in mind in daily life. I can’t help remembering as I reflect on this one time when I was much younger, and in a fit of jealousy I said some very untrue things about someone else; they cost me a good and close friend, and it is one of only three things I have done that I deeply regret. Words have power, and we forget that at our peril.
But is there an intersection between these two things that perhaps is the step too far? Is there a gray area that we have given over to politicians that is of society but not governance? I would argue that there is, and more to the point I would argue that it is an area that is not only expanding but being abused both more frequently and more frivolously as time marches on. I am speaking in particular of Congressional hearings.
The first thing that comes to mind when I think of any sort of Congressional hearings is the House Un-American Activities Committee. Not only is the idea of grilling people about their personal lives and politics repugnant to me, it seems antithetical to the very idea of what America stands for. More to the point of the Ninth Commandment, like the Salem Witch Trials that Arthur Miller compares them to in The Crucible, there was a strong compulsion on witnesses to implicate others, even if it meant doing so under false pretenses. Once again, it would seem to be the antithesis of what America and our government should stand for.
Over the decades Congressional hearings have delved into other areas of concern ranging from Watergate to Iran-Contra, and those have been important matters that needed investigation. Did Toyota need investigating by Congress? Arguably, since there was a Federal agency involved, although I think that was more posturing for headlines than any real effective action. But the one that bothers me most is when Congress starts investigating steroid use in athletes.
Aside from basically encouraging perjury (“hey, how would you like the opportunity to destroy your own career? No?”), I don’t see what point there is in Congress even being involved in this. Again, it seems more a matter of either pandering for the cameras or, even more ominously, honestly believing they have a right and a mandate to be involved in every aspect of American life simply because they are… well… politicians. And we put them there.
So yes, I believe very much that you shouldn’t tell lies about other people. It has cost me personally and it costs us as a society. But I also believe we need to think very long and hard about when and how we ask the sorts of questions that might elicit lies from others. There are some things that are properly none of our business, or if they are our business, there are proper forums for handling them. When the cost for telling the truth outweighs the risk for telling the lie, people will lie. And in that case, how much of the burden for that lie falls on the ones who put them in the position of feeling like they needed to lie in the first place?
Economic Recovery: Resolving the Housing Situation at Last
Posted: November 26, 2012 Filed under: Culture, Politics | Tags: America, economic cliff, economy, housing bubble, housing recovery, politics, society 1 CommentWhen I first planned to run for president, I had a great idea for what my platform would be: “somebody has to take it in the shorts.” It was simple, elegant, and caught the spirit of American politics in a nutshell, as well as providing the sort of common sense blueprint for recovery that we’ve so desperately needed. As we continue to hurtle toward fiscal ruin, particularly in a housing market that is either better, worse, or about the same (depending on who you listen to and what day of the week it is), I’d like to take a moment to expand on that admittedly simplistic notion of social justice and offer a better solution: “everybody has to take it in the shorts.”
So what does that mean exactly? Put simply, every American, regardless of your housing situation, needs to accept here and now that it’s time to take one for the team. Maybe you think you’ve already taken one for the team; maybe you think everybody else has gotten by and you haven’t gotten your free ride or your bail-out or your hand-up or what have you yet. Maybe you just think it’s time that somebody else who has more to spare steps up and gives for a change.
Well, I’ve got some bad news for you. This is America, and around here it doesn’t work like that. As my mother enjoyed telling me many times as a child (when she wasn’t threatening to sell me back to the Gypsies), life isn’t fair. It’s possible you’ve already taken a hit. Maybe you’re right and somebody else got a handout and you missed out. Almost certainly you’re right that there are people who have more than you do, but guess what? The fact that you’re able to read this at all means you have more than someone else, so that excuse carries not a lot of water. I’m not sure when in America we started glorifying the complainers instead of the doers (and I mean this on both sides of the political aisle), but it is a multi-generational thing, and it’s time we all stopped pointing fingers at someone else who should make the sacrifices (I include myself in that statement, don’t worry) and just accept the reality: if we’re going to get out of this, everybody has to take it in the shorts.
So here’s my plan. If you’re underwater on your mortgage or you can’t afford to pay your mortgage, you need to accept the fact that you will never get to cash out on your house. Your choices are stark: get help or lose the house, and option #2 doesn’t include paying for your retirement with the equity, so why should option #1? Here’s my solution: anyone can get a government-enforced write-down on their mortgage to the current estimated market value of their home, not what they borrowed. The lower valuation will be used to determine the new monthly payments, which should help to make things a bit easier for folks, as well as giving them a larger percentage of equity in their homes. But if you take the write-down, that’s exactly as much as you get to cash out for; if you ever sell the house for more than that, any excess sale price goes first to pay off the original mortgage holder and then the rest goes to Uncle Sam for his help so we can pay down the debt. Don’t like the terms? Don’t take the deal. The idea isn’t for it to make life easy or better for anyone, the idea is to keep people in their homes who would otherwise be homeless. Given a choice between the two, I doubt most people wouldn’t love the terms.
What banks get out of this is two things. First, they don’t have even more unsold foreclosure inventory just sitting around. Second, and here’s another thing the homeowners need to pay attention to, the homeowners agree to stay in the house for at least three years, or six years, or whatever term we can agree on as a society for the banks to feel like they at least got something out of the deal. In that time they will keep making those mortgage payments every month, on time every time, or they go out on the street, no questions asked, no second chances, because this was their second chance. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, out in the cold. The banks also get something else for their part in this: a little reformation of character, which they could use right about now.
Now there’s one more group that gets to take it in the shorts here, and it’s one that rarely if ever gets mentioned, so I’m going to give a special shout out to them now. This would be anyone who didn’t buy a house when the market went crazy, or already had one. Anyone (and this includes my wife and myself) who saw the way things were going and said, “yeah… no,” because they didn’t think it was possible for housing values to go perpetually up and hey! looks like we were right, or for the folks who decades ago settled into a house and are getting punished for prudence now. Or hey, even the young folks coming up who never even had a chance to get into the market then and can’t get into the market now. For all of us, and for all the folks who did buy a house prudently and won’t need help, here’s what we get: not a god damn thing. If you own a house and don’t need help, you can sell it whenever you want for whatever you want. If you didn’t buy a house, you’re not locked into living in one place or having your credit rating suffer. You get exactly what you were promised, which is nothing at all.
Nobody wins, nobody loses. Everybody takes it in the shorts. Then we can finally put the whole thing behind us and move on. That’s my proposal, anyway.
Along Came a Spider
Posted: November 23, 2012 Filed under: Culture | Tags: culture, morality, philosophy, society, vegetarian 3 CommentsI just don’t understand vegetarians who kill spiders.
I guess I should be more specific than that, lest I have to field cries of creating a strawman vegetarian. The specific case I have difficulty with is the specific subset of vegetarians (which to my knowledge is the majority of them) who are vegetarian on moral grounds, those grounds being that it is immoral to kill animals for sustenance. I understand there are also vegetarians (and vegans) who choose that lifestyle for health and economic reasons, and I hereby exclude and absolve them from the above statement and any further discussion herein; but getting back to my original point.
I just don’t understand vegetarians (exceptions above notwithstanding) who kill spiders. Or any other bugs for that matter. Ants, mosquitos, roaches, you name it. Is there some line that one can draw that changes the morality of the equation? Is there some size limit on the morality of life? I won’t delve into the morality of taking the life of a plant, as I don’t know if it is necessary to kill plants in order to eat them, but this is one I feel on pretty solid ground with. So what’s the difference?
I’ll offer another illustration. So long as humans are part of a wider natural world, we will have to interact with it. Our choices will be to either let it happen to us or take an active hand in shaping it. Due to the choices made by those who preceded us, our options are to a certain extent constrained in that regard. For example, the deer population in the U.S. used to be controlled by predators such as wolves. Well, not so much anymore, since we pretty much got rid of the wolves. We can either let the deer population grow until they starve to death (and jump in front of cars), or we can let hunters thin the population out. If we let people hunt, what do we do with the meat? Do we eat it or let it rot?
I freely acknowledge that by eating meat I am on the same moral level as the butcher. I do not take some perverse joy in knowing that my food comes from dead animals, and if the day should come that I am provided with an alternative that is just as nutritious, tastes the same or better, and that I cannot tell a difference in texture, I’ll gladly make the switch. But until then, so long as there is a utilitarian purpose to the animal’s death, how is that materially different than killing insects invading my home?
Roaches and ants devour my food. Fleas and mosquitos spread disease. Termites weaken the very walls that make up my house. I have no problem killing any of these insects. Spiders I put outside because they do no harm to me or mine, and are in fact helpful little creatures. There is no utilitarian purpose in their death.
But morality vegetarians (for lack of a better phrasing) do not allow for a utilitarian approach to the killing of animals. So on what basis do they allow for the killing of insects of any kind? I’m not being deliberately obstreperous; I just really don’t see the difference. If you believe taking the life of an animal is wrong that’s fine, I’m not here to question your beliefs. I’m just questioning the consistency of those beliefs.
Does this mean I want everyone who believes that “meat is murder” to suddenly grab a hamburger and dig in? Or at least feel ashamed for not pouring A-1 on the first steak they see and eating it with ravenous fury? No, because that’s my steak and you can’t have it. All I’m asking is for one of two things: either a little clarity on were the line is drawn, what makes the animals I eat a special class that should be protected as opposed to the ones they step on, or else that they live a consistently principled lifestyle. For those who already do, you have my respect; it’s no easy thing to put the spiders outside.
. And be sure to leave a review with your not so humble opinion!
My Not So Humble Opinion 