Thursday, June 25, 2009

A Plug for Environmental Living from an Environmental Fatalist


If, in the past, you had asked me when I became an environmentalist, I would have told you, never; I’m not one. It’s not that I’ve got anything against the environment. I love the Earth. Seriously. I love the outdoors. I love parks and hiking and walks in the woods. I love clean water and babbling brooks and swimming in a gorge. And I think it would be tragic if people didn’t have access to all the wonderful things that can be experienced out in the natural world. It’s just that I am, depending on your point of view, a fatalist or a realist. I think Al Gore is awesome, and more power to him for spreading the environmental message. But I also think that we are so far past the point of no return that the sum total of all worldwide environmental efforts are just rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic. From all that I’ve read, it seems like some of the most informed environmental scientists out there basically agree that even if, overnight, we could zap every Denali into a Prius and squish every McMansion into a tiny energy-efficient, public transport-accessible LEED certified condo, the best case scenario would be that the environmental apocalypse would take place on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday.

All of the current residents of planet Earth can do their part to cut down on their own consumption, but the fundamental source of what we’re up against is exponential population growth and expanding industrialization. Unless we can institute a worldwide ban on procreation and a prohibition on any further industrialization (i.e. moving up from poverty and starvation to the first rung of first world living), we’re going to continue to move faster and faster down the path of destruction. An anti-naysayer might argue that fatalists throughout history have been proven wrong by new technologies. And that’s true. Even if we seem irrevocably screwed at the moment, it’s always possible that some fundamentally game-changing new development will emerge – like the ability to convert dirt into water or poop into food – but I’ll believe that when I see it. And the clock is ticking.

OK. That’s the end of my rant. But not the end of my story. There’s a twist. Despite my belief in the utter futility of the environmental movement, it turns out that I do almost all of the things a good environmentalist is supposed to do. To wit: I live in a small condo in a dense, urban neighborhood within walking distance to everything I need; I don’t have a car; I commute using public transportation; I recycle; and, for good measure, I even bring my own reusable shopping bag with me when I go (on foot) grocery shopping. (I’ll never be able to live up to the true pinnacle of environmental living – Cheryl Crow’s suggestion that people should use just one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit. I am a huge fan of Cheryl’s music, but, for the sake of digestive tract discretion, let’s just say that Cheryl and I must have very different diets.)

Ignore for the moment the fact that none of the reasons for my righteous environmental lifestyle is based on any conscious attempt at being environmental – that I live in a small condo in a dense, urban neighborhood because, in Boston, that’s what I can afford; that I don’t have a car because my wife lives in a different city for the time being and has exclusive custody of our one car; that my office just happens to be on a subway line that goes right to my front door; that the re-usable grocery bag was given to me by REI for free because I bought so much shit there over the course of a year. If you’re doing all the right stuff, the reason shouldn’t matter. And so, because being environmental is hip and stylish, because Cheryl Crow might be more likely to ask me to come jam with her band if she knew that I used reusable shopping bags, and because I think a neutral observer would judge my lifestyle to be pretty solidly environmental, I hereby declare myself an environmentalist.

And just because I don’t really believe in the environmental components of all the environmental things I’m doing these days doesn’t mean that I can’t start being all evangelical about it. No, I am ready to spread the word. But my angle is this: environmental living is fun. Not so much the recycling and re-using grocery bags part. Those aren’t bad, but they’re not fun per se. What’s fun is living in a small condo in a dense neighborhood, walking to the main strip to run errands and taking the subway to work. What all of these things have in common is the simple fact that they lead to interaction with other people. And even with other people I might not otherwise run into on a regular basis. When I walk down the street to run errands, I see neighbors. Sometimes, they are walking around too! Same thing if I sit out on the front stoop with a beer and a book. Because lots of other condos are packed into my dense street, there are usually living breathing human beings out on the sidewalk. And the subway is full of gangstas and geeks and hipsters and businessmen. I might not be best friends with them all, but I see them roving around and talking and reading their magazines and doing the things people do. And that, to me, makes life more fun. If most of my life were spent shuffling between my Denali, my McMansion and my office, I don’t think I’d have the same kinds of interactions as my environmental existence encourages.

But wait; there’s more! Walking is good for you. I haven’t seen the actual statistics yet, but I’m sure there’s research out there that shows that people who walk to the grocery store are 38% healthier, happier and more fulfilled than people who drive Denalis to the grocery store. Oh, and stores that service mostly smaller, pedestrian-accessible areas are more likely to be independently owned. And giving your money to people you know instead of to faceless shareholders is fun too! Who knew being environmental would be such a blast?

So here’s my plug: If for no other reason than demonstrating your keen sense of irony, become an environmentalist! When, in the next few decades, the world ecosystem collapses and the Earth is sucked back into the sun, why not increase the chance that it all goes down in the middle of a neighborhood block party? The apocalypse will be at least a little more fun if you have a few extra friends by your side.

For your further edification, take a look at this terrific 20 minute video by Annie Leonard called The Story of Stuff - a wonderful take on production, consumption, the environment and happiness in the modern world.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Pink Slips on Sesame Street


Just about everyone has been affected by these hard fiscal times. No business or organization has been spared. Like every other non-profit, PBS has been hit hard. It has instituted a recent hiring freeze and the future looks dire. And just because you happen to be a cute, fuzzy monster doesn't mean you're going to be immune from feeling the pain. With staffing cuts looming, it is inevitable that, in addition to their human colleagues, some of the Sesame Street muppets are going to have to be shown the door. Here is my analysis of who should stay and who should go.

The Count

The Count seems like he could serve an important accounting function. Being a bean counter is not stylish, but every nickel these days needs to be accounted for. Reporting requirements are going to proliferate. Someone's got to be in the trenches paying attention to what resources are going where. My concern is that, first of all, I've never seen The Count count to higher than ten. Second, just getting to ten seems to take him an awful long time ("ONE... one federal subsidy dollar, ah ahh ahhhhh. TWO... two federal subsidy dollars, ah ahh ahhhhh"). If PBS were to end up getting, say, a $100 million federal cash infusion, it would take The Count like a thousand years just to verify that the wire transfer had hit. So, while The Count may have some useful skills, they're not going to be of much help unless someone can light a bit of a fire under his ass.

Ernie and Bert

I don't know what kind of don't-ask-don't-tell policy Sesame Street has, but Ernie and Bert are obviously gay and have apparently been in a committed relationship since the late 60s. If PBS had to choose one of them to let go, it's a no-brainer that it would have to be Bert. Everyone likes Ernie better, and Burt's really just been Ernie's (no pun intended) straight man for the duration. If one but not the other got canned, it's not clear what kinds of benefits, as a life partner, he would be entitled to. Could Bert stay on Ernie's health insurance policy? What state is Sesame Street in (it’s hard to tell – probably by design, to keep the paparazzi at bay)? Maybe Vermont or New Hampshire. Wherever it is, someone would have to figure out the nuances of the rules on same-sex partner benefits in whatever the relevant jurisdiction is. I'm sure health insurance would be important to Ernie and Bert. Bert's always seemed right on the verge of getting an ulcer and Ernie's probably got no small amount of liver damage from his days of fast livin' and hard drinkin'.

Snuffleupagus

I have never understood just what exactly Snuffleupagus does, other than mope around and waste all of Big Bird's time. Does he contribute anything at all to Sesame Street's bottom line? He is an obvious candidate for a pink slip. My sole reservation is that he might be clinically depressed - a pre-existing medical condition - and PBS should probably get their employment lawyers involved to make sure there's no risk here of a discrimination claim.

Big Bird

What I’d like to know about Big Bird is how he ever got hired in the first place. “Bird brain” is not a complimentary expression (isn’t there some kind of bird that supposedly drowns itself staring up when it’s raining?). Big Bird’s got a pretty good attitude – seems to generally go with the flow – but, while I don’t think he’d bring the company down during the good times, I also can’t see him really stepping up to the plate during the hard times. He just doesn’t strike me as a go-getter with good initiative. If there were some specific need that would make sense for Big Bird to fill, I’d say keep him around. Otherwise, I think he gets a few months worth of bird seed and told to go find another nest.

Oscar

Oscar is indeed a grouch, but I get the feeling that, at the end of the day, he's the workhorse of the group. And I'd rather have someone on my team who's rough around the edges but who actually gets shit done than a lot of the other fuzzy little prima donnas who would probably fall over and die if they actually had to put in a full day's work. Is Oscar really even employed? Is the Sesame Street pay scale so twisted that he can have a full-time job and still have to live in a trash can? Or is there something we don't know about that is sucking up all of Oscar's cash? Is Oscar cooking up crystal meth or something on his days off? I would recommend some further investigation. If there are no skeletons in his closet, I'd lean towards keeping Oscar on. On the other hand, it would be sort of funny (ironic too?) to bang on the side of his can and tell him he was canned.

Cookie Monster

I like Cookie Monster. I really do. But the fact is, he is irresponsible and seems to have obsessive tendencies and zero self control. All of us would like to eat cookies all day long, but we learn not to let our base desires take over. I would worry about how Cookie Monster would fare if he lost the structure of having a steady job. He could be pushed to the limit and have nothing but his cookie crumbs to turn to. That's sad, but it's not the concern of PBS. They're trying to keep a business afloat and having a maniacal beast with a bizarre eating disorder in the ranks is not going to help. And cookies aren't cheap either.

Elmo

Elmo is the toughest call for me. He's obviously the rock star du jour, and he's clearly got the skills to pay the bills. Licensing revenues from the ten billion tickle-me-Elmos that were sold at Christmastime a few years ago are probably one of the main reasons PBS is still around at all today. But fans are fickle and fame is fleeting. I am not convinced that Elmo has any staying power. I think he's already past his prime and that pretty soon you're going to start seeing 3AM infomercials with Elmo hawking crappy exercise equipment or swamp land in Florida. OK, full disclosure here. I'm biased, and a part of me can't wait to see Elmo crash and burn. Why? Because Elmo is a total jive-ass, sell-out Grover rip off. How Elmo ever managed to so completely upstage Grover, who is the very embodiment of all that is awesome and cute, is beyond me. Shameless. Grover’s got too much class to go around bitching about it in public, but I can tell it's just eating away at him. My personal opinion is that the potential damage to PBS’ ongoing integrity if it keeps pandering to this red little poseur far outweighs whatever short term financial hit PBS would take if it shit-canned Elmo.

Grover

If Grover were to get the axe, the apocalypse would be near. Sesame Street without Grover? Game over. I have nothing further to say about this except, rock on, Grover. You've always got a place to stay with me.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Why Non-Profits Have Turned Me Into an Asshole


I worry that I’ve become more of an asshole recently. Some people might tell you that this is nothing new, that I’ve been an asshole for as long as they can remember. But I don’t think that’s true. I think it’s a recent development. And who is to blame? Non-profit organization fundraisers.

To clarify, when I say "asshole," I mean a "callous, unsympathetic, cold-hearted jerk who is generally less inclined to do unto others as he would have others do unto him." At my core, I think I’m as caring as the next guy. But when I consider how adept I’ve become at ignoring people with real problems, I have to wonder.

Coming across a lot of homeless people begging for spare change may have been the start of it all. And coming across a lot of homeless people is a city thing. If you live in a little town, you just don't encounter that many homeless people. There may be one, but he's most likely the cute, friendly drunk type who everyone likes. He probably gets taken in every night by the good townsfolk who give him a hot meal and a place to sleep until, one day, he mends his ways, sobers up, gets a steady job, becomes a generally productive member of society and maybe even marries the wholesome daughter of one of said townsfolk. In a city, you come across a lot more folks in need of some spare change. Maybe you drop a few quarters in some of their cups, but for every one person you help out, you have to pass by a whole lot more. If you tried to lend a hand to every homeless person you passed, you'd never make it to work. And then you'd probably end up homeless yourself. And to pass by one after another person who is experiencing such hardship and who needs your help, and to still live with yourself as a person, you have to develop some mechanism to cope. And that mechanism is tuning out. Ignoring another human being in need.

The more of a connection you have with a person, the harder it is to ignore him. It's easier to walk right past a person who's just jiggling a cup, a little harder to ignore someone who asks you for something directly. It really hurts to brush off a "hey champ, you got my dollar today?" or even a good old fashioned "God bless."

Non-profit street fundraisers have learned a lot from the business strategies of the homeless and have taken it to a whole new level. The fundraising strategy du jour - not a new one, but one that seems to have gotten a lot more prevalent recently is to send out swarms of cute, young, perky college kids to follow you down the sidewalk and harass you in the most charming way possible. They walk beside you and start off by saying things like "sir, I have to tell you, that is the nicest tie I have seen all day" or "wow, you have got to tell me your secret for achieving such firmly toned pectoral muscles." And if you let slide any single response, make one millisecond of eye contact, they’ve got you. Then they’re off telling lurid tales of environmental degradation and tortured puppies and bald, cancer-infested toddlers and, next thing you know, you’re bawling your eyes out and hemorrhaging cash, begging them to stay put for a few more minutes while you run to an ATM machine to empty your savings account in support of their cause.

And so, if you’re going to have any chance at all of making it from the subway to your office with dry eyes and a dime in your bank account, your ability to stave off people in need has to evolve at pace with the guerilla tactics of the non-profit world. You can try the old classics: frothing at the mouth, talking to yourself, making them think you’re crazy; flashing a gun; vomiting next to them; screaming horrible, violent threats ("I swear to God if you take one more step towards me I will rip your f-ing head off and shit down your neck"). But that takes a lot of energy / profanity / bodily fluid and is generally not how you want to start your day (and, if you’re like me, you don’t have a gun).

So you develop the stone-faced shtick, the ability to walk right past someone who’s talking to you as if you can’t hear a word he is saying. It’s effective, but it’s hard. Especially when someone is saying such lovely, wonderful things to you. When someone compliments your tie or pectoral muscles, every molecule in your body wants to smile and say "thanks!" and tell them where you shop and what gym you work out at. Even if you know they utterly don’t mean what they’re saying, and have been saying the exact same thing to every schlubby, overweight accountant / lawyer that has crossed the street in the past month, it’s hard to ignore. And here’s the point: if you can ignore a cute, young, perky college kid who’s saying lovely things to you, you can ignore just about anyone in the world, no matter how dire their circumstances or how powerful their plea. And, per my previously articulated definition, that makes you an asshole.

So what now? How do I get back in touch with my sympathetic, human side? I could move to a small town where, as discussed, there would just be one homeless guy, who was fun and friendly, and take care of him. But I like taking the subway to work, and small towns don’t have subways. I could lock myself in the house and never leave. But that might create some problems of its own. Maybe some legislation outlawing compliments that are not genuine, or outlawing non-profit fundraising altogether. That might work. But that might lead to more homeless people, and they’d probably adopt the non-profit strategies pretty quickly.

Maybe, in the end, I’ll just have to live with being an asshole.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Meatfest 2009

Our neighbors signed up for a meat-share service. Every month, a load of assorted meat was delivered to their door. But they couldn't handle it. Soon their freezer was overflowing with meat. Meat was everywhere. So they rounded up their neighbors to help. Here is a seven minute video documenting what happened when a community came together. To eat. Meat.

High- and low-resolution versions of the video are available. The low resolution version is grainy but can be viewed instantly. The high resolution version is of much better quality, but takes about five minutes to download.

MEATFEST 2009 - HIGH RESOLUTION - CLICK HERE

MEATFEST 2009 - LOW RESOLUTION (click play button on box below).

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Keno and the Shitfaced Gambling Addict Junior High School


There was a big night in Boston sports last week. The Celtics and the Bruins were both in the playoffs, and both games were being broadcast at the same time. So I went to my favorite bar down the street (I still don’t have a TV) to check out the action. 40% of the bar was focused on the TVs showing the basketball game, about an equal percentage was staring and yelling at the TVs with the hockey game, and the last bunch was transfixed by the colorful, bouncing balls on a smaller TV tucked away in the corner – the Keno screen. Keno is a Massachusetts lottery game piped into bars across the state. Every four minutes from 5AM until 1AM, you can choose numbers by filling in bubbles on a card, which you give to the bartender, along with some cash, to process. The more numbers you’ve chosen that correspond with the numbers on which the bouncy balls on the TV land, the more you win.

So I’m still on the fence about whether this next story makes me a kind, public-service oriented good Samaritan or a horrible, despicable bastard. I’d be interested to get your input. Suppose two women sitting next to you at a bar have been obsessing for hours over Keno, one gets up to go out for a smoke, and the other asks you for help filling in the bubbles on her Keno card because she’s too wasted to do it herself. Do you lend her the benefit of your relatively unimpaired motor skills and help her chase the dream of riches and fame? Or do say, “lady, you know, you might be kinda throwing away your money here, and maybe you should just go home.” I ended up helping her out (not to brag, but after the SAT, LSAT and bar exam, I'm a pretty damn competent filler-inner of no. 2 pencil scantron bubbles). But I couldn’t help but think that this whole setup was just so, so wrong.

Here’s why it’s so wrong. It’s not just the gambling part. That gambling, while sometimes a genuinely rational, fun way to spend time, is often way over on the other end of the manipulating-human-psychological-frailty end of the spectrum, egging people on to make irrational decisions that they know deep down (or maybe they don’t) are really not in their best interests. And it’s not even the gambling combined with drinking part. That however rational or irrational gambling may be on its own, I’m pretty sure people don’t generally become increasingly appreciative of the odds of the game when they have the benefit of 15 Bud Lights on their side. What, to me, makes it so, so wrong is the fact that the whole thing is run by the very institution that’s supposed to be taking care of us – the government.

I know that, very often, when you hear people start talking about the government trying to manipulate us, you’re getting into that nutty (though sometimes quite amusing) conspiracy theory realm. If you think the government is listening to your phone calls or brainwashing you with chemicals in the drinking water, there’s a pretty good chance that the issue is actually based on just a wee tiny bit of your own emotional baggage. But the Massachusetts government conspiracy to take away peoples’ money through lottery games is all spelled out very matter-of-factly, and with nice color slides to boot, in the 2008 Massachusetts State Lottery Commission Information Packet.

The information packet notes that over the past three decades, the Mass lottery, which is charged with coming up with “innovative games with entertainment value to players in order to further grow revenues available to the Commonwealth’s cities and towns,” has “returned” over $15.3 billion dollars to the Commonwealth. The returned dollars were used for “everything from improving roads and schools to hiring police and firefighters.” The bar where I helped my shitfaced compatriot fill out her Keno card had a colorful certificate from the lottery commission hanging on the wall congratulating the bar patrons for having won a total of over $260,000 from Keno last year.

So what what’s so horrible about the government providing entertainment, which returns money to the Commonwealth to be used for hiring firefighters? What’s wrong is the how and the who. The how is by taking advantage of people who are drinking and gambling. Whatever you think about why people gamble, as any psychologist, sociologist or addiction counselor will tell you, it is almost never simply because people simply enjoy innocent “innovative games with entertainment value.” The who, in a nutshell, is poor drunk people. There are, of course, hoards of rich, non-alcoholics who go to bars and play Keno, but I know from my years of extensive research – sitting in bars and checking out what the folks around me are up to – that the affluent, sober crowd is not, by and large, the one “returning” its money to the firefighters.

The crux of the main argument in support of taking money from poor drunk people is that it’s their choice, they’re going to spend it anyway, and if the government doesn’t do it, someone else will. And this may well be true. But there is a fundamental difference between the government and other people. As individual actors in a capitalist society, we’re all playing the same game with one another: trying to come up with clever ways to get other people to give their hard earned dollars to us while, at the same time, being vigilant in not giving up our own dollars except for the things we think will provide the most value to us. We know that other people want our money and that we have to be careful not to give it to them irrationally. The government is different. Reasonable people can disagree about how much government is the right amount of government or how active or passive the government should be. But I don’t think anyone would agree that the government should be in the role of preying upon human frailties to manipulate people into giving away their money. Old ladies who walk around bad neighborhoods at night may get mugged. If it’s going to happen anyway, maybe the government should mug old ladies itself so that at least the money will be put to good use.

The lottery certificate at the bar talking about how much people won last year is a manipulative statistical lie – a purposeful substitution of top line for bottom line, gross for net. People at the bar “won” $260,000 in the same way General Motors “earned” $149 million in fiscal 2008 – i.e., by spending exponentially more in order to bring in that amount. I understand why the lottery would not want to highlight how much was spent to “win” the $260,000, but the $15 billion “returned” to the Commonwealth was not made from net winnings at every bar.

If this is really how we want our government to treat our fellow citizens, then so be it. Voters in a democracy can decide to tax whoever they want and redistribute wealth in any way they like. But if this structure is really what we want as a society, then the concept should be explicit and voted into the tax code. Describing Keno in friendly, market-driven terms and decorating bars with purposefully misleading numbers is not the way to go. If we want more good things like schools and firefighters, and we want the poor, the drunk and the gambling addicted to pay for them, we at least need to be clear about it (maybe even name things after them: Shitfaced Gambling Addict Junior High School). Then, at least the next time the person on the stool next to me wants to “return” some cash to the Commonwealth but is too trashed to do so on her own, I’ll be able to help out with a clear conscience.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

The Debate Over the Debate Over Twitter


I sometimes think it would be nice if people stopped complaining. But then, upon further reflection, it occurs to me that if people stopped complaining, there would be very little to talk about. The opposable thumb. The ability to make use of tools. Complaining. These are the very essence of what makes human beings human. So, OK, complaining stays. But maybe some limitations on what people complain about. Here's a suggestion: how about if people tried to complain about only things that had some actual bearing on their lives?

One particular, recent hot button issue is Twitter. In case you haven't opened a newspaper or web browser in the past six months, Twitter is a website where people can post short messages that can then be followed by readers who have signed up to follow the writers. The messages - "tweets" - are usually of either the "does anyone know how to do some thing I want to do" variety, the "holy shit; I'm trapped in a burning building" variety, or, probably most commonly, the "I am considering scratching myself" / "what I ate for breakfast" variety.

A lot of people love Twitter and a lot of people hate Twitter. No big deal. A lot of people also love and hate collecting porcelain pony figurines. But while you can go for years - decades sometimes - without reading a single op-ed about porcelain pony figurine collecting, an incomprehensibly huge number of people seem to feel the need to write, voluminously and passionately, about why, and the extent to which, they love or hate Twitter (and just to be clear, I am not going to write here about why I love or hate Twitter, but rather about what I think about people writing about what they love or hate about Twitter).

I understand the natural tendency to want to blather and gush about the things you’re into. If you love something, you want to spread the word (see, e.g., why I love running). And I understand the equally powerful need to rant and huff about things you don't like that, for whatever reason, are a part of your life. Like mosquitoes. Or taxes. Or when the minimum wage-earning high school kid at Taco Bell gives you a chalupa, all slathered in guacamole, instead of the gordita, with guacamole on the side, that you ordered. When you’re confronted with something that bothers you, it feels good to get it off your chest.

But something about Twitter really hits a nerve. In editorials and newspaper columns, and just in talking to people, I have seen people get so worked up about Twitter you'd think they were talking about a new government plan to tax toilet paper or to require people to tattoo their infants. For some, the idea that someone would want to read about what someone else just had for breakfast is somehow deeply offensive and blisteringly infuriating. And while I understand completely why people need to rant about mosquitoes and taxes and messed up Taco Bell orders and the infinite variety of life’s other impositions, what confounds me is why people bother to spend the time and effort to rant about things they have the power to completely ignore.

The power to ignore is what makes Twitter different than mosquitoes and taxes and messed up Taco Bell orders. While there is almost no way of escaping these other irritants (short of staying in the house, living off the grid and renouncing fast food – obviously not tenable options for most of us), all you have to do in order to live the entire rest of your life without ever having to read one single tweet is to: NOT open your web browser and go to Twitter.com; NOT choose a unique user ID and twelve character password; NOT enter a bunch of personal information; NOT agree to the terms and conditions; NOT choose all of the fellow Twitterers whose posts you want to follow; and then NOT check back to the website every day to see what new updates have been posted. Not doing all of this is very, very easy. By way of demonstration, try closing your eyes and counting to three. See? Just like that, you have NOT enrolled in Twitter and will never, ever see a single tweet.

So, if Twitter can be completely shut off, and if no taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize it, and if no one is being bound and gagged and dragged from his home and forced to set up an account, then why all the fuss? There are only two ways I can fathom why you might feel like Twitter was imposing on you even if you have successfully NOT followed the enrollment steps described above.

First, maybe you feel like the reason your Taco Bell order got all screwed up in the first place, and the reason you are now back at your cubicle with a guacamole-soaked chalupa you don’t want, is that instead of giving your order the benefit of her undivided attention, the kid behind the counter at Taco Bell was busy Twittering her friends (perhaps about how lame it is to spend all day hawking chalupas to luddites). But Twitter, in this scenario, is an unfair bogeyman. Since the dawn of human commerce, customers at counters have been receiving sub-par service from underpaid employees on the other side of said counters because said employees were preoccupied with something else. 50 years ago, when guys wanted help buying, say, fedoras from the fedora counter, the fedora seller guys were probably reading the horse racing pages and talking to little kids about getting their 2 cent bets over to the bookies. 11 million years ago when Neanderthals were trying the exchange piles of rocks for ripped off hunks of antelope meat, the kids at the antelope meat cave (this was before counters were invented) were probably busy flirting with Neanderthal-ettes or trying to start fires. And, in the not too distant future, when Twitter has been long forgotten and when kids all have wifi connections hooked up directly to their brains, while it may be less obvious what exactly it is that the kid behind the counter is distracted by, rest assured that he will not be giving you his undivided attention.

The second way in which Twitter may affect people who do not read tweets is just having to hear incessantly about how much people love or hate Twitter. If this is what is getting people so upset, all I can say is that it’s the people who hate Twitter who started it.

So here is my two cents on the debate over the debate over Twitter. If you’re a big fan, then right on. Good for you. Tweet your days away to your heart’s content. Perhaps compose some tweets about the joy of Twittering. And if Twitter is not your bag, do not sign up for Twitter and do not spend any further time recounting to anyone the reasons you are not interested in Twitter. Go get interested in something else, and spend time on that. Come to think of it, it might not be a bad idea to apply this concept to just about every other issue in the world. If someone else likes it, and if it’s no skin off your back, maybe just let it slide. I know I’m not the first person to come up with the live-and-let-live idea. Maybe it just needs to be reiterated. Maybe I’ll tweet about it.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Long-Distance Relationships - the New, New Thing


A number of people have asked me why my wife Leslie and I have decided to live apart. I am living in Boston and, at least until the end of the year, she is in Washington, DC. Those of you who have read my scientific study demonstrating that Boston is a 200% better city to live in than DC might have assumed that our decision was based solely on my paradigm-busting findings, that moving back to Boston would increase my happiness and well-being correspondingly. But that's not the whole story. Aside from the fact that being involved in a long-distance relationship is, flat out, the hippest, coolest thing a couple can do these days, there were a number of quite complex factors that went into the decision. Primary among them were as follows:

Aesthetics

Honestly, living with your spouse and falling asleep every night in a comfy bed, snuggled up against the person you love most in the world is a pretty effete, bourgeois, hedonistic thing to do. In terms of artistic creativity and street creds, monkish bohemianism is going to trump effete, bourgeois hedonism one hundred percent of the time. Plus, if you believe in heaven and hell, my understanding (granted, I'm getting a bit out of my element here) is that just about all the governing literature has it that the former is more accessible to the monkish types and the latter more likely for the hedonists. Leslie and I have been called a lot of things in our lives, but never once has anyone ever called us (at least to our faces) effete, bourgeois hedonists. But, just to be sure, lest there be any doubt, we have opted in favor of a more monk-ish, bohemian-ish existence by splitting our one, warm, comfortable home into a stripped down convent and an equally inconvenient abbey. In my new solo kitchen, for example, you'll find only the barest of monkish essentials: beer, baking soda, a frozen burrito and some sliced provolone cheese. And in my uninviting living room, I can sit on a borrowed couch and stare into the corner where the TV used to be. And my living room will be even more monk-ish bohemian-ish when my friend who's lent me the couch takes it back. Then I'll be able to sit on the floor and stare at the corner where the TV used to be. All of this is terrific cosmic training. The next time anyone gives either one of us the what-do-you-know-what-kind-of-hardship-have-you-ever-had-to-endure eye roll, we can respond with a kind Dalai Lama-ish smile and a deep breath of tranquility, knowing that our astonishingly un-hedonistic lifestyle has led us to be at one with the universe.

Community service

The epicenter of federal government, Washington, DC is, of course, where you need to live if you want to have any meaningful impact on national and international policy. Boston, on the other hand, is the second largest hub of venture capital activity in the nation. So it's hard to shape the future of technology and innovation if you're too far from there. It seems like not a day goes by when one or another Congressional sub-committee or banking consortium isn’t trying to drag Leslie or me in for a debrief. You can see the conundrum. By living in only one place, we figured, we might be less readily available to swing by for impromptu Ways and Means Committee rap sessions, participate in nights out with the federal reserve boys, that sort of thing. We were concerned that we might be depriving Congress and the venture capital community of the benefit of our full attention. And in these tough economic times, when knowledgeable people with a cool head and clear vision are so desperately needed to keep the world economy on track, that just seemed almost unconscionably selfish.

Glamour

When we decided to live apart, we wondered if we would be able to afford any real vacations. That became a moot point when we realized that travel between Boston and DC on the USAir shuttle was itself better than any vacation we could ever hope for. I've often heard the USAir shuttle described as a sort of combination of the Orient Express, the QE2 and the Concorde. The luxury and service afforded the elite slice of the population lucky enough to hold a Boston / DC shuttle ticket is so unparalleled that people sometimes book shuttle flights even if they have no reason to travel between these two cities. There is an audible gasp of anticipation when the cabin door clicks shut, all of the passengers knowing that, for a brief hour and a half, all of life's worries and pressures will melt away as they decompress in a cocoon of luxurious tranquility. The only downside to a shuttle trip is that it always seems to go by too fast. By the time you've had a few appletinis and passed hors d'oeuvres and pulled the cucumbers off your eyes after your heated stone massage, there's almost no time left to mingle with the movie stars, business elites, senators and professional athletes socializing their way through the cabin.

Investment Strategy

In today's volatile economic climate, a good investment vehicle is one that performs predictably. I have two words for you: household appliances. When I moved back to Boston, I had to make serious capital expenditures on such big ticket items as a toast-r-oven, a hair dryer and an iron. Investments in household appliances, despite lingering outside the spotlight of the popular press, have, since the advent of electricity, been plodding along at a rock solid pace. With an average lifespan of seven years, a household appliance will generate an annual return of about -14%. In today's market, where chasing positive returns on investments seems downright childish, a negative 14% return is quite robust. If you invested all your money in a stock index fund, based on the current trajectory of around 35% annual loss, it would take just under three years to lose all your money. Had you invested in household appliances instead, it would take almost three times as long before you were broke. Having parked our liquid capital in the aforementioned toast-r-oven, hair dryer and iron, for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 we outperformed the market by approximately 21%. Any hedge fund manager who pulled off a feat like would be bronzed and hoisted up to the roof of the NASDAQ. Plus, with this type of tangible investment vehicle, I've been able to take advantage of such positive externalities as looking sharp and being able to broil food. Some might call me a financial genius. I just think of myself as a man who loves toast.

In Conclusion

People who complain that living apart from their spouses “sucks” or is the “worst period ever in the history of their relationship” are obviously sorely mistaken. Sure, living five hundred miles away from your sweetie may make you lonely and bored, and, yeah, you may have to cry yourself to sleep five or six nights a week, but the upside is immeasurable. Leslie and I will be back together sometime soon and we’ll be richer, sexier, bohemian-er and more politically influential than ever.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

The Raging Coupon Cutting Debate: Why We Should Be More Like the French


My apartment building puts out a monthly newsletter – a glossy thing with some stock photos of smiling, racially ambiguous people and a few brain dead articles that could probably have been written by an algorithm. If the newsletter were an animal, it would have about the lifespan of a fruit fly. 12 – 24 hours maximum from the time the ink dries to the time it is returned to nature via the building recycling bin. Perusing the main newsletter headlines usually doesn’t take more than about ten seconds of my monthly time so, after spending another ten seconds muttering a few derogatory comments about the thing, I can get on with my life without too much anguish.

But then this month I discovered a disclaimer in the corner of the second page. Maybe it had been there every month and I just now noticed it for the first time. Or maybe it was new. Here’s what it said: “the views expressed herein are not necessarily those of [the management company] and neither [the management company] nor its affiliates… assumes responsibility for any materials submitted for publication or for any loss or injury arising out of the publication of such materials.” Additionally, “any action taken in reliance on the views contained herein is taken at the risk of the reader.” The disclaimer piqued my interest. Why would something like that be necessary unless there was going to be some good risqué stuff? Maybe management had found some new writers and finally decided to replace the usual drivel with some more interesting articles – something along the lines of “KABOOM! How to make a powerful bomb out of everyday bathroom supplies!” Or maybe a piece on how to buy a kidney or beat a drug test or operate a slim jim.

But, alas, the two most prominent features were a recipe for caprese pizzas and an article entitled “Can clipping coupons save you money?” The coupon article concluded with this Pulitzer prize-worthy insight: “Whether clipping coupons is worth it depends on your situation. If your life’s responsibilities are weighing on your wallet, then the time invested is probably worth it. If, however, your time is in shorter supply than your money, you’ll probably find the effort is too consuming to maintain.” I understand that a publication like this, distributed to a diffuse audience with varying tastes and interests, has to be fairly middle of the road. But, at some point, inoffensiveness can itself be so extreme as to actually become offensive. The combination of such milquetoast writing with such a paranoid disclaimer almost made my head explode.

I tried to imagine a situation in which the articles in the newsletter could actually result in the kind of damages contemplated by the disclaimer. Unwitting resident gives the caprese pizza recipe a shot only to have one of her guests be so disgusted with it that she gouges out the hostess’ eyes with her salad fork and then throws herself off the 12th floor balcony? Hostess sues, only to have judge rule that she had implicitly consented to the elegantly worded disclaimer and had thus assumed the risk of any such potential outcome, absolving management company of any liability it may otherwise have had (and that, further, management company was justified in retaining hostess’ security deposit to replace bloodstained / eyeball residue-covered carpet in dining alcove)? Old man who had been using coupons his entire life became so distraught over the thought that doing so may not actually have been the best use of his time that he has nervous breakdown and now requires full-time home care and monitoring?

How is it that we’ve gotten to the point where we have to disclaim all responsibility for offering opinions on coupons and caprese pizzas? Frivolous lawsuits made possible by sometimes quirky tort laws may be part of the explanation. And a general refusal to take any responsibility when things go wrong – a possible byproduct of out of control personal empowerment – must have something to do with it. But, on a more fundamental level, I think we’ve all just become a little too afraid of a good argument. This, I believe, is a uniquely American phenomenon. In moving beyond our oversensitivity to contradictory points of view, I would suggest that we could learn a little something from the French.

Some of the qualities – self-assuredness, confrontativeness and argumentativeness – that make the French so obnoxious are the same qualities that make their culture so vibrant and dynamic. If you’ve ever used the term “freedom fries” seriously, you’re probably more inclined to focus on the obnoxious side of the coin; if you’ve ever heard yourself refer to your college years as a “liberal arts” education (and if you were entirely unemployable when you graduated), you may have a slightly greater appreciation for the vibrant component. Every French citizen is a renowned expert on every subject ever to have been contemplated by mankind, loves to argue and will never hesitate to explain to another person why he is absolutely, unconditionally right. If a French apartment management company ever put out a newsletter, its disclaimer would most likely say something like “the views contained herein are unequivocally correct and anyone who disagrees with them is poorly educated and of ill repute and questionable moral character.” And that’s why it’s fun to be in France. The French thrive on engaging conversations, which can only exist when people are willing to confront and be confronted, and when confrontation is not viewed as a personal assault.

For most Americans, cultural diversity is a point of pride. And, for the most part (there are a lot of obvious exceptions, but that’s a conversation for another time), the acceptance of diversity in the US is real and commendable. But the US brand of multiculturalism is more often based on a live-and-let-live philosophy than on a proclivity to engage one another – to probe, learn, question and, ultimately, understand. The general expectation that others will let us live in whatever way we choose has conditioned us to interpret being questioned as being affronted, which, in turn, completes the loop of non-confrontation and lack of discussion.

I know this isn’t a sentiment that is voiced all that often in the US, but I’d like to suggest that we all try to be a bit more like the French. Discussion is fun! Arguing does not have to be a bad thing! If we were all just a bit more inclined to say frankly what we think, even while in the company of non-like-minded people, and to listen genuinely to what other people think, we might just end up having a jolly ol’ good time. And then, once robust debate became more fundamentally woven into the fabric of our society, maybe just maybe (and don’t get me wrong here; I enjoy a good caprese pizza and clipped coupon as much as the next guy) my apartment newsletter could lose the disclaimer and tackle some just slightly more engaging subjects.

Monday, March 30, 2009

My First Gun Show (What I Did Last Weekend)


For whatever reason – my New York City Jewish heritage? my upbringing in a liberal college town? – guns have just never been a part of my life. I shot a few BB guns at camp in Kentucky when I was a kid. I know a few people who hunt. But most of what I know about guns and gun culture comes from what could pretty objectively be called the liberal magazines I read and websites I frequent. So, when I saw an ad in the paper last week for a gun show in Manassas, Virginia, half an hour from where I live, I figured, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Virginia, go to a gun show.

I thought I’d broaden my horizons a bit, but what I really, secretly wanted was to whip out my little video camera go rock some good Michael Moore action on my unwitting subjects. (see video below) I thought maybe I’d meet some real frothing-at-the-mouth, militia peddling nut jobs talking about the government slipping brainwashing drugs in the water supply, capture it all on video and put together an exposé so outrageous that no one would believe my stories until they watched the footage.

So I paid my six dollar entrance fee and walked past the hot dog vendor and into a not very big, slightly run down fairground building, ready to be morbidly shocked and appalled. But, alas, it just wasn’t meant to be. My maiden gun show turned out not to be all that crazy. In fact, if you replaced the military fatigues with North Face jackets, the ammo boxes with sleeves of Titleist Pro V1s and the sniper rifles with pitching wedges, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between this and any one of the golf expos I used to frequent. In both places, most of what you hear is people talking obsessively about the mind-numbingly dull minutiae of some product. Whether it’s club head speed or recoil, if it’s not your bag, it’s just not that interesting.

Also, it turns out I’m a bit of a wuss when it comes to trapping people into exposing their lunatic, anti-social tendencies in front of my probing video camera. Whatever you think about Michael Moore, you have to admit the guy’s got some balls. I ended up just sneaking my camera out a few times and taking some quick shots of the room, hoping nobody would notice (nobody did). This place was full of guns, after all. Probably best not to cause a scene.

I saw a few things that were a little nutty. A sign at the entrance noted that no loaded or concealed weapons were allowed. But then, of course, guns and ammo were being sold at every table, and a booth in the back was selling “The Ultimate Conceal Carry Holster.” Was this meant to be ironic? Maybe just good business. Like, if you want to have a loaded, concealed weapon inside the pavilion, you at least have to spend some cash. Speaking of which, guns are not cheap. Most of the regular-looking handguns were in the $500 to $750 range, and one of those Rambo-ass fully automatic sniper-looking things would set you back over two grand. I still can’t quite fathom what an upstanding, law abiding citizen would do with one of those things. It would be hard to have one of those in your hands and pull off the “I’m just a good ol’ hunter boy who learned to shoot from my dead grand papi” story with a straight face. Anyway, the crowd at the show was not what you’d call particularly affluent looking. And so, at the very least, I think most of the folks there would probably have to save up for a while before taking one of those babies home.

There was some pretty rich literature for sale. A whole assortment of books on protecting yourself in the event of a school / office / chain-restaurant-where-you’re-just-trying-to-enjoy-your-unlimited-bread-sticks shooting. A few pretty paranoid kinds of titles like “The Policeman is Your Friend and Other Lies.” Some things that were just weird, like “Sneak It Through: Smuggling Made Easier” and “Drink as Much as You Want and Live Longer” (not sure what this one has to do with guns, but I’d be interested in learning about that in any case). And a lot of books focusing on various levels of off-the-grid living. I learned a few good tips from some of the selections in this last category. Like figuring out what kind of RV would be best for my needs. And that mainstream society frowns upon gaps in your resume, which I know personally to be one hundred percent correct from several HR-types who almost died of ecstasy when they “exposed” the missing one year in my work history (my brief career at the bagel store). I realized that some of the gun nuts’ conspiracy theories are not all that different than my own. Mostly just a difference of opinion as to who we think The Man is. They seem to think it’s the government; I think it’s big corporations. You say tomato; I say tomato (how do you write that?).

So, all things told, my first gun show was a bit disappointing. The folks I encountered were, sadly, pretty ho hum looking. Maybe if I had worked a little harder, dug a little deeper, I would have exposed some of the wingnuts I was sure would be lurking around there. Maybe I exude such profound yuppiedom that, like what Eddie Murphy suspected when he dressed up as Mr. White, people knew not to say anything juicy to me. Or maybe I’ve got a ways to go to become the muckraker I aspire to be.

Here's the video:


Saturday, March 14, 2009

Democratic Discourse: Nuke Their Ass and Take Their Gas?


I was in northern Florida last week and saw a beat up old pickup truck go by with a bumper sticker that said “Nuke Their Ass; Take Their Gas” (don’t recall for sure whether there was actually a semicolon; my guess is no). Dang, I thought, that’s pretty harsh. In my native lands of Ithaca and Jamaica Plain, you’re more likely to come across bumper stickers of the “No-one is free when others are oppressed” or “If you love somebody, set them free. If they don’t come back, they were never yours” variety. Well, I guess each of us is entitled to our own opinion. And, in this democratic country we live in, we get one vote apiece. And that’s all good. Right? I think so. Still, Nuke Their Ass; Take Their Gas? Maybe I’m just thinking like one of those liberal elite types I keep hearing about, but man, is that really an opinion that should get as much consideration as my own?

First off, let me deconstruct the bumper sticker to be sure I’m correctly interpreting what this guy is advocating. Who exactly is it we should nuke and take their gas? Gas is what you find at a service station. Maybe this guy had some kind of beef with the night manager at the Pump-N-Go over on Elm and 22nd Street and just wants revenge? Maybe the night manager gave him the wrong change or looked at his girlfriend funny? If that’s the case, nuking the guy seems a little overkill. The whole town and all its residents would be obliterated. The earth in the surrounding hundred square miles would be radioactive for centuries. Seems like it would be easier to go shoot the gas station manager in the face with a shotgun or something. Or just give him an old-fashioned ass whooping. So that’s probably not it. I’ve got to assume then that “gas” is supposed to mean “oil” – the tasty-sounding “light, sweet, crude” whose trading price you always hear about – and that gas just rhymed better with ass (“Nuke Their Soil; Take Their Oil” comes across as a bit highbrow).

Assuming it’s oil we’re talking about, then who should be nuked? Alaska maybe? With its big pipeline and negative income tax? That sounds weird. You don’t usually hear even the most off the chart domestic whackjobs talking about dropping a nuclear bomb on their own country. Brazil? They have a lot of oil. I don’t know. That doesn’t sound right either. Everyone likes Brazilians. They’re just fun and musical and always dancing or laying around topless on the beach. I don’t think folks generally want to nuke them and take their oil. By process of elimination, that leaves the OPEC nations. I’m guessing that’s who bumper sticker guy is talking about. The Arab world does control a lot of oil, and they get a lot of press whenever oil is being discussed.

It is my hypothesis, therefore, that had I had the opportunity to engage in a dialog with the driver of the Nuke Their Ass; Take Their Gas truck, he would have articulated a proposed U.S. foreign policy paradigm whereby this country would drop nuclear warheads on the primary oil-producing nations in the middle east and, upon extermination of all inhabitants of the region, we would assert control over the land and expropriate any oil extracted thereafter.

I believe this strategy to be flawed. I am generally opposed to killing people and stealing. Just on principle alone, I don’t think we should take anyone’s oil, much less nuke them. I’ve even met people from middle eastern oil-producing countries. They were nice. I wouldn’t want them to be vaporized. Plus, there are some treaties out there that I learned about in a college international relations class – the names escape me at the moment – that I’m pretty sure would be violated by this kind of thing. There would probably be some ramifications, even with our allies, in the political realm. Distilled down its essence, you could summarize my opinion on this issue as: We Should Neither Nuke Their Ass Nor Take Their Gas.

So, the scene is set. There are two schools of thought. To nuke and take gas or not to nuke and take gas? How are we to resolve this difference of opinion, this interesting subject upon which reasonable people can disagree? In this country, we all get to vote. Our forefathers fought hard to give us the right to vote without a poll tax or a literacy test. And that’s the way it should be. You shouldn’t have to be rich or educated to have your opinion considered. But what about the unavoidable reality that money and education are powerful ingredients in having a broader understanding of the world? Should my opinion, based on a college education and on reading The Economist, that we should not bomb asses and take gas, carry more weight than a contrary opinion that is based solely on some kind of general feeling and maybe a little urging by Rush Limbaugh?

Maybe the answer is that, yes, everyone should get to weigh in equally, but that particularly extreme points of view will be mitigated by the relatively blunt instrument of electing a handful of individuals who are tasked with representing their constituents on a wide range of issues. Nuking a country is, I assume, one of those government actions that can’t be done without complying with a whole big set of protocols. So even if bumper sticker guy were able to organize all his friends and elect a guy running on the Nuke Their Ass; Take Their Gas platform into office, that rep would still have to do some maneuvering through the political channels.

Or maybe, even before the issue made it up into the ranks of elected officials, our difference of opinion could be hashed out in a dialogue. If there were something inherently better about my Neither Nuke Ass Nor Steal Gas platform, I should be able to state my argument and convince a rational individual in the competing camp of its superiority. Having emerged from the marketplace of ideas as the more worthy philosophy, such philosophy will be even stronger yet, tested and proven to all. And the newly enlightened convert will be able to proceed on his way and disseminate the idea to even more people.

OK, never mind all the intellectual angst. I guess it’s all good. I think I’m on the right side of this issue. And I’ll rest better knowing that my more worthy opinion on this subject will, in the end, prevail. And next time I see a big scummy mean-looking dude with an offensive bumper sticker, I’ll make sure to flag him down and engage him in a principled discussion of the merits of our respective points of view – a battle of the minds, a stimulating intellectual discourse.

Hmm. Or maybe I should just keep on driving.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Yes, I Am Ready For Full-Service Living



I was driving past a big not-quite-completed building in Boston’s très chic South End last year when a sign on the construction fence caught my attention. It said “Are You Ready For Full-Service Living?” If so, you were supposed to check out the developer’s web site or “call now for details.” I reflected for a moment and thought, well, hmm, yes actually, now that you mention it, I am in fact ready for Full-Service Living. The ad turned out to be for a very fancy residential development. Full-Service Living for yuppies, apparently, at what was a substantially higher price point than my current means (or future prospects, in all likelihood) could support. So Full-Service Living in the South End wasn’t going to work out. But the seed had been planted. I had to figure out a way. Then, an obvious solution: maybe I could move into an old age home. Geriatric facilities are all about Full-Service Living. I’d just need to figure out how, as a 35 year-old, I could make that work.

First, a few clarifications in my defense. Just because I want to move into an old folks home at the age of 35 doesn’t mean I am lazy or lacking in ambition. I just feel that the pace of things at a convalescent facility very closely mirrors the simpler, slower-paced kind of existence I’ve been striving for. Kind of a Zen thing. Life in a modern city is too fast and materialistic. Too often, we multi-task away the ability to appreciate life’s simple pleasures, like a slow walk in a park, or soup. Old people don’t generally have much of a choice but to slow down. Slow is the default pace when a broken hip is lurking around every corner. So, while you can always try to find moments of tranquility in the zip zap hubbub of the electronic world, it seems like it would be a lot easier when everyone surrounding you was shuffling around at a few thousand RPMs slower.

I envision a typical day of Full-Service Living as looking something like this: wake up with the sunrise, stand on balcony looking at birds, be served oatmeal, attend guided, in-chair stretching class, nap, be served soup, bus trip to a park, nap, read newspaper, be served more soup, crossword puzzle, go to sleep at sunset. All much more in tune with humankind’s natural rhythm. And I think most retirement homes offer maid services and on-site dry-cleaning too. Some may even have turn-down service, but I could do without that.

Also, mind you, I’m not talking about being a freeloader here. I know that the typical convalescent home resident doesn’t move in until after having toiled away in the working world for half a century or so, and probably has some sense of having earned the right to be pushed around in a wheelchair by a young nurse and to have another person cut his food. As consideration for what some may view as my “unconventional” status as a geriatric resident, I would be willing to take on more responsibilities than those of the typical resident. Perhaps I could lead the stretching class, or maybe drive the bus to the park. I suppose I could even import some of the skills from my prior life and spend a few hours per week offering pro bono estate planning services or, if anyone were interested, giving funk bass lessons.

I would hope that other residents would be accepting of me, but I would understand if there were some degree of resentment, some feeling that I was a “lazy degenerate” or some kind of “sociopath who couldn’t fit in with the rest of normal society.” Maybe the gents would resent my catching the attention of some of the choicest elderly ladies. I know that every group has its own particular pecking order and turf wars. If necessary, I could embellish my age a bit. Tell people that I was 89 years old. Have good skin because I always wore sunscreen and because people from my country (some made up place that sounded familiar enough that nobody would call me on it, maybe Tribecastan or something) tend to age exceptionally well. I could probably play the part well enough too. I do genuinely hate winter more every year and have started to notice that kids today are just not as respectful as they used to be. And, though I certainly hope it would never come to this, if some resident just had to be all up in my business and couldn’t step off, chances are I could probably take him.

I recognize that I may not have reached the age yet where falling asleep at the table or being a pervert are excused as cute, but I still feel that I could transition nicely into the geriatric realm, a more economical means of Full-Service Living. Being young is just a state of mind. I am old and crotchety beyond my years, and that’s what counts.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Dispositional Forecast – Rising Levels of Global Humility

I’m generally an optimist and so have been trying to keep an eye out for some of the upsides to the giant toilet flush that is today’s global economy. Not a whole lot to work with, but here’s one: I predict, for the foreseeable future, rising levels of global humility.

Humility – that intangible inclination to suspect that one’s successes are caused less by individual actions than by larger forces out there in the universe – is a good thing. And just a tiny little bit (one part per million?) goes a long way. Wouldn’t the world be nicer if we could all unleash a bit of our inner Yoda / Dali Lama and be just one notch less sure that we Have It All Figured Out?

Fortunately, I have reason to believe that the aggregate global humility level moves in direct, inverse proportion to the Dow Jones Industrial Average. And so, as the markets continue to plummet, I predict that that humility will rise to levels not seen since the Great Depression. All populations will be affected, in particular those that have historically been in the very the lowest quadrant of humility – the masters of the universe, financial titan types. So we’ve got that going for us, which (speaking of the Dali Lama) is nice. There’s probably a scientific way to measure individual humility levels – some kind of blood test or airport security-like scanning booth – but a loose, Justice-Potter-Stewart-looking-at-pornography approach (“I know it when I see it”) is usually quite accurate. One quick look at a person’s gait / posture / cock of the eyebrow can tell you how on top of the word he thinks he is.

The scientific explanation for macro-level shifts in humility has to do with internal versus external attribution of, respectively, good times and bad times. When good things happen, we think we’re the cause – the captain of the ship in full command of the seas. What Mollie Ivins said about George W. Bush, that “he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple,” could apply to just about anyone when things are all working out swimmingly. And when bad things happen, it’s crystal clear that bad weather or bad timing or an asshole brother-in-law are somehow to blame. When things go south, we’re just a cork being tossed around in the ocean. And all of this is nothing but natural. It’s the product of our hard wiring, smartly engineered to keep us from crawling back into bed every time the sun comes up in this tumultuous world.

What’s nice about humility is that it opens the door to inquiry and exploration. If you think that larger external forces have led to you where you are, you’re more apt to want to learn about those forces – the plate tectonics that heaved your hemisphere into an area with predictable annual rainfall, which caused big populations to stay put and form farms and then cities, which led to industrialization and specialization, which paved the way for a stable government and higher education and strong currencies – and all the other bricks in the pyramid upon which you found yourself perched upon exiting the womb. Without an awareness of all of those forces, with you yourself being front and center, ground zero of personal accomplishment, there’s no reason to look any further than your own self for an explanation of how you got to where you are. And then, of course, you’ve got to educate the world about the exalted path you took. And really, who wants to hear about all that? I bet, at some point over the course of his long life, Yoda “swung through Chicago and picked up his MBA” (exact words, I swear, used by a lecturer I heard at a continuing legal education seminar, describing his bio), but just chooses to focus on the bigger picture when approached for advice by the Luke Skywalkers of the world. Notwithstanding the fat autobiography advances ladled upon the likes of Jack Welch, Steve Jobs or Donald Trump, it’s usually just a lot more interesting to learn about the world outside than one guy’s individual road to becoming king.


All of that being said, let me now tell you about what I am going to do, and what you should do too, to achieve fame and fortune in the very short term. If you see a trend that is about to snowball, you have to capitalize on it (says Louis Winthorpe III to Coleman in Trading Places, “Pork bellies… I have a hunch something exciting is going to happen in the pork belly market this morning”). Humility clearly being the next blockbuster about to arrive on the scene, I just need to figure out a way to securitize it, slice it and dice it, package it up nicely and sell it on the market. SMUG now trading on the NASDAQ. It’s no more abstract, and probably a lot more sustainable, than a lot of the mortgage-backed products that everyone was clamoring to fold into their 401(k)s until the end of the last year. Humility futures are going to be a good, solid, counter-cyclical product offering a robust return on investment! This is an opportunity you do not want to miss! Supplies are limited! Call now to get in on the ground floor (prospectus and schedule of broker fees provided upon request)!

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Saab Story 2009 – General Motors and Dan Enter into Talks Regarding Fate of Automotive Icon


I thought I was pretty smart late last year when I very skillfully bullied a Saab salesman into a great deal on a shiny new black 9-3. I knew that Saab had sold something like twenty cars in 2008 and figured that, instead of continuing to lease a car like I had done for almost the past decade, I’d buy a new car outright for a scandalously low price. The salesman ultimately buckled, but he also must have somehow forgotten to mention that Saab was on its very last leg and that its owner, General Motors, was about to leave the company as roadkill along the side of the highway.

GM announced last week that its Saab division filed for bankruptcy in Sweden and that, if it can’t find a buyer for the division in the next few months, it is going to let the brand die. Now, I have this nice new car that’s going to be extinct before it hits 10,000 miles, which, of course, left me in a bit of a predicament. I figured my options were to either buy two or three more new Saabs to use for parts once the company is gone or try to sell the car for some small fraction of what I just paid a few months ago. But then I realized that this was all small-minded, inside-the-box thinking and that a much bigger and better solution was staring me right in the face: buy Saab myself. Not the car, the company.

I thought at first I could probably have Saab for free. The division has been losing money almost since GM bought it 20 years ago, and I assume it’s all saddled with debt. GM thinks otherwise. It’s trying to get $500 million for the division. They first approached the Swedish government, the original owner of the company, and, in effect, asked them to buy it back. Understand that GM has completely and utterly destroyed Saab. It ruined the brand so effectively that I have to assume that, for reasons beyond my comprehension, GM had some kind of mandate to kill Saab. GM’s approaching Sweden to see if they were interested in buying Saab back is the corporate equivalent of a teen-ager buying a used car, wrapping it around a telephone pole, and then asking the seller if he wants to buy the wrecked car back for more than he sold it for. Not surprisingly, Sweden told GM to go kneppa dej sjelv (loose translation – “goo fooken derself”).

So $500 million may be optimistic. I’m ready to sit down at the table and talk about some options. If I could talk GM down to, say, $100 million and get them to waive the dealer, courtesy, delivery, registration and transport fees, I think I could probably make that work. I could put the purchase price on my new American Express Gold Card, which supposedly has no spending limit and can be paid down over time. I get points on that card too, so, if nothing else, I should be good on free plane tickets for the next little while. So then what will I do with Saab once I own it? Well, I don’t know. But really, that’s beside the point. If I can make a few bucks for myself and a few selected friends and not leave the company and its employees any worse off than they are now, the whole endeavor will be a success.

Let’s address the second point first – the automotive equivalent of a doctor’s oath to “do no harm.” As mentioned, the Saab brand is about one single heartbeat away from dead. GM managed to very adeptly transform the cars produced by Saab from quirky and distinct to mundane and utterly interchangeable with almost any other mid-sized sedan on the road. Saab used to have a devoted following in the U.S. of over-educated northerners – hippy-types who, by the time they had driven their first Saab into the ground, had gotten a good job and were ready to buy another one. A few recent last ditch efforts at expanding Saab’s market were so desperate as to be downright embarrassing. Witness the “Saabaru” – a Subaru Impreza with no modifications whatsoever other than a Saab logo slapped onto the steering wheel and the front of the grill. Or the 9-7 truck – a Chevy Trailblazer whose brilliant Saab-style innovation consisted of moving the ignition down to the floor in-between the front seats, and that’s it. The new 9-3 (the dream car I so insightfully snatched up) is built on a Chevy Malibu platform and has a weird Frankensteinish hodgepodge of GM and Saab buttons mixed together in the interior. It’s an exercise in bland imagination and group-think design-by-committee. And sales have reflected this. Aside from me and one other guy I saw in a new 9-3 a few weeks ago, no-one is buying these cars. So, in terms of the integrity of the brand itself, there is just nowhere to go but up. The company is about to be put through the bankruptcy wringer, which means that all pensions owed and obligations payable to suppliers will likely be wiped clean. So, no harm there in me having a go at it.

As for having the wherewithal to run a major automotive corporation, well, I got an A- in driver’s ed in high school, I can name the make and model of a car just by looking at its headlights in the dark, and I can talk about core competencies and synergies and shareholder value with the best of them. Pretty impressive resume, I’d say. So I think I could pull off the whole CEO thing. Who knows what the new new thing will be? A more clever tag line? A slightly more exciting design? Some inkling of an effort to make a car that has some single distinguishing feature? Whatever that elusive thing that may sell a few cars is, I figure I have as good a shot as anyone at stumbling upon it. And in the meantime, by taking a very reasonable seven figure salary and continuing to live my modest lifestyle, I should be able to save up enough over the course of a few years to retire comfortably around the age of forty. I’ll need to grow the executive team, of course, and will be accepting applications soon. Positions will include CFO, COO, Chief Marketing Officer and a handful of executive VPs. I’ll be looking to fill these positions with the kind of people who are fun to spend time with in a corporate jet – funny, good story-tellers, know a lot of jokes, work-hard-play-hard types. And I suppose some sort of experience in the auto industry, or any industry, would be good. Send a resume and cover letter if interested. No photos please.

We’ll see how GM’s continued talks go with Sweden. If they don’t work out and no other big automotive player steps up to the plate, keep an eye out for me wearing a stylish Saab leather jacket and hawking my new and improved line of cars. I bet if I buy the company, I can even get them to throw in a free set of floor mats.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Dude..., Inc. Self-Delusion Mitigation Services


My friend Matt recently told me why he thinks so many CEOs have gotten so out of touch with reality. His theory: they're always surrounded by yes-men and never have a chance to hear anything contrary to what they think. His solution: hire someone to come in and tell them the cold, hard truth about what people are saying. And who would that someone be? Matt himself, an independent Self-Delusion Mitigation Consultant. Brilliant! I loved the idea and immediately signed on to be a member of the team. Then we got to thinking, wait, it's not just CEOs. Just about everyone in the world is self-delusional. Why not make our services available to everyone?

So, we are pleased to announce the creation of our new company - Dude..., Inc. Self-Delusion Mitigation Services. Please click on the following two links to view a detailed brochure about our company and our business card:




Call now for an appointment! Available times are sure to fill up fast.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Noise Pollution in Four Parts: Death to the Car Alarm

My first order of business when I am anointed King will be to ban car alarms. Car alarms have evolved to create a kind of noise pollution unprecedented in the history of mankind while, at the same time, serving no purpose whatsoever. Here is my understanding of how we got here and my proposed solution.

When car alarms first showed up on the scene, circa 1980, they just honked the horn and flashed the headlights. There was no auto shut-off feature so, however annoying the noise was, at least, after a while, the car battery would drain and the horn would stop. There would even be a bit of cosmic justice when the car owner came back and couldn’t start his car. Since then, the car alarm sound has evolved into a virtual symphony of noise pollution. The current version, sometimes referred to as the “[Insert name of your school located in bad neighborhood here] fight song,” has four looping verses: European police car; air raid siren; high voltage buzz; and ambulance. This medley has become so well known that it’s even sung, with four groups, as part of a college drinking game. In case you’ve been hiking the Appalachian Trail for the past decade and are not familiar with it, here is a recording:


The Original Car Alarm Creation Story – Old Testament

The original theory of how car alarms would work was something like this: grand theft auto guy attempts to force open door of upstanding citizen’s car; alarm sounds; people within ear-shot stop what they are doing; burglar freezes in tracks; Upstanding Citizen A runs to scene of averted crime, pins stunned burglar to ground while Upstanding Citizen B notifies constable; constable arrives, apprehends subject; subject is incarcerated; all are given keys to city; crime rate plummets; more young families move to town; SAT scores rise; quality of life skyrockets. This scenario played out as planned approximately once in the 29 years that followed. And then, for whatever reason, people seemed to lose interest. I noticed this a few years ago when I was having dinner at an outdoor cafe in Cambridge. It was a nice summer evening and the street was packed with strolling pedestrians. I heard a buzzing, screeching car alarm, getting louder and louder. I looked up and saw that a car was driving slowly down the street with the alarm screaming. Everyone on the street pointed and laughed. “Ha! Check it out! The alarm on that car is going off. Bwah Hah Hah!” For all we knew, the guy driving the car actually was stealing it. Just driving right down a busy street, smiling, waiving at the friendly passers-by on his way to the chop shop. Felt like the end of an era.

Car Alarm Creation Story, Take 2 – New Testament

Why do car alarms still exist so long after it has become clear that people do not pay one single iota of attention to them? Perhaps because of the “better you than me” theory. Adherents to this school of thought believe that if having a car alarm makes stealing their car just a teensy weensy little bit more difficult or risky than stealing the next car over in the parking lot, then Car Thief, having conducted a quick cost / benefit analysis, will opt in favor of boosting the other car instead of their car. The problem with this theory is that it underestimates just how spectacularly easy it is to circumvent a car alarm. Notwithstanding all the revolutionary breakthroughs in car alarm technology, being able to get into a car that is not yours and drive off with it without a key is the car thief equivalent of having a second grade education. It has been years since criminal social Darwinism has eliminated all car thieves who were so grossly incompetent as to set off an alarm. They’ve all moved on to other realms, like getting masters degrees or becoming substitute teachers.

Alternatives

Car alarms as we know them serve no purpose whatsoever, other than to increase the level of global irritation. But isn’t there some technological advancement that can help prevent auto theft? South Africans have a pretty effective system. Their car alarms supplement obnoxious noises with near lethal electric shocks. Come too close to a car that’s not yours and you get laid out by a jolt that is one volt short of what it takes to kill a grown man. Effective in deterring thieves? Absolutely. Compliant with the United States Constitution and the Geneva Convention? Doubtful. Our whole American hang-up about things like “egregious human rights violations” and “capital punishment without a trial” will always stand in the way of a really effective theft deterrence system. Also, you have to be careful what you wish for, since 99.999999992% of car alarm triggerings are caused by the owner of the car. There are some GPS tracking systems like Lo-Jack and OnStar that, at the very least, let you find out where your already-stolen car is. For a monthly fee, a friendly operator from one of those companies can confirm the exact time that your car crossed over into Mexico or the precise spot at the bottom of the reservoir at the old quarry where your car can currently be found. Maybe not the most useful variety of peace-of-mind, but I suppose it helps if you’re the type who requires “closure” and such.

The Solution

I am positive that, with one simple adjustment to property law, car alarms will become, within about a week, a relic of the past. The statutory adjustment – an exception to the general rule that a person may not destroy another’s property – would read something like this: “During such time as a vehicle’s audible theft deterrence system is actively engaged, any individual may make physical contact with such vehicle, provided that any damage resulting from such contact shall not exceed $5,000 per individual.” Translation: anyone who walks by your car while the alarm is going off can do exactly what he naturally wants to do – key your door, slash your tire, crack your taillight. If, after a quick shopping excursion, you were to return to the parking lot to find that your car had been completely demolished, you’d think, “hmm, alarm must have gone off” and then, probably, “hmm, oughta maybe disable that thing.” And just like that, problem solved. Three decades of irritation-by-design irrevocably reversed.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Why the Talking E*Trade Babies Have Shaken My Faith in Free Market Economics

Everything was just about right while I was watching the Superbowl last Sunday. I had a cold beer and a juicy burger in front of me, unobstructed views of half a dozen huge flat screen TVs, and the game itself was unfolding as one of the most exciting ever. But something felt strange. Then I figured out what it was. It was those talking babies from the E*Trade ad. Somehow, they had managed to shake my whole faith in free market economics.



Economic theory has evolved slightly in the past few decades to recognize that human beings are human beings. Still, however, a fundamental underpinning of almost all economic thought is the assumption that people are logical, rational actors, defining their goals clearly and determining how most efficiently to achieve them by weighing each morsel of information without bias or emotion. Modern advertising in general, and hip-talking , day-trader-services-hawking babies in particular, are hard to reconcile with the rational actor view. The effectiveness of an ad makes sense relative to rational actors to the extent that the ad presents facts and demonstrates how some service or object is different from, or better than, others. Facts educate rational actors such that their cold calculations become more informed and, in effect, lead to decisions that more efficiently achieve the person's stated goals. But, of course, most modern ads don’t really present any information at all. Just images. And, while that makes sense if what is being sold is itself just an image-enhancer – radical shoes, extreme soda, sexy cologne – the reason for the effectiveness of the ad becomes a lot more murky when the value of the product stems from some other supposed utility. You would think that, when shopping for insurance – about as unsexy, non-image-based a product as you can imagine – a person wouldn’t pay any attention to an ad that wasn’t providing real information about the nature of the coverage. But, enter the talking Aflac duck. His steady march into the most expensive prime time ad spaces are proof positive that something else is going on.

Getting back to the talking E*Trade babies, it's true, they’re funny damn dudes. I’ve always liked the original baby (says into cell phone "yo I'm in the middle of something; can I hit you back later"). C'mon, that's funny. He's a baby. He has a cell phone. He talks. And he sounds a lot cooler than me. When the second baby showed up on the scene during this year’s Superbowl, it was even better. How could you not think an infant who's into Mr. Mister, singing "Broken Wings," is hilarious? How does an infant even come across such a cheesy '80s tune? Whatever happened to Mr. Mister anyway? So that's all fine. Good all-American entertainment.

But stop for a second and remember exactly what it is E*Trade is selling. Day trading services! What you use to buy and sell stock! Stock – the equity ownership interest in a company you have rationally determined will outperform the expectations of all other rational investors in the world! When everyone was so gung-ho about privatizing the country's pension plans, about individuals taking back control over their retirement, places like E*Trade were exactly where they were supposed to turn. Do it yourself. Make your own decisions. Stop subsidizing snobby brokers who like to think that they know more than you about stock just because they have MBAs and have been working in the finance industry for 30 years. Everyone has read at one point or another that Warren Buffet drives a pick-up truck and bases all of his investment decisions on his own self-taught, aw-shucks, common sense wisdom. If you just keep a watchful eye on what products your wife has been bringing home from the corner store, it's just a matter of time before you’ll have your very own un-assuming ten billion dollars.

I cannot think of a more black and white demonstration that human beings are not rational economic beings than the fact that people are switching day trading services because of a baby singing a Mr. Mister tune. The talking baby ads obviously work. And, as every rational actor worshiping economist must surely agree, those who base investment decisions on emotional factors such as, for example, babies singing Mr. Mister tunes, are not acting in their rational best interests and should be removed from the economic decision-making process. In the case of E*Trade, there is a simple way to ferret out these hysterical corrupters of the market. One of the required fields in the on-line subscription application would be "how did you hear about E*Trade?" If a person chose the "from the talking baby Superbowl ad" option, his computer would snap into market corrupter lock-down mode – BUZZ! BUZZ! ALERT! ALERT! FINANCIAL DECISION ABOUT TO BE MADE ON BASIS OF INFANT SINGING MR. MISTER TUNE! BUZZ! ALERT! – and notice would be sent to the SEC and all other appropriate regulatory agencies. Having exposed himself as a slave to emotion, the narrowly averted investor-to-be would obviously be banned from trading stock. But all of the his other economic decisions - whether to buy that additional bobblehead / ringtone / Ginsu knife that cuts through aluminum cans – would have to be questioned as well. All personal economic decision-making power would have to be transferred to some other more rational person whose judgment was not skewed by emotion.

I guess then we would have to figure out who that other person would be. It could be me, I suppose. I know for sure that advertising has no impact on me. I'm able to see 120,000 advertising images every hour (or whatever the current statistic is) without being at all affected; it's just all the other human beings in the world that are so easily manipulated. On the other hand, other people might say the same thing. Advertisers would beg to differ. They would probably do some kind of demonstration where they ask me three questions and then rattle off, within a 0.0000002% margin of error, the kind of breakfast cereal I ate this morning, what brand of shaving cream I use and how many no-whip Frappuccinos I've drunk in the past six weeks.

So then that would mean that we are all capable of being manipulated and that people out there are seizing on that fact to make us spend our dollars in ways they want, while at the same time, thinking we've made the decision ourselves? Well that doesn't seem right. That would mean that the whole market economy might not be democratic and that we’re not actually each in control of our own destiny and that.... Hmm. Just too much to handle. Better just let this one be. At least those babies were funny. There was the one that was singing a Mr. Mister song. Huh huh.