PHILOSOFICKLE

Storytime

2011-11-04T14:48:00.002-04:00

Back when I was doing that writing competition thing I wrote a story called Martyr. The challenge was taken from Machine of Death. Basically, the idea is that the story had to take place in a world where people took a blood test and found out how they would die (but just how, not when, etc.). I then submitted my story to the publishers of the Machine of Death anthology, who were taking submissions. I didn't make the cut (30 or so out of nearly 2000 submissions made it... so, not exactly a surprise). But I finally found out, after a long wait, so now, to celebrate my first writing-related rejection letter (so very, very many other rejection letters), I'm posting the story here. Hope you enjoy!

MARTYR

The man looked more human in the gray morning rain, still and cold. In life he had been more voice than person, an idea standing on the park corner, shouting for all to hear. Davis had passed him every day, once on the way to work, once on the way home.

“Isaiah says ‘The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart!’ Listen to the dead! They speak truths!”

The detective tried to ignore him. Something – the voice, the idea – had made him uncomfortable, scared him even. Some folks got really into the death cards. Others, like the street preacher, tried to fight the inevitable. Folks could think what they wanted. It didn’t matter much to Davis, the cards were never wrong and they made his job easier on the good days.

This wasn’t a good day. The preacher lay dead on the sidewalk, his steel blue eyes reflecting back the sympathy that rushed from the detective. Davis had only ever seen the caricature before. The tattered brown cloak, the wide brimmed black hat, he stood on his little wooden box, reading scriptures, sun or rain. Now, for the first time, Davis saw the man. His face was worn and tired. He hadn’t been scary; he had been frail. Davis reached down, saying a quick prayer as he closed the man’s eyes. It was the only time he ever prayed, standing over a body.

“Davis!”

The detective jumped.

“Davis, you S.O.B., I haven’t seen you in a year!” A tall, skinny man with an impossibly large grin walked toward the detective.
“Collison. How you been?” The two shook hands.

“Not bad, not bad, not bad. They didn’t put you on this case, did they? What’d you do, knock up the mayor’s daughter?”

“I hear someone beat me to it. Congrats.”
“Thanks man. We’re baptizing next week, you wanna come?”

“That’s not really my… we’ll see.”

“So seriously, are they putting you on this one?” continued Collison.
“Nah, I’m just on my way in.”

“You hit the crime scene before the office? That’s a sign. Go back to bed.”

“I dunno.” Davis paused, then, tugging slightly on Collison’s elbow with a finger, lowered his tone, “What are you looking at here?”
Collison checked his periphery before responding. “Whoever did it had it planned. And they left a death card.”

“What did it say?”
“Martyr.”

----------------------------------

A few days later, Davis still hadn’t gotten the preacher out of his mind. He seemed so much taller when he’d been shouting those verses. The box. Had to be the box. Still, Davis figured he’d better look into it. He made sure to run into Collison the next morning.

“Been working a finger print from the scene. He had a prayer book from St. Patrick’s Cathedral; prayers for the dead. Eerie, right? The print belongs to a guy named Manthey. William Manthey.”

“Anything on else on the martyr card?”

“That had a print too. Jolene Beck. Deceased.”

“Thanks.”

“Do you know what the word martyr originally meant?”

“I figured it was someone who died for their faith.”

“Nope. Originally it meant ‘witness.’ Christians took it that next step, said by dying for your beliefs you testified to the truth of your faith.”

“So did the martyr card belong to the preacher?

“Low priority on John Does, so no results yet.”

“Yeah, I get it. Thanks.”

-----------------------------------

Manthey’s offices weren’t far. They took up most of the 62^nd floor, and Davis waited, staring out through the thin fog to the ground below. Manthey stepped out to greet him. He was a large, robust man.

“Mr. Davis?”

“Detective.”

“Up so high,” Davis mused, turning his head towards Manthey, “you’re quite removed.”

“Sometimes a little perspective is needed, if you’re going to save mankind.” Manthey paused as Davis moved from the window, “And sometimes you need to reach them more directly. Shall we step into my office?”

The office was crisp, with cherry décor and a desk befitting a man of Manthey’s stature. They sat in two leather couches, away from the desk.

“What can I do for you detective?”
“We found your print at a crime scene.”

“Oh?”

“A street preacher.”

“And you think I did it?”
“No. We’re just looking for an explanation. They found a prayer book from a nearby church. Had your print on it.”
“I go to church from time to time. Sometimes I use the prayer books they have there. I leave them in the church when I go. He must have taken one that I used.”

“Probably. Sorry to bother you. Just checking out a lead.”
“I understand. Let me walk you out.” The two men stood up and shook hands. Back in the lobby the fog outside the windows had grown thicker. Davis couldn’t see to the ground below, but something jogged in his memory.

“Say, what is it you do here? You mentioned saving mankind.”

“Healthcare. Medical devices, mostly.”
“I see. It must pay pretty well.”

“This?” He gestured to the sweeping office space, “No, this is all the product of good fortune. I worked with the inventors of the Death Machine. Ground floor, so to speak. I was just in the right place at the right time.”

“Better lucky than good, huh?”

-------------------------------------

Davis wondered if it could be a coincidence: one of the Death Machine founders and a man who preached against them? They had to be connected. Manthey must have been protecting his investment by silencing opposition. Hard to pin it on him though.

Davis hailed a cab across town. He was going to check out Ms. Beck’s tombstone, though what she could tell him he really didn’t know. It was one of those old grave yards – for the old families – and still divided by parish. One area was set aside for the Episcopals from St. John’s, one for those from St. Matthew’s, one area for the Methodists, another for the First Presbyterians. There was just one other pair of mourners in the cemetery; St. Matthew’s flock.

Jolene Beck was buried in the Catholic part of the cemetery: St. Patrick’s. Davis’ radar pinged. It was a nice stone, and well kept. “Beloved wife. The Lord’s faithful servant.” Sounded holy. Davis said a prayer. This was a busy week for him and God. The flowers at the stone were no more than a few days old. Davis saw a chapel at the end of the yard, and made his way inside. He flipped through the guest book, almost absent-mindedly. There it was. Three days ago. Jolene Beck had a visitor the day after the murder. William Manthey, husband.

---------------------

“Davis, you can’t question him again. He’s lawyered up.”

“Collison, he killed the man!”
“You can’t prove it.”
“His print’s on the prayer book. His wife’s print is on the martyr card. He visited the grave the day after the murder. And now you tell me she was a murdered too? It’s no coincidence.”

“You spooked him when you started asking questions. You shouldn’t have been up there. Let me take this. We’ve got some time. He’s still a John Doe, no friends or family pushing us for an arrest.”

“A life’s a life.”

“I know, I know, I know. Now will you let me do my job?”

“Fine. What can you tell me?”
“John Doe’s card came back.”

“Martyr?”

“Nope. Homicide.”

“Strange.”
“Yeah. Don’t worry about this, man. I got it.”

---------------------

Davis decided to stake out St. Patrick’s anyway. Collison was good at his job, but Davis wanted answers. He didn’t have to wait long. Turned out Manthey visited the church a couple times a week. It was Davis’ lucky day, and he followed Manthey in.

The church was lit distantly, casting shadows across the cavernous room. Directly in front of Davis on the altar shone a crucifix, the only illuminated object in the church, a beacon for believers. Davis genuflected reflexively, his Catholic childhood pouring back over him. From the corner of his eye he saw Manthey duck into a side chapel, and his moment of relapsing faith evaporated as he tracked down his target.

“Detective?”
“Tell me what happened.”
“I’ve got an attorney.”

“I’m not here on business.”

“Pleasure then?”

“I just need to know.”

“Are you a man of faith, Detective?”
“There was a time.”

“Walk with me.”

The two men stepped out a side door and into a narrow hallway. As they walked, Manthey continued.

“You realize that none of this is admissible.”
“Don’t worry. No one’s looking out for John Doe anyway.”

“Timothy. His name was Timothy Vinson.”

“Who was he?”
“A friend of Jolene’s. They were in the same bible study. My wife was very devout. I was always lukewarm with religion, but she was a true Catholic. She told me the Death Machine was a bad idea. I fought to convince her otherwise. I never got anywhere. Then one day, Timothy sits her down and asks about what I do. Suddenly, she’s interested.”

The two men turned a corner and continued moving away from the main sanctuary. Manthey kept talking.

“‘How does it work?’ she asks. I tell her we don’t know, it just does. ‘Can it test people who are already dead?’ she wants to know. I tell her it works on everyone, living or dead. ‘What about things that aren’t blood?’ I tell her the only thing it works on is blood. Everything else just comes back negative. On and on she goes with the questions. Finally she asks me if she can test someone. So I say sure and set it up for her. Why not let her test?”

Manthey hooked a swift right. Davis was able to make out a door at the end of the darkened hallway, with a soft glow of light from underneath.

“The problem was, she didn’t test someone,” Manthey continued, putting an emphasis on the last syllable, “At least, not in the traditional sense.”
“Then who did she test?” Davis’ voice had an apprehensive creak to it. They reached the end of the hallway and Manthey put his hand to the heavy oak door, swinging it inward.

“She tested Jesus.”

The men stood in a small sacristy where a priest in white robes huddled over a counter. He looked up and smiled.
“Who’s your friend Will?”

“Detective Davis,” answered Manthey. He stepped over to where the priest was working and snared a small vial. He held it up for Davis to see.

“This is what she tested. The wine. It should have come back negative, but it didn’t. First non-blood sample that ever produced a card. It said crucifixion. You know about transubstantiation? It was Jesus’ blood. I don’t expect you to believe me. I didn’t believe either. But we’ve tested it again and again. And every time we test the wine, every single time, no matter what church it comes from, the machine says ‘crucifixion.’ Faith isn’t so hard to find when the answer is printed on a card. Father will give you the wine. You take it yourself to be tested.”
“You can’t be serious.”
“I am.”

The priest stepped toward the detective, vial in hand. He held it up, and looked Davis unflinchingly in the eye.

“The blood of Christ.”
“We’ll see.”

“The blood of Christ.”

“Amen father. Amen.” Davis stood there, vial in hand, dumbstruck by what he’d heard. Manthey took a few more vials from the priest, and the two men exited the room.

Back in the dark hallway, Manthey picked up the story again.

“After the results, Jolene thought the machine was a tool from God. She wanted to tell the world. She thought it would bring people to Jesus. I wasn’t so sure. She had resisted the machine at first, but now she was the biggest supporter you could find. Until she got her own death card.” Manthey paused. There was an emotion in his voice that had been absent through much of his narration.

“What did the card say?” pushed Davis, already knowing the answer.

“It said martyr.”

“So what happened? How did she die?”

“Timothy. He killed her. He killed her.” Tears welled in Manthey’s eyes. “When she got her card back, she was afraid. She didn’t want to die a martyr. That word means different things to different people. Jolene thought it meant she would suffer, and she was afraid.” Manthey pulled a handkerchief from the breast pocket of his suit and wiped away a tear.

“What did Timothy say about it?” asked Davis.

“He said a martyr was someone who brought others to Christ through their death. He wanted her to die. For the church. So he forced the issue.”

By this point the two of them had reached the outer doors. They pushed their way through and stood in the church yard, beneath the bell tower.

“The problem was, he didn’t kill her for her faith. They believed the same things. When he killed her it meant she wasn’t a martyr. But the machine is never wrong. So I blackmailed him. Maybe Timothy was right about what it meant to be a martyr. Maybe it meant bringing others to Christ. Her death had to lead to conversion, in order for the card to be right. That’s why he was on the sidewalk. He was finishing her mission.”
“So why kill him?”
“I didn’t.”

“Then who did?”

Manthey nodded back towards the sacristy.

“But why?”

“It wasn’t working. People thought he was a lunatic. Three years standing out there and not a single soul stopped to talk to him. There were no conversions. Jolene wasn’t a martyr. The card was wrong. And if Jolene’s card was wrong…”

Davis finished the thought, “Then so was Jesus’ card.”

It all made sense. The priest wanted to keep the faith.

“I can’t explain it,” said Manthey, “The machine has never been wrong. I have to believe something divine is happening. I’ve got faith; I just don’t know what to believe.”

“The wine really says crucifixion?”

“Every time.”

-----------------------------

A few weeks later, when the case was pushed to the bottom of Collison’s desk and Davis had willed himself to let the preacher go, the results arrived, almost unexpectedly, in the mail. There they were, plain as day. One card – the wine – said “Crucifixion.” The other card - his blood – read “Martyr.” Davis sat for a moment, stunned not by the words on the cards, but by his lack of surprise. Then, grabbing his coat, he headed for the door.

“Hey Davis!” called his friend, “Where you going?”
“I’m going to church. You want to come?”

“Church in the middle of the day? Didn’t think you were a man of faith.”

Davis laughed, “What can I say? I believe.”
“Amen.” Collison smiled his impossible grin. “Let me get my coat.”

Tethered

2011-10-15T01:27:00.004-04:00

Last weekend the starter on my car broke down. My dad drove the 2 hours down, part in hand, and fixed the car for me in the Walgreen's parking lot. I have the greatest family. I am so glad that we moved back to Minnesota, to be nearer to them. I honestly don't know what we'd do without them. That's especially true now.

When she was born, my daughter had a small bump on her backside that looked kind of funny. It was a concerning spot, since it was right on the lower part of her spine. The doctors decided to do an ultrasound there in the hospital, and had to consult with an expert from a different hospital on the images. I felt so powerless as we waited for the results. After a few hours, the diagnosis came back as Tethered Cord Syndrome.

Fortunately, it sounds much worse than it is. Long story short, her spinal cord, which is supposed to be unattached at the base, is connected to a fatty growth. As she grows, this would stretch the nerves, causing problems with the legs, feet, bowels and bladder (and subsequently the kidneys). There's no indication of any damage now - quite the contrary, she's very strong - but as she develops this would get more and more severe, and any damage that occurs is likely irreversible. Which makes it really good news that we caught this when we did, because there's a surgery that can correct the problem.

It's a strange thing, feeling blessed that your newborn daughter needs a spinal surgery. But that's kind of how I feel. It could have been so much worse - tethered spinal cords usually show up with other problems, such as spina bifida, club feet, or other developmental problems, so having a diagnosis of just TCS is pretty lucky. And there's a surgery to fix the problem, soon, so that she'll never have to develop any of the complications that can occur as she grows. And we've recently become acutely aware of how big a battle some other kids have, which has really put this all in perspective.

Of course, surgery won't be easy. Heck, having the MRI and speaking with the surgeon was tough. We had to find someone to watch our son, we had to take time from work, and drive up to the cities, and sleep on the hospital floor (well, we didn't all have to do that...), and go through that whole nervous, helpless process of waiting to hear your child's diagnosis and the treatment plan.

But we've got family. And that makes it all easier. I can't imagine going through this if we were still in DC.

In December our little girl will have her surgery. I feel like I should have something profound to say about this topic - but the truth be told, in some ways it's just another thing. It's kind of like changing her diaper or cleaning up her spit up. Yeah, it's bigger than those things, but it doesn't change who she is or the way I feel about her, it's just another thing that needs to be taken care of. Whether she has Tethered Cord Syndrome or not, the way I see her doesn't change. Either way, she's my daughter. And either way, I love her. And either way, if she ever needs me to spend my Sunday driving several hours so that I can fix her car, I'll be glad to do it.

Phickle Thoughts

2011-10-05T01:02:00.003-04:00

I'm really interested in this Occupy Wall Street movement. The demographic perspective, in particular, interests me because we're looking at a phenomena that is largely young people, much like the protests that have been happening around the world in the past year. In those countries the young have been protesting largely because they have been marginalized by the way society has developed over the past decades.

I think this proves true here in the U.S. too. Basically, we've got a generation of people who have spent their entire lives in relative middle-class comfort. They've probably destroyed the environment to do so, they've run up a tremendous amount of national debt, and now they're all counting on getting a full amount of social security. Obviously we can't blame any member of the previous generations, nor should we. But, generally speaking, the people in charge have been falling pretty strongly on the "withdrawal" side of the ledger for quite some time (so basically, the WWII generation? They gave plenty. It's the folks after them.).

I also would suggest that the marginalization of the young is a fault attributable to the previous generations. Generally speaking, they were able to avoid a lot of the loss in real wages that has happened in the country over the past 30 years, essentially because they were already in positions that enabled them to keep getting modest (cost of living) raises to maintain their level of wealth. Meanwhile, people who entered the work force in those 30 years kept making relatively less and less. Now, especially with the stock market crash and a significant loss in pensions and retirement funds, people aren't exactly rushing off into the sunset. That means they're blocking positions such that younger people can't move up the corporate ladder.

In short, previous generations have run up our debt, decreased our pay, poisoned our environment, shattered our economy, expect us to pay for their retirement, and are preventing us from reaching positions where we could start to fix the problems.

At least, that's what I think these Occupy Wall Street protests are about.
------------------------------------
So I have a daughter now... We're big fans of her. It's been two weeks and I'm pretty sure she's already got me wrapped around her finger. I really hope she doesn't want a car for her 16th birthday.

We didn't know what gender the baby would be, but I think I was expecting it to be a boy. Hearing it was a girl really surprised me. I'm not entirely sure what to do with a girl, which is probably strange, because I had so many sisters. But I'm really glad we've got a girl; despite what some of my siblings thought, I always pictured myself as having a daughter.

Life is pretty good.
------------------------------------
I made my first campaign contribution recently. I thought that was kind of noteworthy.

I'm also considering getting involved with a campaign or two. It's important enough to me that I think I want to do it. Also, I recently watched The West Wing, so I'm kind of riding on that high still...
------------------------------------
Speaking of politics, I've long wondered whether this blog might be a liability to any future political career. I'm inclined to think not - most of what I've written in the past is stuff I've very much left in the past, and I've moved significantly on a lot of positions. I'm also convinced that future generations will be well aware that what you wrote on a blog in your 20's is a lot different than your deeply held political beliefs.

All that said, I'm not in my 20's anymore. And it's probably about time for me to pack up this site. I've had a lot of fun, but given that I'm not posting any more, and that I've reach a more settled point of my life, where I'm not just throwing out thoughts and seeing what develops, it's probably time to move on. I don't know when my last post will be, but it's probably coming soon.
------------------------------------
A new webcomic to check out: Fun Factory

It's kind of PG-13 rated, but it's funny. I highly recommend the current storyline (which started on Oct. 3rd). It's good so far.

Every generation thinks it's the last
Every generation thinks it's the end of the world

God The Father

2011-09-07T00:41:00.010-04:00

Soon, I'll be a dad for the second time. I've been a father for two years now, and I find myself returning with great frequency to the image of God as father. Being a father changes the way you see God, and the way you see God's love.

But it doesn't change everyone the same way.

--------------------------

I recently took a road trip with a group of friends from college. The timing of the trip was a little tricky. Because our second child is due here any day, we wanted to go as early as possible. But one of the guys, Brendan, had recently had a kid, and, as any parent knows, you don't want to leave shortly after having a baby. So basically we wanted to go as late as possible. Like I said, the planning was tricky. Eventually we were able to find a time that worked, and I'm immensely glad we did. It was an amazing trip, though a little overfull with long overnight drives.

One of those night drives had Brendan and I taking over duties as driver and navigator, and, as might be expected, our conversation turned to fatherhood. It was invigorating to talk to the new dad. It was a great reminder of what it was like to have a newborn at home, discovering the world along with your child, marveling at each basic function: "Look at him grab my finger!" "Wow, he's able to hold up his head!" "Ooh! That's a good poop!"

As we were talking, Brendan mentioned that he too had revisited the concept of God as Father, which he suddenly found had a lot more meaning. Both of us had thought it to be a fairly routine image of God, when we came to it from the perspective of the child. We knew fathers loved their children, we just didn't understand how unconditionally - and how spontaneous - that love could truly be. But switching over to the father perspective gave us new insights. Fatherly love is special. It isn't prompted by any action or motivated by a cause. It just pours out. Fatherly love for a child occurs because the child occurs. It turns out that God as father isn't a routine image after all. It's profound.

I think a lot of truths about God's love are caught up in this revelation. God loves us unconditionally. God loves us spontaneously. God doesn't love us because we do something, He loves us because we exist. There's some depth here. Only after becoming a dad did I really start to uncover that depth.

--------------------------

Uncovering the depth of fatherly love doesn't necessitate becoming closer to God. Another friend of mine, Tim, seems to have had a very different experience. Tim was a fairly devout Christian, regularly attending churches, studying Scripture and other religious texts, decorating his office with reminders of his faith - the whole kit and caboodle. Tim was the kind of man who, despite a general skepticism in all other matters, trusted God. He trusted God's choices and he trusted God's plan.

And then he became a father. Tim, as I said, isn't the kind of person who trusts the world. He's acutely aware of the bad things that can happen to people, the bad choices people can make, and the ways that those choices can derail a life - or worse. He feared - as all fathers do - that something bad might happen to his son. Thus, Tim found himself confronting the classic theological Problem of Evil. How can God be good and loving if he allows bad things to happen? Tim's question was even more refined. In our conversations he said that he was willing to set aside natural disasters and other such elements; his question was how can God be good if he allows people to do bad things? That is, how can God be good if he gives us free will?

Tim came to think that protecting those we love from harm is more important than letting them choose to make a bad or dangerous decision. God chose free will. Tim chose protection. It was a philosophical disagreement with God. That disagreement has led to some considerable changes in Tim's life. He's very much the same person - and as a practicing Buddhist, still a person of faith - but he has rejected God on philosophical grounds. He no longer is willing to trust God's choice.

--------------------------

Becoming a father had a significant religious effect in our lives. For Brendan and myself it prompted a deeper understanding of God's love. For Tim, that same love led to a profound disagreement with The Almighty. But despite the different outcomes, I think the roots are buried in the same ground.

Brendan and I came to a deeper understanding with God because we fundamentally agreed with his choice. But that doesn't mean we don't feel the tension presented by the problem of evil. If anything bad ever happened to our children, we would both exist in a world beyond grief. Now that I am a father I certainly feel the evil in the world more intensely then I did before, and specifically I worry for my son's sake. I get what Tim feels.

Likewise, Tim felt that same new depth of love that Brendan and I experienced. Tim's love for his son - which parallels God's love for us - prompted a different conclusion than the one God chose, but he's still a person of faith who actively seeks to make the world a more peaceful and stable place, wherein people - including his son - can safely seek out their own choices. He disagrees with God, but that doesn't mean he doesn't see the merit on the other side.

I think that's what this post boils down to: being a father enables a depth of understanding that doesn't exist before that experience. I have a truer connection to God's love, now that I am a dad. At the same time, I have a deeper appreciation for the seriousness of the problem of evil. There's a tension there that being a dad allows me to access in a unique way.

Yes, on an academic level anyone can assess the problem of evil and the merits of God's choice to allow freewill. But becoming a parent enables a more intimate window into the mind of God. I understand God's love in a way I never did before. I understand the threat of evil in a way I never did before. And, in a way I never did before, I understand how profound God's resolution of that tension is. Like Tim, I don't know that I would make the same choice that God did. But, unlike Tim, I'm willing to trust God, and I'm glad he was strong enough to give us free will.

Soon the stream of people gets wider
Then it becomes a river

Baby On The Way

2011-08-09T00:09:00.005-04:00

We're about a month away from having our second child and the gravity of the situation is just starting to really set in. I'm starting to remember the lack of sleep and the feedings and the total helplessness. And then there's the baby... (wow, that joke was too easy to pass up).

Everything is going very well in the pregnancy. It's really been quite similar to last time in a lot of ways. At least, that's how it seems from my perspective. Perhaps my wife would say otherwise. But even though there have been a lot of similarities, it's the differences that are fascinating me.

It isn't anything new or atypical, but because we already have a child this pregnancy is getting a lot less attention. I play music a lot for our son when he was in the womb. I haven't for this child. Part of that is the different set up we have in our apartment, part of it is lacking a pair of headphones, and part of it is focus. I feel bad. And I wonder what role nurture has in prenatal and early child development. I mean, my son really impresses me with how smart he is. That's probably just the way a parent is supposed to feel, but he seems like a brilliant little kid. He's also very musically-inclined. He loves to sing and dance, picks up songs and lyrics very easily, and we catch him singing by himself quite often. He's not half bad for an almost-two-year-old. Again, this is probably something lots of kids do, but I wonder what role, if any, my playing music for him had. And will child number two miss out on that?

I'm an oldest child, so I think in a lot of ways I have very big expectations for my oldest. And despite the fact that I'm not giving the pregnancy as much attention, I'm kind of rooting for kid number two. Like the underdog. As an oldest, I knew my oldest kid would be exceptional. So that means I've got to really sympathize with kid number two, and give them more to level the playing field. Of course, in my family, the second child pretty much surpassed me in everything, so... I guess maybe it'll work out that way again.

You got no time for the messenger,
Got no regard for the thing that you don’t understand,

Making Up My Mind (Or Not)

2011-07-21T00:11:00.009-04:00

There was an old D.C. lawyer, one of the most respected litigators on the bar. He argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, was a longtime partner at one of the most prestigious firms, represented the biggest clients, and taught classes at Yale and Georgetown Law. One day, towards the end of the semester, he stood in front of his class, and told them a story about a recent case. It was a big Supreme Court case, dealing with some controversial ethical issues - the kind of thing that 50% of the country feels one way on, and 50% feels the other way. The old lawyer had been asked to write a brief supporting an ethical view that he had long held, and he did the absolute best job he could, arguing passionately for the side he believed in. To judge from the Court's decision, his arguments must have been persuasive. When he came to the end of his story, the old lawyer said the most remarkable thing.

"I read all the arguments, I looked at the issues," he said, "I always thought I knew what I believed. But now, my mind isn't made up."
--------------------------------------
I had the amazing good fortune to be sitting in the third row that day. Law school is not a place where they teach indecision. When you argue a point, you argue it with confidence. You assert your convictions. For three years I had been learning that certainty was the name of the game, both inside and outside of class. And here was this amazing lawyer, who had argued forcefully a strong ethical belief, admitting to us, in what appeared to be a fit of humble weakness, that he used to think one way, but now his mind wasn't made up.

Wow.

I hope others in the class took the point to heart too. Who knows if they did. But it made an impression on me.

I write about this now because it isn't just we lawyers who suffer from intransigence. No, that word is popping up a lot lately. In Minnesota we've had a state shutdowns because of refusal to compromise on principles. On a national level the unflinching support of a single ideology threatens our economic well-being. Even in our sports we're looking at nearly impassible divides born of strict adherence to a single view. But I don't write this post about the current politics - though they've got me thinking about this issue - no, instead I write this post about approach. I think that by changing our own orientations we can have a much more productive discourse, a more productive interaction with reality, a more honest discussion with ourselves.
--------------------------------------
The pervasive motif of modern negotiation appears to be that compromise is weakness, intransigence rules. Rather than work to a solution, accepting that, as in most conflicts, both sides have something worth contributing and something expendable, the view seems to be that the art of careful consideration is itself a lesser skill. But the best negotiators are able to cut to the heart of what each side finds important. Usually, if the sides are both honest, there is something of value underlying the position of each side.

Likewise with any good and honest argument. Pick a controversial topic - health care, tax policy, abortion - and each side rests its position on something of underlying importance. If there wasn't something valuable there, people wouldn't be so passionate and the topic wouldn't be so controversial. So the question is to identify the value of each side and do our best to properly weigh the competing claims. For example, the best health care analysts can tell you what's good with the system now, what's bad with it now, and the problems with each of the proposed fixes. The worst health care analysts are the ones who blindly ascribe to the belief that the U.S. has the best health care in the world, or that there aren't problems in countries with government-run health care.

Now, maybe people think they do this. Maybe people think they weigh the values of both sides. But it seems rare to me. It seems the more frequent thing is that people sit, fixed in their beliefs, on a position without serious consideration of a different view, much less movement towards a new idea. Just like at the negotiating table, any sign of serious consideration is itself a weakness. Better to dismiss the other ideas out of hand and retreat to the familiarity of whatever self-confirming news station we like to watch. Willingness to change is the enemy of strong conviction, goes the logic, and without strong conviction, you cannot advance your cause.

I'd like to turn that logic on it's head. I believe that willingness to change is the partner of strong conviction. Conviction is only truly strong when it comes from a place of understanding. Bravado is not conviction. We can be firmest in our beliefs when we have truly considered them, weighed options, ruminated on the ins and outs, considered the rules and the exceptions to them. By this, of course, I mean that we truly engage the topic, not just make ourselves passingly aware of the other side. Passing acknowledgment happens all the time, but it doesn't count. No, I mean to say that conviction can only properly rest on a foundation of serious and honest contemplation.

What does honest contemplation entail? It requires suspending conviction. You can't hire someone for a position that's already filled. Similarly, you can't stand by your view while seriously weighing the other possibilities. Thus, honest contemplation entails doubt, and admitting that doubt to yourself. And, like the law professor, it probably means admitting doubt to others.

Now, with that consideration comes an opportunity for developing an honest weighing of the issues. Then, when you've weighed the issues, and come to a deeper understanding, you can embrace that position whole-heartedly. From fuller understanding comes fuller conviction. Of course, someday you'll probably run into some new argument that you hadn't considered before, and this will jump start the process all over again. That's kind of the rub - there's almost always more to be considered.
--------------------------------------
Now, maybe this all seems academic. Maybe it all seems obvious. But I don't feel like I see it in practice very often. I feel like I see a lot of passionate people, standing strong in their convictions. But I feel like I never see them honestly consider the other side. They'll pay lip service to consideration, but that's all you'll get. I feel like people think they've spent enough time in thought, and I feel like they're offended when you ask them to spend a little more time. I feel like people think they've considered everything that's out there, when they've just touched the tip of the iceberg. That's how conversations seem to go. And that's why I'm writing this post. Because the vision - strong conviction born of honest consideration, acknowledging doubt, revisiting the ideas, and reforming strong conviction - doesn't seem to appear often.

I don't see people as willing to change, and I think that's the hallmark of appropriate conviction.
--------------------------------------
I fear, of course, that people mistake my conviction as false too. It's a reasonable concern. I talk a good game about willingness to change, but I'm obviously firm in my convictions too. That's one of the tricks of the trade: the more willing you are to change, the easier it is to find positions that don't require changing. And so to illustrate a little, I'd like to share some of the things I've found myself change on, over the past decade or so: (note, I won't say what position I now hold on these issues, since that just invites much bigger conversations, but if you know me, odds are good you've got an idea where I've been and where I am now (usually closer to the middle). Some are big changes, some are more subtle). I've changed my mind on same sex marriage. I've changed my mind on gun rights. I've changed my mind on schools teaching creationism. I've changed my mind - twice - on female priests. I've changed my mind on affirmative action. I've changed my mind on drug policy. And more importantly, I evaluated dozens of other serious and controversial topics, and, with a better education and stronger conviction, reaffirmed the things I had believed before.

Now, I think that's a notable list. Maybe you'd disagree. But these were not beliefs that were remnants from childhood, things I had been taught but never evaluated. No, these were all beliefs I had generated as an adult and then, through whatever method - self evaluation, vigorous debate, painful and methodical taunting - I came to reevaluate.

Now, by saying I've changed my mind on all of these things, I don't mean to praise myself. Quite the opposite in fact; I'm embarrassed that I ever believed differently on these issues. I was wrong before. I can see that now. And I know that I haven't reached a final resting place on most of these issues, so there's always a good chance I'll someday look back and see that I'm wrong now. But that's OK that I was wrong before, or that I might be wrong now. Because someday, if I stick to it, I hope I'll be right. I'm going to keep exploring. Like the law professor, I hope to be on the journey to figuring it out long into my old age.

Because there are few issues that I have thought so intensely about so as to have reached a decisive conclusion. And that means I've got a lot of work to do.

I wish that I knew what I know now
When I was younger

"...but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments."

2011-06-29T00:47:00.013-04:00

There's an anecdote I like to tell about my grandpa, to demonstrate how hardworking my family is: "We Novaks are roofers," I say, "It's one of the hardest jobs there is. You're up on the roof working all day, tearing off the shingles, cleaning up the roof, preparing it with ice guard and tar paper, laying down a new layer of shingles, and then picking up the ground below. It's hard work. My grandpa was a roofer. All his sons were roofers, at least for a while. And at some point nearly every single one of his grandkids helped shingle a house, and some of them have taken up the profession too. It's a lot of work, and it's hot up on the roof, with the sun beating down on you. Growing up, I always thought my grandpa might be black, or some other minority (though I never gave much thought to which); he was just so dark-skinned that it never even crossed my mind that he was white. And then one day I saw him at the beach. He peeled back his shirt and his chest was the palest thing you've ever seen. It was like looking at an Oreo. Turns out his skin was just really really tan from working so hard out in the sun every day."

I shingled houses with my grandpa for three summers. I can tell you, I never got nearly as dark as he did. That's because his was a lifetime of exposure, not just a few summer breaks. His entire life was spent working hard. Honest work. Difficult work. Hot, dirty, grimy work. Real work.

I write about this now because the other day I was cleaning my garage. It had gone too long without being cleaned, and putting things in shape took a bit of work, using tools to hang things, moving things around and into the right places, cleaning things up. I don't do enough of that kind of real work. Sure, I work hard at my job, but I'm an attorney and the work I do is, for the most part, intellectual. My job is to persuade people. There are days when that can be the most difficult task in the world. But there's never a day where I think my hard work can hold a candle to the work my grandpa did. Cleaning my garage is about as close as I get these days, and that's like comparing a puddle to the Pacific.

It's always struck me funny when people imply that the hedge fund managers and investment bankers making millions of dollars have earned that money because they work hard. Sure, they put in long hours, but you'll never convince me that they're working harder than the guy on a construction site. If you're going to rationalize the pay disparity, come up with something else, because "they work hard" doesn't fly here. I've been on both sides of the line. I've got an intellectual job and yes, it can be tough. But I've also seen what hard work really looks like: it looks like my grandpa.

I wonder sometimes about the way they show grandfathers in the movies. More often than not they seem to be gentle, with glasses, maybe a bit absentminded, usually intellectual, always loving and kind. That's not how I see grandfathers. My grandpa was loving alright, but that meant being firm. When I worked with my grandpa I worked. When I made a mistake, he made me fix it. When I was fooling around on the job I got in trouble. When things needed to get done he let me know it. Perhaps this sounds harsh next to the doting movie grandfather, but removed from the Disney-machine, it seems to me that this is what grandfatherly love is really all about. It's about example and direction, constancy and character.

I know I wasn't alone in my experiences. I've seen the work ethic in every single one of my grandfather's children (and to give credit where credit is due here, my grandmother is probably the only person I know with greater character than my grandfather. There's a reason she's the head of the family.). I know it's in my cousins and my siblings. I'm giving my grandfather credit here, but every single one of these things could be said about my dad too; he is also a steadfast, efficient, hard worker, unparalleled but for his flesh and blood.

And for all their hard work - my grandpa, my dad, everyone else - they never want for time to give to others. Growing up I always heard stories about how my grandpa would wake in the morning, handle chores on the farm, drive to the job site (sometimes an hour or more), work a full day or more, drive home, finish more chores, and then play ball with his kids. I know I'll be telling the same stories to my kids with my dad. To be perfectly honest, I don't know where they found the time, much less the energy. I hope I figure it out, because I want my kids to pass on the same stories about me.

That's what it is to be a Novak. You work harder than anyone reasonably should and then you play with your kids. That's how my grandpa was. That's how my dad was. That's how I want to be. It's what I hope I pass on to my kids. It makes me wonder, how far back does the chain go? How was my grandpa's dad? How was his? Where did it all begin? How far will it go?

There's something to be said for taking a generational view. In the Bible, God sometimes rewards or punishes people generations after the fact, making a child suffer or rejoice for the sins or faithfulness of the parent. It's a view that I can't help but be acutely aware of, as the attorney son of generations of laborers. I went to good schools, built my reputation, earned my position, not on the sweat of my own effort, but on that of the generations that preceded me. Sometimes it seems like the American dream is to work hard so that your kids don't have to. And sometimes I wonder if maybe that's not where I am today. My grandpa did real, hard work. My dad does real, hard work. Me? I just sit around thinking all day, doing my best to persuade others to see things my way.

So I try to be aware, because I'm one of the lucky ones. I try to realize that most people don't have the opportunities that I have, and that's because most people don't have the relatives that I have. I try to work hard, because of my good fortune, cognizant all the time that it's not as hard as the work that came in the generations before me. I stand on their shoulders.

I am my father's son. I am my grandfather's grandson. Because of them, I am blessed.

And he'd sit in the shade and watch the chickens peck
And his teeth were gone, but what the heck

Phickle Thoughts

2011-06-27T00:32:00.002-04:00

I got the chance to bring my son to Menard's today. I can't tell you how many times my dad took with him to Menard's. It was always one of those leisurely chores. I had no desire to be there myself - I didn't have any money, and if I did I was more likely to spend it on candy or baseball cards than tack hammers and 3-1/2" pipe - but I was always happy to go along. Plus, usually we ended up with candy anyway. So I was excited to bring my son today, even though he's not-even-two. We bought a broom, some hooks for the garage, some nails, and, of course, candy (Not really. We bought barbeque sauce instead.).
---------------------------------
After going years - honestly, maybe even a decade - without hearing the song, I have now heard Commander Cody's "Hot Rod Lincoln" 3 times in the past two weeks. Weird.
---------------------------------
This past weekend we attended a fair amount of Wabasso's All-Fest. The name, for me at least, is reminiscint of the Icelandic parliment, the "All-thing". I love that name. It is, of course, the oldest parliment still in existence. I got to read all about it in the epic Icelandic Sagas that I read in my great books class. Anyway, this point mostly exists to encourage people to go read an Icelandic Saga, because dang, those things are cool. Also, if you think the feats of athleticism and strength in the sagas seem far fetched, consider that today's World's Strongest Man competitions are populated by the descendents of the people they're writing about. Then take those guys and adjust upwards in strength based on the fact that they had no modern conveniences and did everything by hand. Yup. Cool stuff.
---------------------------------
Oh wait, that thing about the All-Fest also existed so that I could tell you that my kid got to pet a tortise and boa constrictor. Whoopty-doo, right? Which meant that I got to pet them too. Whoopty-doo still, right? Anyway, these are the things that excite me these days.

Of course, to be perfectly honest, even when I was at peak coolness, I still would have thought that was exciting.
---------------------------------
The real reason for these items is because I want to brag about something I taught my kid. When asked what noise a turtle makes, he answers, "Cowabunga!"
---------------------------------
So I'm cleaning out the garage today with the broom and stuff I bought at Menard's. And I'm feeling pretty good. Sweep, sweep, sweep, I'm pushing the dirt around.
"I can't believe what a good deal I got."
Tap, tap, I tap the broom against the floor to shake off some dirt
"This thing was only $5. I should have bought two."
Sweep, sweep, sweep, I'm pushing it into a pile.
"I'm gonna brag about the great deal I got on my $5 broom."
Tap, tap, crrraaack...
"Frick."
---------------------------------
I was starting to think the Twins might not lose again. Now I'm starting to think they might not win again. Sigh.

My pappy said son, "You're gonna drive me to drinkin'
If you don't stop driving that Hot. Rod. Lincoln."

Question:

2011-06-22T01:06:00.004-04:00

Would you rather have your boss yell at you, cry to you, or cry because of you?

I had a very strange dream the other night...

I was alright for a while
I could smile for a while

Half-way to Half-way to Half of 240

2011-05-17T00:43:00.005-04:00

Three. Zero.

Today, I turn thirty. It seems like a big deal to me. I've always thought of 30 as when you really are who you are. You're an adult. You're in your life. There's no more preparing to do what you want to do, just the actual execution. It probably goes without saying (but I'm verbose, so deal with it) that now that I'm actually here, the view seems a little different. There will still be preparation and I'm not ready to take on all the challenges I want to get to in my life. But still, I'm a heck of a lot closer than I ever was before.

So I figured I'd take this time to share some of the things I've come to realize in my 30 years on Earth. No, I won't do a recap of my life. I did that once before (it's hilarious, go read it if you never have). This time around, I'm gonna share some of the wisdom of my many years...

The fight about the toilet seat isn't worth it; just put it down.
Your parents aren't always right.
Your parents are almost always right.
Boiling-hot chicken noodle soup, when poured directly into a lap, will cure a concussion.
The first rule of cooking is: add more cheese. Period.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. With extra cheese.
Techno music is awesome if you're driving long distances at night.
So are the works of Louis L'amour, in audio format
It isn't ego, it's "self-promotion." All the greats were self-promoters. Mike Tyson, Paris Hilton, Stalin. See? I'm in good company.
Moleskin journals are a writer's best friend.
I should really keep a moleskin with me...
The Godfather. Oh. Yeah.
There are some people who truly aren't worth arguing with. They're rare, but they do exist.
When facing a budget crisis, don't cut the small stuff. For example, a school shouldn't cut music or art or foreign language or extra curriculars. They should cut math or science. Because the person making that decision might well lose their job, but you can be darn sure there won't be a budget crisis a year later.
Related to that, don't be afraid to make the hard decisions.
Related to that, Pepsi really is better than Coke. But Cherry Coke is the best of all.
Don't mess around with the expiration dates on food. Or, conversely, have a good plumber on speed dial.
If you don't like the book, just put it down and don't finish it. There are too many good books out there to waste time on bad ones.
Being gullible is one of the most minor sins a person can commit. Being cynical is one of the worst.
It happens with surprising frequency that the best thing on TV is a cartoon.
If you don't stop making that face, it'll freeze that way.
You'll probably enjoy most of the classic novels.
You definitely won't enjoy all of them.
The real goal of a debate isn't to win the argument, it's to to plant a seed for future change. People don't change their mind on the spot, but they do change their mind over time.
Be open to change and the seeds that others might sow. Try them out, see if they germinate.
But be strong in your convictions too; don't throw aside a tree just because a weed is growing.
Enough with the plant metaphor already!
Life is too short to listen to Top 40 radio.
Don't buzz your hair when you're in high school.
Sweatshirts can be magical.
Do not, under any circumstances, fall asleep while driving a 15 passenger van.
"Be yourself" is trite and annoying. "Be who you want to be" is better (though probably still a little cliche).
The definitive D.C. experience isn't a museum or monument; it's Ben's Chili Bowl.
If your pet rat dies, the best thing you can do is throw a viking funeral.
Sometimes the best thing in life is a cheap beer and a ball game on TV.
Sometimes the best thing in life is a fine wine and an opera.
Both of those things are made better by occasionally indulging in the other.
Big families are indescribably awesome.
Italy is at least at great as you think it is, probably better.
Don't buy a dark suit in a poorly lit room. You think you're buying black, but it's actually some weird shade of navy.
Baseball is the best sport.
Don't accidentally call Stone Cold Steve Austin "Cold Stone Steve Austin."
Marshmallows are not the most efficient mode of transportation.
Have a sense of humor. Don't be easily offended.
Everyone can have a few of things that are off-limits to joking, but no one should have more than that.
You don't need to learn to tie your shoes if you can learn to walk without tripping over your shoelaces.
Being a husband is the best thing in the world.
Being a father is even more so.
Squirrels can be evil. They know what they're doing, man.
There is an infinite capacity for love.
I'm not very good at stand-up.
On your first day of school, don't pull your pants all the way down when standing at the urinal.
Carry your wallet in your front pocket, it's better for your back.
If you ever own a motorcycle, instead of a normal helmet, you should wear a storm trooper helmet.
I don't quite know how to put this one into words, but, when someone does something bad to you, be like my dad. If you know what I'm talking about, you know what I'm talking about.
Brush your teeth well.
Bulleted lists are a really easy way around writing something that's actually good.
Listen to life. It tells you what to do.

Now if I just follow some of my own advice, the next 30 years should go great!

And on the radio
We heard November Rain

Phickle Thoughts

2011-05-09T01:20:00.003-04:00

So, I've finally started watching The West Wing. It feels like a very epic undertaking. I've seen a couple episodes here or there before, but I always said I wanted to just watch it all at once, to do it justice. 2 episodes in, and I've had to pause the show several times to comment on its awesomeness. Yay.
---------------------
Also, it kind of makes me want to be president. I'm not folksy, or good at telling stories that prove a point, or even really insightful like President Bartlett. But I kind of aspire to be that. Sigh.
---------------------
So we're halfway through this pregnancy thing. The other night we babysat for neighbors who have a 3 month old. It was a little preview slice of life with a toddler and a baby. The baby was perfect. And I still found myself thinking "what have we gotten ourselves into?"
---------------------
I felt the baby kick for the first time the other day!
---------------------
I find it kind of hard to imagine how much I'll love the next kid. Mostly because how much I love my kid now has just continued to grow. When he was born, I loved him more than anything. Now, it's significantly more than it was then. It's a pretty cool thing: the heart's unending capacity for love. Looking forward to experiencing further growth.
---------------------
Finally, I'm still in this writing challenge thing. I even won immunity this past week. It's just been so much fun, and frankly, a real blast getting to read the cool stuff that other people come up with.

Anyway, this week's challenge was... rough. Basically, you had to write a story in which a miscommunication caused things to have a very different result than they otherwise would have had. Limit was 1200 words. It was a tough challenge because, especially when you're writing, it's tough to have the reader both 1. know what Character A intended in the communication and B. why Character B didn't understand. Plus, let's be honest, miscommunications don't really make for compelling plot arcs.

But I was pretty happy with what I came up with, so I'm gonna share it here. Enjoy!
---------------------
There was an energetic heat in the air that summer. We were all “Surfin’ USA” and my attic apartment smelt like ozone. I kept the fans blasting, so the computers wouldn’t overheat. It was a miracle that I ever managed to keep those old boxes running. The fans drowned out the sound of the Cubs, but that was just as well in ’63.

We’d moved ahead quickly in previous years: the great leap forward. They were primitive by today’s standards, but we could hardly believe what a computer could do. Sure, the Commies beat us into space, but I downloaded nudie pictures of Sophia Loren and a pirated version of Please, Please Me. Here’s to the triumph of Democracy.

I would stay up late almost every night that summer, my room glowing out into the dark, while Mr. and Mrs. Kaspersinski and their three little rotund dzieci rolled off to sleep. The dog, a white, yapping ball of fur during the daylight hours – poked and prodded by fat, sticky fingers – would find its quiet way to the top of the stairs, scurry into my room, and sit himself on my bed. He’d stay there, watching as I typed away at the keyboard. When finally I would pull myself across the room and sink down into the depths of sleep he would still be there, laying at the foot of the bed. His nightly sojourn away from the family was our little secret. Back then, the dog was the only one who got me. I was always on my own. Mom died when I was little and Dad wasn’t big on parenting. I’d started renting when I went off to school in the city, and hadn’t been home many times since.

In those days maybe a tenth of the country had a computer, and of those, maybe one in a hundred were using them for anything other than solitaire. We were on our way, but the technology was new. For me, computers opened up a passage, leading to little enclaves of new reality, sheltered from the world of heavy manufacturing and rubbery bratwurst – the world of the Kaspersinskis. Mrs. Kaspersinski would ascend the stairs once a week or so, broom in hand, pretending to sweep the little hall to the apartment I had rented. Her eyes bulged at the lengths of wire running like vines across the floor towards their vital energy sources. They hadn’t even thought to charge me for utilities, but I pitched in; juice was cheaper back then, but I used a lot of it.

The Kaspersinskis might never have understood, but I was connecting with a new breed of people. Chat rooms and instant messenger were the future and there was an elite group of us exploring the digital frontier. We even developed our own abbreviated language: “IMHO, LOL, L8R.” Most of us were men. There was a fair mix of suburbanite dads looking for an escape, ex-military technophile types, and students, like myself. We spent days discussing Ursula Andress and episodes of The Twilight Zone.

We all had handles at the time. No one knew who the others really were, and we liked it that way. So long as you had something to share – music, games, witticisms about the flaws of Dr. No – you were good in our eyes. You could be whoever you wanted, say whatever you wanted. It was the Wild West piped into our rooms, and we were fast on the draw. It was a world with impunity.

There was one week, towards the end of the summer, when things stopped moving. It was hot. The air was so heavy that the few insects that summoned the energy to fly found themselves suspended, heavenly bodies in the aether, a mere fraction of their regular wing speed required for flight, far greater energies expended avoiding the forces of combustion. Even the traffic online had ground down. All those suburbanites had taken their families to the lake. With the lack of material, I quickly ate through my usual forums, and started surfing around for something new. I stumbled onto a site recommended by one of the military guys. Most of it was too political. Stuff I didn’t get and didn’t really care to. But some of it was true slice of life for a guy like me. People who didn’t belong, searching out other lost souls.

I spent a day chatting with one guy. The Kaspersinskis were staying with a relative up north of Milwaukee, and I’d had the home to myself. I had set out that morning to buy some groceries, but only made it as far as the station on the corner. It was far too hot to go any further. I stocked up on cherry soda and chips and headed back to the attic around 11. Things started casually enough. He called himself LeeO, kind of like the lion. You could tell he was new to the world. He didn’t catch a lot of the lingo the first time through, and I found myself explaining most of the abbreviations to him.

He was married and had a kid, with another on the way. You might think a guy like that had it put together pretty well, but he seemed more desperate than that. Something was incomplete in his life. I knew how that felt, so we got to talking. Honestly, it felt good to open up a little. And he helped me see things weren’t so bad, provided some real perspective. Sure, I may have been a loner, but he was seriously dark. It was like a game of reverse upsmanship: every bad thing that I threw out there, he came up with something worse. Eventually I joined in, trying to out-bleak him.

“I’ve only got one parent, and he doesn’t even know I exist,” I wrote.
“Could be worse,” he replied, “He could die and leave you with the funeral costs.”
“LOL. What you got?”
“Here’s depressing: nobody knows I exist.”
“You could always make a name for yourself,” I suggested, “Shoot someone famous. jk.”

He just typed a smile, and our game was done.

If I had to pick one point in my life where things started to turn around, it probably would have to be that conversation. I started school again soon afterward, and with that healthy dose of perspective I began to make some real friends. We started up a computer club, and I got along with a bunch of the guys. We bonded over the tragedy that fall, and I still keep in touch with some of the group. I never heard from LeeO again, but I owe him a debt of gratitude. Sometimes a stranger can come into your life for the briefest of moments and it can have all the impact in the world.

If everybody had an ocean
Across the USA

Fortunately, Unfortunately.

2011-04-14T01:52:00.004-04:00

So I'm actually still alive in this Survivor Writing competition thing, which I'm really really enjoying. This past week the challenge was to write two "Fortunately, Unfortunately" sequences. Both judges gave us a prompt, and we had to work from that prompt to a series that was at least 8, but no more than 11 lines long. Here are my two entries. It was my most well-received entry to date.

Prompt:I tried out for the team so I could meet chicks.

Unfortunately, I was terrible at the try outs.
Fortunately, the competitive investment team didn’t have enough members, so I made it anyway.
Unfortunately, the girls were only interested in Trip, the top ranked guy on the team.
Fortunately, I got a hot tip on a stock.
Unfortunately, I was charged with insider trading.
Fortunately, I beat the charges.
Unfortunately, successfully committing securities fraud required me to give up my amateur status.
Fortunately, I made a lot of money and no longer need the team to meet women.
Unfortunately, the women I’m meeting now are shallow, vapid, materialistic types who only love me for my money.
Fortunately, I can afford to pay for the plastic surgery needed to correct those character flaws.

--------------------

Prompt:

I have one class left before I finish my major.

Unfortunately, then I’ll have a philosophy major.
Fortunately, I’ve got a Spanish minor, which means I will be able to understand my boss.
Unfortunately, my boss will quickly get promoted and be replaced by an Albanian.
Fortunately, I like Albanians.
Unfortunately, I get Albanians and albatrosses confused; I like albatrosses.
Fortunately, so does my Albania boss!
Unfortunately, he confuses albatrosses and abacuses; He likes abacuses.
Fortunately, with a philosophy major, my most marketable tool will be the rudimentary abacus skills I learned in kindergarten.
Unfortunately, I can’t use my abacus to calculate a way out of this student loan debt.

At first I was afraid
I was petrified

2011 Baseball Preview

2011-03-31T00:46:00.004-04:00

Happy Opening Day everyone! Few days are more hopeful, more joyous, more perfect than baseball's opening day. This is the pinnacle of Americana: promise and potential; that ephemeral merging of a gentleman's game and a game-of-the-people; a cultural melting pot, full of diversity; a title, a season, just laying there for the taking. So who will fulfill their manifest destiny this season? I'm here to take a look. Naturally, of course, most of my picks will be wrong. But I'm still having fun with it, so we'll just say they're good enough.

National League

NL East: I was thinking for a minute that this might be the weakest division in baseball - I mean sure, the Phillies and Braves are good, but the Mets, Marlins and Nats? Ouch. And then I decided that all of the NL is pretty much equally middling, so it didn't really matter who had the weakest division. But I think those bottom 3 in this league are vastly behind the top 2. With Philadelphia's rotation, I have to pick them to win it all. Plus, I'm going to see a game there this year, so they get the edge. NL East ends up: Phillies, Braves, Marlins, Mets, Nats.

NL Central: I have a brother-in-law who knows his baseball. He's an aspiring sportswriter. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to baseball. He's also a Cubs fan. Which probably means he's doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to baseball. He likes the Cubs this year. I don't dislike them. And I like them more after Wainwright's injury. They're not a bad sleeper pick. But I just don't see them clicking like he anticipates. So what to do about this division? There is one vastly improved team here, especially in terms of pitching. That's the Brewers. Most people might focus on Greinke, who is fantastic, but I'm tempted to think Marcum will be the solid 17 or 18 game winner they need behind Greinke. And that will push them to the top. The Reds drop back after performing a little over their heads last year. And don't forget, Dusty Baker is their manager, so he probably pushed people too hard last year and they'll still be tired. NL Central finishes: Brewers, Reds, Cubs, Cards, Pirates, Astros. Yup, this year the Pirates aren't last. Hey, why not?

NL West: Speaking of teams that over-performed last year, how about them Giants? That was a team built for the postseason (good pitching, little offense) that was lucky enough to get there. Not this time around. Plus, there's bad karma going around there with this whole Bonds trial. The Padres are due for a down year, after which, next year, they'll be overlooked and outperform expectations again. That's how they seem to run it in San Diego. I'm not entirely sure what to expect from LA. That whole team/city just seems too easily distracted. Diamondbacks weren't actually as bad as they ended up being last year, so they could make a jump, but the team to beat is the Rockies. NL West goes down: Rockies, Giants, Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Padres.

NL Wild Card: Braves. I like me some Atlanta. With the weak teams in that division to beat up on, they could do pretty well. A good, balanced team.

NL MVP: I'm gonna say... Carlos Gonzalez. He's going to put up big numbers for a Rockies team that will run away with the West.

NL Cy Young: I mentioned Marcum earlier, but he's not going to be flashy enough to win it all. I see this one going "traditional" in terms of big win totals prevailing, since last year was all about modern stats in the Cy Young race and there will be a push-back against that by this year's voters. Looking for someone with lots of wins and good numbers over all means probably taking a glance at the Phillies' rotation, so I'm gonna say Halladay.

Rookie: Freddie Freeman. This year the Braves player takes it.

American League

AL East: Aw man... I'm gonna pick Boston. I've always hated them. But I kinda hate the Yankees more right now, given the recent history. And Boston looks improved, and NY does not. And the Rays... ugh. So I'll say the Red Sox. AL East finishes: Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays, Rays, O's.

AL Central: Look, I know I pick the Twins every year. I am, on some level, very much a home team guy. But this assessment isn't about believing in the home team. They've honestly been the team to pick for most of the past decade. The facts bear me out on this. But what about this year? The White Sox and Tigers improved, the Twins lost their bullpen, and cut two veterans in the middle infield. That's gotta change things, right? Wrong. The White Sox added power in Adam Dunn after 1 year experimenting with less power. Remember 2 years ago? They had power then. It didn't get them anywhere. It won't this year either. AJ and Konerko are another year past their primes and their rotation hasn't ever performed like it should have on paper, so they just don't scare me like they do a lot of people. The Tigers? They added bullpen arms and a catcher that Boston was smart enough to get rid of at the right time. Not scary. Plus, drinky drinky... That's a team ready to go down in flames. Could be fun to watch.

How about the Twins' woes? They lost their bullpen, right? Anyone who remembers watching the Twins at the beginning of the year last year would tell you Crain was no big loss. Anyone who has watched the Twins over the past several years would tell you Guerrer was replaceable. Anyone who remembers who Joe Nathan is would tell you that the Twins added one of the best bullpen arms in the game that they didn't have last year. As for that middle infield? I believe in Yoshi. He's got the attitude and speed will translate to the U.S. And for Casilla? I've read plenty about how Hardy's WAR (Wins Above Replacement) was 3 last year, in only 375 at-bats. The next statement in most of those articles is that Casilla is a replacement level player. And indeed, his career WAR is 0 - exactly replacement level. But he's also only 26, and last year his WAR was 1.1 in just 170 plate appearances. Which means he's not actually that far off from Hardy. There's reason to believe Casilla is aging into an everyday player, so I don't see that middle infield being a liability. And of course, there's that Morneau guy being back... Which will enable more platooning of Cuddy and Kubel, which is good for everyone.

Bottom line, AL Central finishes: Twins, White Sox, Tigers, Indians, Royals.

AL West: Look, I'm tired from writing so much about the Twins so I'll just say that the Rangers win it again, despite that trendy team out in Oakland. AL West goes down: Rangers, A's, Angels, Seattle.

Wild Card: Hmm, I'm sick of the Yankees. But it might be cathartic for the Twins to beat them in the first round for once... so yeah, let's say them. And if the Twins lose to them in the first round... well, the definition of crazy is trying the same thing over and over and hoping for different results, right?

AL MVP: Man crush time. Joe Mauer wins #2, becomes a lock for the HOF (if he isn't already).

AL Cy Young: This also hurts, but I think that Jon Lester guy in Boston is going to strike out a ton of batters.

AL Rookie: Yoshi! He's gonna hit .280, steal 22 bases, and score 110 runs. Pretty good for a "rookie."

Playoffs
NLS: Phillies over Brewers, Rockies over Braves
NLCS: Rockies over Phillies
ALS: Twins over Yankees, Boston over Rangers
ALCS: Twins over Boston.
World Series: Twins over Rockies.

I kept telling people 2010 was the Twins' year, going back like 5 years ago. Turns out I was just off by a year.

Put me in coach
I'm ready to play

Economics Issue

2011-03-29T11:58:00.002-04:00

So I was listening to MPR this morning when they came on with their Marketplace Report thing. The big news was that house prices continue to decline. Home sales are down, which means home prices are down, which means 1 in 5 mortgages is underwater, which means those homeowners can't afford to sell/move, which means sales are down... etc. What to do about this?" they asked. The answer from their financial expert was that banks had 2 choices. 1. Bulldoze the homes and consider the assets lost or 2. Rent the homes, because there's a big rental market.

So here's my problem with this... our financial experts can't figure out that neither of those options is a solution to the economy-wide problems. Our financial experts are focused on what the banks can do to increase their profits (with the assumption that better-off banks will necessarily trickle down into a solution for our economy's woes).

I think there's a more direct solution. How to get all of these homes off the market? How to increase sales, and thus price? You need to increase first-time home buyers. Obviously existing home-owners can't afford to move because of the low market prices. Therefore, the only solution is more first-time home buyers. So, who are first-time home buyers? Young people. So, why aren't young people buying homes? Honestly, for a lot of people, it's because they've got too-little income. It's my experience that, right now, there are a lot of people 30-and-under who have enough income to survive in a rental market, but not enough to be able to purchase a home.

It's also my experience that there are a lot of baby boomers and >50 year-olds who make a crap ton more than the <30 crowd. That is, our economy right now rewards longevity in our pay scales. Not a completely unreasonable proposition. But it turns out, that has an effect on the ability of our economy to, say, recover from a giant housing bubble. Since real-wages have stagnated over the past 30 years (or however long), while prices have continued to rise, the buying power of the new workforce isn't comparable to what it was 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, people at the bottom of the work totem-pole, the people we need buying houses to help pull our economy out of this funk, aren't able to buy houses and provide the economy-wide boost that we're looking for.

So what's the solution? Maybe we need to get companies looking at the way they pay their employees. Maybe we need a more equitable distribution of wages across generations. Maybe we need to shift some of our assets from senior employees towards younger employees. Maybe that sounds crazy.

But maybe it's time to try something new. From a big-picture perspective, this would help create more first-time home buyers, which will help stabilize and grow the housing market, which will help everyone, including those senior employees who already own their homes, because their assets will continue to grow in value. Let's call it a trickle-up theory. Crazy, right?

(P.S. Please try to keep any comments non-political.)

Well I'm a steamroller baby

Life With Kids

2011-03-23T01:13:00.004-04:00

Hooooo boy. This was a fun morning!

After not sleeping much the night before Fickle Junior decided to wake up well before either of his parents were quite ready. Today it was Mom's turn.

Now, Junior is a big fan of cereal. Cheerios to be exact. The first word out of his mouth after being removed from his crib is usually "Cheerios!" Only it sounds more like "Chew-wee-os!" And lately he's started to add extra syllables, so we get to hear him pleading for "Chew-wee-uwee-uwee-os!" It is quite adorable.

What's not adorable? When it turns out he's tall enough to reach the box sitting on the table, smart enough to carry it over to a bowl that he set out in the living room, and coordinated enough to open it up and pour it into said bowl, but not coordinated enough to stop pouring before the entire (very recently-opened, very very full box) is dumped everywhere around the living room.

That was when Ms. Fickle woke me up and told me it was my turn to take care of him while she went back to sleep.

Happy Tuesday!

Oh, rise up, Fruit Loop lovers
Sing out sweet & low
With spoons held high
We bid our brother, "Cheerio!"

Best TV Ever

2011-03-16T01:04:00.004-04:00

Not too long ago my wife and I canceled our cable. Since we have a crummy old TV (big, just old and low-quality), no digital converter box, no antenna, and live in an area where even if we did get an antenna we'd only get like 3 channels max, we haven't been watching too many new shows lately. We have, however, been rewatching some of our favorite old TV shows. This has inspired me to wonder about the best single-seasons of TV ever (not single-season shows, just best single-seasons, regardless of show length).

So I've decided to rank some of my top 10 favorite TV seasons. And then after that, my top 10 favorite episodes of TV ever. [After trying to do this for a while, holy crap is this a tough task!][After working on this some more, I'm limiting favorite episodes to comedies, because I'm finding it difficult to compare across drama and comedy. Of course, most of my favorite comedy episodes are relatively dramatic...]

Obviously this list is incomplete. There are lots of old shows I've never watched that would probably deserve to be on a more comprehensive list. There are shows from the past decade or so that I never watched that probably also deserve to be on this list. Thus, you'll find no West Wing, The Wire, or Sopranos. Those are all shows I intend to get to someday, it just hasn't happened yet. There are also not too many very recent shows listed. Someday I may include shows like Community or Modern Family on this list. But for now, they don't make the cut. I need more distance.

And I'm not huge on getting my drama from TV, so you'll be finding a lot more comedy on this list. But here's my top 10 single-seasons of TV ever:

(Honorable Mention: Flight of the Conchords Season 1)
10. Firefly
9. Malcolm in the Middle Season 1
8. (Tie) The Simpsons Seasons 4 - 9.
7. The Office Season 3
6. Lost Season 6
4. (Tie) Arrested Development Season 3
4. (Tie) Arrested Development Season 1
3. Futurama Season 4
2. Scrubs Season 1
1. Arrested Development Season 2
----------------------------------------

10. "The Injury" - The Office Season 2
9. "Mr. F" - Arrested Development Season 3
8. "The Job" - The Office Season 3
7. "Luck of the Fryrish" - Futurama Season 3
6. "Motherboy XXX" - Arrested Development Season 2
5. "My Old Lady" - Scrubs Season 1
4. "Krylborn Picnic" - Malcolm in the Middle Season 1
3. "Godfellas" - Futurama Season 3
2. "Homer vs. the 18th Amendment" - The Simpsons Season 8
1. "The One Where They Build A House" - Arrested Development Season 2

Thoughts? My main thinking on this: it was an impossible task. Seriously, I dare you to try it. Heck, let's turn it into a meme. I'll message a handful of people about this. If you put up your list somewhere feel free to include a link in the comments.

Enjoy!

You can't take the sky from me

Something Fun

2011-03-08T01:07:00.002-05:00

So I haven't put anything fun up on my blog in a long, long time. This post is an attempt to remedy that.

I am currently participating in a writing competition. It's a writer's survivor. Each week we have a challenge, and then someone gets voted off based on the results of the challenge. This past week we had a couple of challenges to choose from. I decided to write a movie review for a fictional movie. The word limit was 450. I think I did alright. Nothing spectacular, but it's the kind of thing I think some of my readers might enjoy. So, here you go. Enjoy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abandon all hipster cred, ye who enter here. This old man has to confess, Jack Grey was uniquely, and surprisingly, good. Starring indie-darlings but billed as an epic summer blockbuster, this rock opera was built to compete with the summer’s other big name films, like Earthworm Jim, Arrested Development 2, and CSI: The Movie. It should outlast them all.

Jack Grey stars Jack Black and indie-rocker Jack White as fictionalized versions of themselves, each struggling in the ordinary lives they might have led had their respective successes eluded them. Facing the workaday world, both characters are held back by the preconceived notions that others have of them, neither free to pursue their true passions. The scene of the two struggling through their lives is one of the more poignant montages in recent memory, helped along by the song “Just Jack,” the album topper recorded by the duo several years ago, and revisited for the film.

After a handful of near-misses, the two Jacks meet and devise a plot to merge their lives into the super alter ego of Jack Grey. A few cosmetic changes later, each man is pouring himself headlong into being one-half of a truly remarkable and passionate human being. Naturally Jack Grey’s success catches the affection of a truly remarkable woman, played to perfection by, you guessed it, Zooey and Emily Deschanel, also as fictionalized versions of themselves, complete with sister relationship.

Though the plot engages and the writing sizzles, the highlight of the film is the music. It’s clear from the opening song that writer/direct Charlie Kaufman’s (Adaptation; Synecdoche, NY) grandiose genius and exacting minutia extend to his musical tastes. Zooey Deschanel and Jack Black steal the show with their vocal chemistry and lyrical wizardry. Unfortunately it is Jack White, the most notable songsmith of the bunch, who disappoints musically. His songs too frequently suffer from reckless guitar riffs and a lack of structure. White’s only musical highlight is the song “Two of Me,” during which former band-mate Meg White makes an appearance, her limited drumming reigning in his chaotic force.

Though his songs left something to be desired, White surprised with his delicate acting, both comedic and dramatic, bringing a remarkable depth to the character. Jack Black was predictable in his own role; we’ve seen this shtick before, and longed for the Oscar winner from Mrs. Albert Hanniday.

Jack Grey keeps a quick pace. The 3D musical numbers pop, and you’ll be singing them to yourself long after you leave the theater. With a fun story and fantastic music, what more could you want from a rock opera?

I give it a 4 out of a high-five.

When you gonna ring it?
When you gonna ring it?

Housing Thoughts

2011-03-06T23:56:00.002-05:00

You know, I'm not terribly upset at the idea of winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's a reasonable proposition if, once every couple decades they're going to cost taxpayers a sudden $135 billion. They did help provide home buyers of the past 30 years with slightly lower rates and made it way easier for them to get fixed-rate mortgages (and thus, stability in cost). So there was definitely a benefit, but at this point we've become acutely aware of the costs. We're probably over-emphasizing them, since they're fresh in our minds, but that's alright, we weren't too aware of them ahead of time. In short, winding down these entities isn't really a bad thing, and doesn't scare me too much.

But what does scare me is the idea that I sense floating around that somehow getting rid of Fannie and Freddie is going to prevent this kind of economic disaster in the future. Or that Fannie and Freddie were singlehandedly responsible for this particular disaster. Or that the private market will get it right without any checks.

See, Fannie and Freddie weren't the only ones backing subprime mortgages and bad debts. They weren't even the first ones doing it. Heck, after you figure in the bailouts, they weren't even the only ones who had their bad loans guaranteed by the taxpayers! Much of what went wrong in the housing market happened in the unregulated private market, and much of what went wrong with Fannie and Freddie went wrong because of the lack of regulatory guidance on mortgage terms.

It wasn't just making loans to people who couldn't pay them that caused the financial meltdown. A lot of happened because these companies created loan products that were designed to not-be-paid-back. And a lot happened because there were rewards for total transactions, regardless of quality, because of the brokerage situation. And a lot happened because there were rewards for misleading borrowers into loans with higher rates than the borrowers actually qualified for.

These things all happened in the private market, and will continue to happen unless we have some rules protecting borrowers from unconscionable loan terms. Because mortgages are such complex documents, just putting borrowers on notice of the terms isn't sufficient to protect them; borrowers aren't sophisticated enough to know that a "yield spread premium" means "kickback to your broker for conning you into taking a higher interest rate than you should have." That means we should probably have some laws that make certain types of abusive mortgages illegal. We should also have law that make sure the language used in mortgages is clear and readable. We should probably have some laws that regulate brokers to make sure they aren't playing the people they're supposed to be helping. And we should make sure these laws have some teeth.

And we should probably know full well that these laws are going to cost homeowners a little bit more money in their respective rates. But we should also know that if we're going to leave it all up to the private market, well, that's not cheap either.

Mary Anne, do you remember
The tree by the river
When we were 17?

You've Got To Be Joking

2011-03-01T23:12:00.002-05:00

Two bits of political "Huh?" today...

First, Michele Bachman, everybody's favorite anti-government spending, tea-party friendly, down-with-earmarks Congresswoman has introduced a bill to build a bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin.

This is what Bachman had to say in her Tea Party response to the State of the Union Address: "After the $700 billion bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus, and the massive budget bill with over 9,000 earmarks that the president signed, many of you implored Washington to please stop spending money we don't have."

Today, she proposed building a bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The proposed bridge actually violates federal environmental law. So what did Bachman do? She proposed creating an exemption for this one bridge. And, as the Star Trib reports, "Her bill isn't an earmark because it doesn't call for spending, she said. Money to pay for the bridge would be determined later by Minnesota and Wisconsin state governments and the federal government, she said."

Basically, she wants to give them the go ahead to build a bridge the violates federal law and figure out how to pay for it later. Now, to be fair to the Congresswoman, she's long been in favor of this bridge. Of course, it would be a boon for her hometown. There are other, similar bridges currently in operation and others being built (bridges that don't violate federal law). But none of those are good for her personally, so this is the one she's been pushing for.

Still, seems a little crazy, right? Anti-earmark Representative wants a bridge built in her hometown so badly that she's willing to give it an exemption to federal law?
----------------------------------------
The other "Huh?" story today is that Republicans have passed a bill to make themselves less environmentally friendly. They've actually brought styrofoam cups and plastic silverware back into the Congressional lunch room. It's largely symbolic, since Congress' garbage is just a small part of our nation's total refuse output, but still, I expect our leaders to lead.

It isn't like we're talking about controversial environmentalism here; this isn't wind energy vs. oil, or global warming, or even endangered species vs. loggers. This is basic "let's create less garbage" environmentalism. But no, Republicans hate Democrats so much that they're willing to actually pollute more to prove it. As John Boehner tweeted, "The new majority – plasticware is back". Because that's what this is about: sticking it to those rotten green Democrats.

My goodness. They might as well have passed a bill requiring Congress to run the water while they brush their teeth, or that all the lights in the Capitol be left on at all times. This is the kind of stupid stuff that happens when our representatives care more about politics than they do about people. And it's clear from this that the Republican majority obviously cares more about politics, and less about listening to people or leading them to a better world.

Sometimes I feel like my only friend
Is the city I live in

Open Health Care Thread

2011-01-31T22:32:00.002-05:00

This post is to transport a conversation that was happening over on facebook. I'll post the immediate comment and then my response to it, and then we'll go from there. This post is really about asking questions of those who oppose the recent health care law and/or government health care in general.

The basic question: what do you propose instead to solve the problems of health care and provide coverage for the 15% of Americans who don't have it?

Here's the previous comment:

Where do you get your 15% of uninsured number? I would like to verify that stat as there are many numbers flying around out there. You want ideas, here are few that pop to mind. I may adjust them as I think about and research them a bit more.

Secondly, I agree with Durham that opening state lines would increase competition. Just look what Geico has done to the auto insurance. Right now there are 3-4 insurance groups in MN that we can choose from. Next, I would make insurance portable. Meaning that I should be able to purchase a plan and move it with my family, no matter who my employer is. We could also group "like" families together in coops to purchase group plans, Those that want GOlD plans with small deducts could be in a group, those that can only afford high deduct/hsa would be grouped together. Those that are in poverty, could be grouped in another group to buy discounted basic coverage insurance.

I am not a huge fan of the way MN has it MN Care, but it is an option for those out there who cannot get/afford other insurance.

I would also like to see a menu at the Dr. office. When I have to decide on care, I would like to know what it is going to cost me/insurance. Under either system, the patient rarely knows the cost of procedures until the bill arrives.

TORT reform could go a long way to curb expenses. Dr. would be able to buy insurance for less, therefore charge less for services and still make money. The medical field is not a cure all, it is a practice that does the best it can to help people stay/get healthy.

You stated that there are only 2 options: Either we provide MORE care to the uninsured, so that they can get cheaper preventative care and treat things before they become emergencies. You're on the record as being opposed to this. Are you still? Or we deny people care. And that means, quite literally, letting them die. This is not true. This is where charity, churches, and non-profits come into play.

Again, it boils down to choices. The choices we make have an impact on our lives. I like the choices I have under the current system. I do not think the "change" coming is going to benefit the majority of the people."
--------------------------------------
Here's my response:

The 15% number comes from all over. For example, http://www.gallup.com/poll/121820/one-six-adults-without-health-insurance.aspx. It's actually higher than 15%.

How would opening state lines lead to competition? In reality. I understand it in theory. But in reality there are some issues. I asked Durham a bunch of questions in response to this claim about eliminating state lines. Here they are: I'm curious about this assertion. What do you have to back it up? What is preventing a company from selling insurance now that would be different if it were sold across state lines? What would a "low cost" plan look like? Are there some out there now? Aren't there essentially national companies now that operate in most states just under slightly different corporate forms, in order to comply with the different laws of each state? Wouldn't eliminating state lines just allow them to merge and then we'd only have a few super huge insurance companies that could prevent all competition?

Plus, health care insurance is so expensive to finance that it is almost impossible to start up a health insurance company. You need hundreds of million of dollars in reserves. And if you're going to operate on a national level you'd need significantly more. Even if you had national competition you'd be looking at nearly 0 new entries into the market. That means what we've got now is what we'd have then, right? So how does that make it better? Except that it gives the insurance companies that already exist more power and ability to control doctors and keep out competitors.

I would make insurance portable. Meaning that I should be able to purchase a plan and move it with my family, no matter who my employer is.

I completely agree with separating insurance from employers. But how do you propose to do this? The reason it isn't happening now has more to do with cost (no one can afford insurance on their own, they need their employer's help) and with insurance companies not wanting to insure people who are individually purchasing, except at high rates and low coverage. In fact, right now there's a federal law that allows you to keep your coverage if you pay for it, but that law only runs for a short time after you lose employment. So I'm curious about how you would suggest we bring about this change?

We could also group "like" families together in coops to purchase group plans.

Um, have you read about how individuals can join coops to purchase insurance under the new health care law? You know why that doesn't exist now? Because insurance companies won't allow it, since it gives consumers more power. Insurance companies like selling to individuals because then they can offer bare bones coverage at high prices, since the consumer has little buying power. Employer plans are much better than individual plans for just this reason; employers come with a nice little pre-set risk pool and more money, making it worth it for the insurance company to offer better deals. You need some way to organize a coop and direct that money, and that's one of the big things this new plan does. How would you do it differently?

Those that are in poverty, could be grouped in another group to buy discounted basic coverage insurance.

When you say "discounted basic insurance" what do you mean? Who would give them a discount? Especially considering the poor generally have worse health and cost a health insurance company more money in payouts. Who would pay for these plans? I'm curious about what you envision here.

I would also like to see a menu at the Dr. office. When I have to decide on care, I would like to know what it is going to cost me/insurance. Under either system, the patient rarely knows the cost of procedures until the bill arrives.

Again, not a bad idea. But if you have a menu at the doctor's office that shows the standard charge, how will you know what discount your insurance company is getting? How will you know your copay? Will a menu really help you know ahead of time what your bill will be? And maybe more important, will it change what services you get? "Well, I need a bypass, but that's too much, so instead I'll just get some stitches..." ? A menu makes some sense, but since we aren't operating in a cash-for-services environment, it might be a little pointless, right?

TORT reform could go a long way to curb expenses. Dr. would be able to buy insurance for less, therefore charge less for services and still make money.

I really like some tort reform ideas. I think the best one is the idea of expert courts, where a judge trained in medical issues handles the trial, instead of an uneducated lay jury who can frequently just feel sympathetic for a victim of doctor mistakes, even if the doctor did everything they should have. I also think error reduction should be focused in other areas, besides using lawsuits to keep doctors in check. So yeah, tort reform has some merit. But we're talking about something that costs about 3.6 billion a year in a 2.3 trillion dollar industry. That's like 1.5%. If we got rid of all medical malpractice suits we'd still save only 1.5%. If you're paying $15,000 a year for insurance that'll save you just $225. Now that's nothing to sneeze at, sure. And I'm all for it. But it's not a solution (and remember, my example is if we make doctors 100% immune to all malpractice suits). Especially since malpractice payouts aren't increasing like health care costs are.

This is where charity, churches, and non-profits come into play.

Well, I've talked about this before. But I'm curious. Where do you think this money will come from? Total U.S. charitable giving reached a record high in 2007 at $314 billion. Total health care expenses per person in the U.S. were $7,290 in 2007. (That was the most reliable data I could find. It was at $6700 in 2006 according to the WHO. They've gone up since.) We'll round total U.S. population down to 300 million. If just 15% of the population is uninsured, then that's 45,000,000. If those 45 million each spend the 2007 per capita amount on health care (and mind you the poor are generally less healthy and spend more on health care) then that would mean they cost 328,050,000,000.

Or about 15 billion more per year than all charities combined raised in their best year ever.

That's just the reality. That's what the uninsured cost. So I reassert: you have two options. You can either give them better coverage through the government so that they can get cheaper preventative treatments or you can tell them tough luck and let them die. Which do you prefer?

Government As Other

2011-01-27T00:34:00.004-05:00

A bit of a rant here... Over the past few years there seems to be a pervasive and growing concept of government as "the other". I've had people describe government as a bunch of fat-cats sitting in back rooms smoking cigars.

Where does this image come from? It's clearly not accurate. If it were, Representative Giffords would never have been in the line of fire. Instead she was out meeting voters and getting ideas from them.

So what causes this concept of government-as-other? I mean, we're a government "of the people." My representative is a former high school teacher. There are a ton of similar representatives. I'm curious what possible facts this idea can even be founded on. I know a large number of people who are government employees. They work as teachers, as EPA staffers creating nation-wide initiatives to recycle electronics, as attorneys taking on abusive and dangerous employers, as welfare workers who help the neediest members of society and are constantly trying to fight waste (the other day I almost wasn't able to get a copy of a file because it cost the government $.30. Please don't tell me about run-away spending in welfare.). These are all people who are devoted public servants. None of them are perfect, I'm sure. But they're all doing very good and important work.

More important, they're all people. Just like everyone else. There is no "government-as-other." The government is us. What it does is what we tell it to do. We don't need rhetoric railing against government. That's the same as railing against people. That is what the tea party and small government advocates are doing. They're presenting an image of the world that says "government is this big bad entity that's wasting all of our money," never paying attention to the fact that they, their family members, roughly 20 million Americans employed in government and 300 million of their neighbors are "the government."

The rhetoric upsets me. It doesn't upset me because it's loud and filled with vitriol. It upsets me because it's founded on an absurdist reality. We can discuss government waste and excess spending. We can discuss whether entitlements have gone too far or what tax policy will lead to more jobs. We can discuss military expenditures and congressional budgets and anything else under the sun. But we can only discuss it when we're operating in reality.

And in reality, we are the government.

Where do we go
Where do we go now?

A Correction

2010-12-09T00:17:00.001-05:00

Quite some time ago I had an exchange on a blog in which I criticized a libertarian approach to some problem or other, noting how poorly the market often does when it comes to accomplishing what people actually want or need. Ben seconded my criticism, but observed that I was much more confident that government could get it right. It has also become clear in my discussions with relatives and others that I am frequently assumed to be an unabashed and undistinguishing advocate for big government.

It has been apparent to me for some time that a correction was needed. Particularly as regards Ben's remark. It's a comment that has eaten away at me for a long time now, since I'm actually very skeptical of government's ability to get things right. This post will hopefully serve as an effective correction. I think it is important for me to say something more about my more "conservative" beliefs about government (conservative isn't quite the right word. Neither is libertarian. If you think you've got the right word for it, please, let me know...). Especially since I am clearly skeptical of our ability to derive norms from the market. I frequently criticize libertarian leanings for their reliance on a terribly flawed hypothetical rational market. It's probably time I give them some credit for their criticism of a terribly flawed hypothetical democracy.
-------------------------------------------------
One of the things that most reasonably frightens people is the threat of government overreaching. It will almost certainly never rise to the levels imagined in dystopian fictions, but that doesn't mean the threat is non-existent. One need only consider the recent TSA screening hubbub to see an example of government going too far. Government overreaching leads to inconvenienced passengers, excessive bureaucracy, piles of debt, and an uphill battle in changing the system for the better. That's why I hold pretty tightly to the idea that government should always act in the least restrictive method possible.

I have taken the position in the past that nothing is off limits for government regulation. I argue that government is just a tool that is to be used to make people better. But the fact that government can get involved with a subject area doesn't mean that government should get involved with a subject area. Or that they should get involved in every way possible. Taking the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal is the better course.

Thus, if government can accomplish a goal (say, getting people to exercise and thereby be healthy) by education (public schools teach phy. ed.), then that would be better than taxing the public and paying people to exercise (vouchers for fatties!), which would be better than penalizing people for their weight (fines for fatties!), which would be better than mandating people to report for exercise and arresting them if they failed to do so (prison for fatties!).

Obviously, sometimes multiple approaches would be needed. We educate our kids about the importance of exercise and diet. We also provide vouchers to poor people so that they can afford proper nutrition. We also ban dangerous medical products from ever reaching the market. All of those different approaches have "health" as a goal. The important part is figuring out the least restrictive way for government to achieve a result. A course in "dangerous medical devices" isn't going to go too far in preventing those dangerous devices from harming people. A more restrictive approach than education is needed. Likewise, delivering a set of rations and forcing a menu on poor people is more restrictive than food support programs. We don't need to go that far, since the less restrictive method will accomplish the goal too.

It's not a particularly difficult concept, but it's an important one. And it's one that I firmly embrace. I have no problem with government action, provided government is acting in the least restrictive fashion possible to achieve the goal.
-------------------------------------------------
The corrupting influence of power is another of my largest concerns about government. Let's face it, politicians are crooks. Not all of them, not all the time. But lots of them, and far too frequently. And I don't mean literally crooks. But I mean people who at times use their power and influence for causes that don't actually serve the public. An elected official might honestly be trying to make life better for people 99.9% of the time. But that .1% of the time that they're not, that's a problem.

For example, I routinely read a column that criticizes minor public officials for using taxpayer money to hire armed guards and police escorts. Even state and local politicians, who frequently wouldn't even be recognized and face no cognizable threat, spend from public coffers to have guards "protecting" them. The real reason for these guards is usually 1 (or both) of 2 purposes: either to keep dissenters away from the official or to make the official feel important. There's no real security threat, so the money is a waste. That kind of corruption is a disservice to the public. Even if the official is truly dedicated to making life better for others and does an amazing job in every other facet of their job, if they're spending public money on unnecessary things for themselves, that's a problem. Government as it's currently set up frequently enables this kind of waste.

It provides a measure of relief to remember that our system is purposely designed to be cumbersome; checks and balances keep any single individual from gaining too much power, thus helping to address corruption. But checks and balances only go so far. They slow down the system, limiting the amount of corruption that makes it through. Unfortunately, this also makes it a lot harder to do something about the problem of corruption when it actually exists (And good luck getting corrupt officials to deny themselves something!).

More importantly though, the checks and balances don't actually address the problem of corruption itself. Gridlock limits the damage but doesn't remove the cause. This is something I'd like to see changed in our system. I would like checks in place on individuals in power, to keep them focused on effective service, not reelection and political games. Admittedly, this is less about government size and more about government accountability. But to my vision, government accountability goes a long way to reducing the problems that exist with government size (and an accountable government is one that shouldn't grow where it doesn't have to, thus cutting size too).

There are a couple of specific steps that I think would be useful to addressing the problems of government corruption.

First, you need to limit the power of those elected. The larger the body of representatives, the easier that is to accomplish (but the more unwieldy the elected body becomes). That Athenian, pure-democracy, model is a pretty high ideal. Obviously it wouldn't work on a national level, but perhaps it could be emulated more closely on a local level.

Second, more politics should happen at the local level. Or at least, more election/implementation should happen at the local level. For example, we have a federal program that helps people who can't afford it pay for housing. This is a good program. It drastically reduces the number of homeless people in our country, provides a stable environment for children and families, funnels money to small businesses (landlords), etc. But there's a huge regulatory regime in place to administer the program. You pretty much need the regulatory regime (you need local implementation, regional management, federal oversight, etc.), but that leads to very little local accountability. The elected officials appoint a federal director, who appoints (hires) regional managers, who appoint local managers, who appoint local workers to implement the program.

If you get a corrupt individual at the local level, who, say, refuses to help minorities, or refuses to follow the law, it can be very challenging to address the problem. That person, despite being a government employee (in fact, because they are a government employee) has very little accountability to the public. The local worker is too far removed from the elected officials. But if rather than all that top-down appointment we had more local oversight, then perhaps those local workers would be more responsive to the public and we could avoid or address individual corruption. It's not the easiest approach in the world, but it might be better than what we've got now. Local politics allows for better corruption control.

Third, it isn't just politicians and government workers who mess up the system with their corruption. It's also influential citizens and corporations. Far too many of our laws are designed by the influential and are anti-competitive by nature. There is also a wide class of laws that are not directly anti-competitive but that, by imposing a requirement on an industry, ultimately turn out to have an anti-competitive element to them. The very recent food safety bill is a good example. It required farmers to do a lot of various tracking and paperwork to ensure that the food they're selling is safe. Factory farmers had no problem with these extra requirements because they will be a bigger challenge for their competitors than they will for the factory farmers. The big guys can handle the additional responsibilities and spread the cost out over a wider base. The little guys have more trouble. And thus, in an anti-competitive spirit, the big, influential guys support these kinds of laws.

The solution isn't to just get rid of the laws altogether. After all, things like food safety are important. The solution is to accommodate the little guys, and re-set the market equality. Fortunately the food bill took the path of exempting smaller farmers from the requirements. Depending on the circumstances, charging big guys or subsidizing small guys could also be workable solutions. The point is, however, that the law is susceptible to influence that can be used to distort the market. That's part of the problem with relying on the market - it gets distorted. But it's also part of the problem with relying on government - it can distort. We can use government to help markets work or help them fail. Keeping a close eye on that is important.
-------------------------------------------------

This brings us somewhat naturally to another of my biggest concerns with government regulation: the unintended consequences. It happens far too frequently that a law meant to do one thing ends up meaning that something else happens, either instead of or in addition to the intended consequence. Really good ideas and laws can be marred by unforeseen effects.

The proper solution is consistent review. After a law is passed, how are people responding? After it gets enacted do they change their behavior? Are new problems caused that weren't there before? Review and reassessment are essential to addressing unintended consequences.

Of course, once we've reviewed and reassessed we also need to respond. If there are unintended consequences, what changes in the recently-enacted law could avoid those consequences? If they can't be avoided, can their effects be mitigated in some other fashion? Do we need to add more or take more away in order to fix the new problem?

It isn't an easy task. This requires the legislature to continually come back to the areas they just got done dealing with. But that's how the system should work. I don't care if the legislature is burned out on talking about an issue... they need to get over that and tweak what they've passed.

When a law is first passed it should be seen as a hypothesis: "We think law X will have effect A." Figuring out whether that hypothesis is true requires empirical analysis. Is effect A actually happening in the real world? Is there also effect B which counteracts the benefits of A? If so, we need to find a new hypothesis; an amended law.
-------------------------------------------------

Most of what I've discussed here are problems with government that have been identified time and time again. They're problems that can't be denied. I don't have faith in government as-it-is to get things right, because these problems are real and they aren't adequately addressed in our current system. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying though. That doesn't mean we should give up and trust a market that also doesn't work. It just means we need to find the answer for the challenges.

To my mind, there is really one good answer for the problems: an active citizenry. More people getting more involved in government is going to lead to more watchful eyes, more noses to the grindstone, and more helping hands. Again, in some ways, this is the Athenian model, wherein all citizens aren't just given freedom to participate in government, but are actually duty-bound to participate, usually in important ways. Getting people to take the business of government seriously gets us a much better government, which gets us much better results.

Sloth is the biggest challenge facing government. People are lazy. We don't hold people accountable because it takes a lot of work to do so. We don't revamp laws that have unintended consequences because it takes a lot of work to do so. We don't level the playing field because it takes a lot of work to confront the influential. We don't have a working government because it takes a lot of work to keep one.

I have hope that someday we'll make our way towards a system in which an educated and active citizenry participate in government, participate in holding officials accountable, participate in evaluating and amending laws that need correction, participate in a government that does as much as it needs to but doesn't overstep its bounds. I have faith that such a world is possible not because I have confidence in government, but because I have faith in people.

I have confidence in sunshine

I have confidence in rain

A Thought On The Parties

2010-11-03T10:58:00.002-04:00

So we've now had a decade or so of really really close races. I mean, Bush vs. Gore came down to a SCOTUS decision. There have been tons of recounts over the past decade; races decided by the narrowest of margins; a constant back and forth for the parties that never deviates too far from balance, etc.

I think we can learn something from all of this recent history: that both of the parties are leaving a large chunk of swing voters unsatisfied. There's a large group of people who don't feel at home in either the Democratic or Republican camps, and until one of those parties changes to meet those swing voters we'll just keep bouncing back and forth.

I'm one of these swing voters. I'm speaking from my personal experience when I say neither party suits me. And I'm speaking from what I know of those around me. I know a lot of people who agree with me on this, that both parties do not adequately capture their positions, and that their failure to do so is massive. That is, Democrats fail on some really big issues and Republicans fail on some really big issues.

I would suggest that the problem comes in that fiscally liberal and socially conservative values tend to line up nicely together. They, generally speaking, reflect a Christian ethos of moral behavior and generous servitude.

Most of the Democrats I know are people for whom fiscal issues are more important than social issues. In their personal lives they live as highly moral and upright people. In their voting lives, they prioritize fiscally liberal issues that reflect their generous nature. That is, for example, they might happen to be pro-choice, but that's not really the reason they're voting Democrats. The reason they're voting Democrat is because they're pro-social justice and they believe in giving generously to the less fortunate and see that government can be a useful tool for accomplishing that result. On the other hand, most of the Republicans I know are people for whom social issues are more important than fiscal issues. In their personal lives they give generously of themselves to the less fortunate. In their voting lives, they prioritize social issues that reflect a desire to protect others from harm. That is, for example, they might happen to be pro-deregulated business, but that's not really the reason they're voting Republican. The reason they're voting Republican is because they have a philosophical belief in government's role of protecting vulnerable persons from harm (including, for example, the unborn, victims of crime, persons subject to tyranny in other countries, etc.).

These two things seem to really line up well in my mind, and in the minds of a large number of people I know. Maybe you'd disagree with me. But ask yourself these questions: if you are a Democrat faced with voting for a pro-life Democrat or a pro-choice Republican, (all other positions reflecting the party norms), which would you pick? If you are a Republican faced with voting for a pro-taxes Republican or an anti-taxes Democrat, (all other positions reflecting the party norms), which would you pick? I'm convinced that the answer, for most, would be to stick with their party. Most people voting Republican are doing it on social issues. Most people voting Democrat are doing it on fiscal issues. What's more though, the swing voters are motivated by these same issues (fiscally liberal, socially liberal), it's just that they shift in terms of which issue they're focusing on.

Someone, somewhere, has to get a party going where those two things line up.

A New and Improved Halloween Playlist

2010-10-26T01:50:00.002-04:00

A couple years ago I put together a Halloween playlist. It was pretty solid, but it's about to get better. Over the past year or so I've kept my ear out for songs that could serve to improve the list, and they've been added to what I had already collected. I also had a few more songs that were very specifically Halloween themed ("Every Day is Halloween" by Ministry and "Halloween" by Siouxsie and the Banshees) but they just weren't very good, so I cut 'em out. I'm pretty proud of the end product this time because it's quality music - either very fun or very good (or both) - in addition to being thematic.

This list has songs about ghosts, Frankenstein's monster, skeletons, werewolves, vampires, devils, mummies, witches and more. Plus, there's a remarkable amount of new music on this list. 3 of the songs were released in the past year, two from Jeremy Messersmith's fantastic album The Reluctant Graveyard which, as you might guess, has plenty of Halloween-style references. The other song from this year might actually be my favorite song of 2010, Josh Ritter's The Curse. It's beautiful.

So, without further ado, here's the list:

Alice Cooper - Feed My Frankenstein
The Classics IV - Spooky
The Cranberries - Zombie
The Decemberists - Shankill Butchers
Donovan - Season of the Witch
Harlem - Friendly Ghost
Michael Jackson - Thriller
Ladytron - Ghosts
Jeremy Messersmith - A Girl, A Boy and a Graveyard
Jeremy Messersmith - Organ Donor
Kate Nash - Skeleton Song
Ray Parker Jr. - Ghostbusters
Bobby Picket - Monster Mash
Josh Ritter - The Curse
Jason Segel - Dracula's Lament
Nina Simone - I Put A Spell On You
Tegan & Sara - Walking With A Ghost
TV On The Radio - Wolf Like Me
Viva Voce - From The Devil Himself
Warren Zevon - Werewolves of London

I feel like I'm some kind of Frankenstein
Waiting for a shock to bring me back to life

Why Charity Isn't Enough

2010-10-19T01:13:00.016-04:00

I feel like in the past year or so I've heard an awful lot of people suggest that we should move away from any social welfare system and back towards a world in which charity is relied on to provide for those in need. It seems to be an idea that has enraptured a fair number of tea party advocates. And I think it's crap. Now don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in the good and necessity of charity (and have written about it before), but charity and social welfare systems are two very very different things and serve two different (though admittedly overlapping) purposes. The idea that charity could replace or substitute for welfare systems is an extremely flaw view. This post will attempt to touch on some of the biggest flaws in the argument for charity replacing social welfare.
------------------------------------------------------------------

It probably makes sense to say something about the differences between charity and welfare. Primarily I see two major differences. First, welfare is about societal relationships, while charity is about the relationship between donor and recipient. That is, welfare is about the relationship of the many to the one (and vice versa). We, as a community, determine what is fair to expect the well-off to give to those who are not well off, and we, as a community, determine what is a fair limit for those who are not well off to receive and what they must do in order to receive it. By contrast, charity is about the giver determining what they will give, as an individual. Likewise, it is about individual receipt by the recipient; usually we don't see the same kinds of strings attached to charitable giving as we do with welfare (for example, most charitable giving doesn't require people to prove they're looking for work). There's community involvement with welfare, there's not with charity.

The second primary difference is the aim of each. Charity is an expression of generosity and love. It's what I as a Christian would comfortably identify as agape. A type of brotherly love for the other. Charity is less about the end result and more about the expression. Social welfare, on the other hand, is about creating a baseline standard of living for every member of society, which in turn creates a stable and productive society. Making sure everyone has a place to live, food to eat, potable water, basic health care, etc. ensures that people aren't dying in the street, helps keep down disease and revolt and all the other social ills that societies have dealt with throughout the ages. Welfare, in addition to being an individual good for the people who receive it, is a social good. In welfare, it isn't just the gesture that counts. It's the actual result and the stability that creates.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I also want to say, quickly, that understanding history can be a very useful tool for this discussion. To be sure, the modern incarnation of welfare is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm no expert on the history, but it seems that the idea rolling "back" to a time without welfare is not an entirely unfounded idea. However, what is mistaken about the idea of rolling back is that societies without welfare also had more charity or that they accomplished the same social goals as societies with welfare. There isn't a trade off between welfare and charity, such that societies with welfare programs have less charity and vice versa. In fact, I think you'd see that societies with stability created through welfare programs are actually more charitable than those without. And there isn't a trade off in terms of results. Some people seem to suggest that if we got rid of welfare programs that charitable giving would step in and accomplish the same results. Understanding the history sheds a harsh light on that myth, and the reality shining through is that the two aren't interchangeable in terms of results either. (In fact, if charity had been enough in the first place, welfare programs wouldn't have started up!).
------------------------------------------------------------------

So now we come to the heart of the topic. Why isn't charity enough? Why can't charity provide the same social stability that welfare does? The answer is simple and the answer is sad: There is too great a need.

I am a legal aid attorney. Every day at work I help people who are at or below the poverty line with their legal problems. I have handled roughly 150 different clients every year for the past four years (from brief advice to full-on appellate representation). That number is before counting spouses and children (I would venture to guess that half of my clients have children). Over 4 years that is 600 different people at or below the poverty line that have come to me with poverty-induced legal problems. The experience is staggering. The federal poverty statistics are even more so.

We are a nation of have-nots.

To see why charity isn't enough, I want to focus on just one issue: housing. Of the 600 people I have worked with at least two-thirds receive some sort of welfare assistance for their housing. They get rental vouchers, or live in low-income housing built and paid for by the federal government, or participate in one of the dozens of other housing programs. Most commonly people who receive welfare assistance for housing are required to pay a third of their income towards their housing costs and the government pays for the rest. For an individual living at the poverty level, a third of their income would be roughly $300 a month. Most people in the country cannot find an apartment for that price. They need assistance in order to afford even the cheapest, most basic housing. Considering that most of my clients are well below the poverty line makes it even more clear how grave the situation would be without government assistance to pick up the rest of the cost of rent.

In order to address this problem we need to come up with a way to cover the rent shortage every month. Welfare systems do it through taxation and then spending the money on the rent for those in the welfare program. Tackling this problem from a charitable context is a stark contrast.

It's clear that, in order to make sure people don't become homeless, that we can somehow come up with the difference in rent, between what the person can afford and what rent actually costs. So let's say a studio apartment runs about $500/mo. The individual can come up with $300. That's just $200 more a month. Surely there are plenty of charities that could cover that. It's a pretty small sum. Of course, it's complicated further by the ongoing need. Rent isn't just a one-time need. Sure, a charitable person might be able to come up with $200 to help someone cover their rent. But how many times? Over the period of a year that would $2400. How many people can find an extra $2400 in their budget? Probably pretty few.

But maybe the advocate for charity-over-welfare would say, "we don't need 1 person to come up with $2400. We just need lots of people to come up with smaller charity. 12 people coming up with $200 would do the trick just as well." And that is exactly right. But it misses the crux of the problem: we aren't dealing with just one needy individual.

If two-thirds of my 600 clients are on housing assistance, that means 400 different monthly housing payments are made on behalf of just the people I have assisted. If that's $200/month per person, that means our direct charitable giving needs to come up with $80,000 every month, and nearly a million dollars every year. If everyone were able to kick in a one-time charitable contribution of $200, it would still take 4,800 people to meet the housing needs of my clients. And that's just for my clients in two small areas of just two states! Do you know 4,800 people who could come up with an extra $200 every year? I sure don't.

I don't mean for this to get bogged down in specific numbers, but it's important to recognize the practical situation, because that explains clearly how far away charity is from covering the needs that welfare addresses. For example, a quick glance at numbers put together by the Government Printing Office show that as a nation we'll pay an estimated $35,610,000,000 in housing costs for 2010. That's 35.6 billion dollars. Total U.S. charitable giving reached a record high in 2007 at $314 billion. That's all charitable giving, including religious, international, health care related (think cancer awareness), alumni donations to colleges, etc. That includes individual and corporate giving.

What these numbers mean is that, in the most charitable time in history, we would need to increase our giving by more than 10% if we were going to cover the housing costs currently provided by welfare. Think practically... how many people do you know that could increase their charitable giving by 10%? And even if they could, how many actually would? More shocking, that covers just housing. The total spent by the government on "income" issues (check out the numbers link from above) is more than our country's total charitable giving. That means, realistically, to maintain services where they are today we would have to double our charitable giving.

The point to all of this, of course, is that people who suggest charity can replace welfare, generally speaking, do not have a great handle on just how big the need is in this country. Quite simply, the number of people living in poverty is enormous.

Moreover, the consequences of not having welfare are, well, frightening. Take a look through history at societies without any welfare. They were not stable societies. Without providing health care coverage disease runs rampant and people literally die in the streets. Without providing housing people go homeless, live under bridges and in doorways and literally die in the streets. Without providing food support people go hungry and, once again, literally die in the streets. I know this all seems like hyperbole, but it's actually reality. There have been societies that relied on charity over welfare. Pre-revolution France is probably the best example. Charity breaks down. People are greedy. Those who have become disacquainted with the have-nots and cannot grasp the reality, cannot understand what level of charity would truly be needed. And without that understanding things fall apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that those who advocate for charity over welfare are probably chomping at the bit right now, suggesting that, in the presence of lowered tax burdens we could actually afford to give at the levels I've suggested are needed. That assumes people would be willing to give more, which I don't think is entirely true. But even more importantly, it overlooks some critical elements to welfare that are generally absent in charitable giving. In order to effectively create social stability you need these elements, and charity alone does not provide them.

First among these is that charitable giving leaves gaps in coverage in a way that social welfare does not. Setting aside discretionary questions that are present in charity but absent in welfare ("Who should I give the money to?" is a question unique to charity. Welfare asks instead "does this person qualify for the money?" and, if they do, no discretion is exercised.), the primary gap I'm thinking about is that of social networking.

To put it bluntly, most people who need welfare don't have a support network. Most people not-on-welfare are probably pretty connected to their family and friends. If they ever had a critical need they could rely on that support network for assistance. If they were going to come up short on funds, they could borrow it from that network. If they got flooded out of their home by freak storms, they would have friends they could stay with or family to help them move to a new place. But those on welfare usually don't have these same support networks.

The reason that's so relevant is because these support networks often steer charitable giving (and charitable work). When my family has a need, our support networks step up and help us out. That's a type of charity. But I don't get it because my need is somehow greater or more urgent than others in society. I just get it because of my interconnections with other people. For those without those connections life is significantly tougher. Many people on welfare lack the same support network that enables the rest of us to thrive. They don't have much in the way of family or friends who can help them out in a jam. And that often leads to worse jams. If you don't have health insurance your kid is more likely to be sick, for longer periods of time. If you don't have someone who can watch your sick kid for a night so that you can make it to your work shift, it's going to be a lot tougher to get to work and hold down that job. The problems all compound without that network.

As I said previously, those networks often funnel charitable giving. People give to causes they are connected to. People who know someone with a disease are more likely to give the charities that help fight that disease. People who go to a church are more likely to give to missionaries affiliated with that church. People who went to a college are more likely to give to that college. Etc.

For those without a support network, their issues of need are often overlooked by those who are giving charitably. Quite simply, unless they're already connected to a network, they're unlikely to receive charity. Even if charitable giving rose significantly, these gaps in coverage would present a significant problem.

The other major advantage that welfare has over charity is that it accounts for the administration necessary for taking in funds and funneling them to the right places. Cut it any way you want, with so many needed people needing so much from so many others, it take a large administrative presence just to ensure that funds get to where they're going. If we cut our taxes by the amount spent on housing benefits and said "let's make sure people get that money through charity" you'd have to create a brand new administration to accomplish that charitable goal. You need a way of collecting the funds. You need a way of distributing the funds. You need a way of identifying the people who need the funds. You need a way of making sure they spend the funds on the stuff they should be spent on. You need people to make priorities about the distribution of funds. And lots more besides, including fraud prevention (there's a lot more fraud in charity than in welfare).

All of these functions are things that are part of the welfare system. There are probably areas where efficiency could be improved, sure, but this administration is necessary to accomplish the kind of coverage that our society needs. Any charity that wants to accomplish the same results would necessarily become a type of administration-heavy welfare system of its own.

Between the huge gaps in coverage and the reality of administrative costs, there's simply no practical way that increased charity alone could accomplish the results achieved through social welfare systems. Even if we lowered taxes, so that people could give more to charity, we wouldn't be as effective at providing the necessary services and stability that we accomplish through welfare. Money alone does not solve the problem. The same amount of money distributed through private charitable efforts vs. distributed through welfare systems is going to have vastly different results. When it comes to social stability, the welfare system is the one to rely on for actually accomplishing our goals.
------------------------------------------------------------------

So, where does that leave us? It's clear that welfare can accomplish things that charity cannot. In order to provide the kind of social stability that we all need, there needs to be a functioning administrative system and it needs to cover as many gaps as possible. It's also true that the level of need far exceeds what charity can handle. It takes a very significant naivete to suggest that we can accomplish through charity what we currently achieve through welfare systems. Finally, it's important to understand that charity and welfare serve two related-but-distinct purposes. They are mutually reinforcing, not competitive. Welfare helps lay down a baseline for survival and stability that enables people to thrive, which in turn enables charity, which can be used to pull people up, beyond baseline survival. Charity is an expression of love and generosity. Welfare is a social good. They work hand-in-hand, and both are extremely necessary.

The idea that we can replace welfare with charity is neither a charitable idea, nor one which truly considers the welfare of others.

The dry fig of his heart
Under scarab and bone
Starts back to its beating

Question:

2010-06-29T01:13:00.003-04:00

I remember quite some time ago, probably around my sophomore year of high school, when the topic in debate was something to the effect of: what is more important, society's goal of eliminating discrimination or the right of people to engage in exclusive, voluntary organizations.

Basically, what matters more: accepting everyone or being able to associate with like-minded people?

Last week, MPR was asking whether or not evangelicals should be able to distribute religious literature preaching against homosexuality at a GLBT Pride festival. Then, on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. There were some funny legal stipulations going on in that case that really dictated the result, but it got me thinking a lot about the question. Basically, the Christian Legal Society (CLS) was told they couldn't get official school recognition (and thereby money and access to campus resources) because they required people to sign a statement of faith and because they didn't want their members to be openly engaged in immoral behavior, including specifically, same-sex relationships. The school apparently has a policy of non-discrimination for their groups. Basically, CLS had to accept "all-comers", that is, anyone who wanted to be a part of the group.

[I do on some level question whether CLS really violates that all-comers requirement with their position. I mean, they'll take all-comers, so long as those individuals are willing to sign up for the requirements... and since the requirements are issues of free will (people can choose whether or not to openly engage in same sex relationships) and not issues of unchangeable status (if the group said "we'll accept all-comers, so long as they're white, that would obviously be beyond the individual's control), maybe they aren't really violating an all-comers policy?] The Supreme Court narrowly said they were violating the policy, and therefore the school could choose not to support CLS.

Which really leads me back to that ultimate question: what's more important? Eliminating discrimination or our right to freely associate? Does the right of free association mean the school should support CLS, even if they're discriminating? How far does that go? Should the large group of people interested in gathering at a GLBT pride festival be able to exclude dissenting viewpoints from their event? Does it matter if it's on public or private grounds? These are big issues. And kind of fun to think about... So, how do you come out on the issue?

Well they come and pull me from my house
And they drag my body through the streets

On A Prairie Home Death

2010-06-15T01:48:00.005-04:00

Some time ago I wrote a review of A Prairie Home Companion, (the movie, not the radio show). You can find it here.

I watched it again a couple of days ago and it's been on my mind ever since. It's an honest and profound movie that deals with the ever-important issue of death. Ultimately, that's what the movie is about. The plot centers loosely around the final show before cancellation. A character dies. Another character is already dead and is coming to bring peace to the dying. There's plenty of philosophical musing on death and how we react to it. And it's the last film Robert Altman did before he died. There's just no way to watch this move and not think about death.

What's truly remarkable though is that A Prairie Home Companion isn't like most "deep" movies, that sort of reference or represent an issue and then pass by it. APHC doesn't just make you aware of death as an issue, but it actually helps viewers to think broadly and deeply about dying. And, as any good discussion of death should do, it also leads you to think broadly and deeply about living.

Garrison Keillor's humor - dark, droll, succinct, almost unexpected - is perhaps the ideal medium for examining death. Take this little exchange for example:

Lola: What if you die some day?
GK: I will die.
Lola: Don't you want people to remember you?
GK: I don't want them to be told to remember me.

It might not read funny, but to hear Garrison Keillor say it evokes one of those "it's funny because it's true" responses. You smirk first. And then you start to think. There's an awful lot packed into those lines:

The power of death's inevitability,
The acceptance of the same,
Wonder about how our deaths will be viewed by others,
That we care deeply about how they'll think about us,
And, in that ultimate stoic response: the fact that we care deeply that they do think about us.

All of those are topics that a person could ruminate on for quite a while, but they're all wrapped up quickly in a couple of lines before Keillor heads out to sing another jingle about powder milk biscuits or rhubarb pie. And in that "the show goes on" element we find the greatest response to death: living. It evokes St. Francis' great answer to the question "if Christ were coming today, what would you do?" Francis, who was working in his garden at the time, answered "I'd keep hoeing." Keillor's answer has that same beauty.

I don't know that I have too much to add to the depth of the movie itself. It's really a pretty comprehensive take on the subject. I'd love to sit down with a class sometime and just listen to what everyone takes from it; there's just so much there.

What I have gotten out of the film is an almost graceful acceptance of death and an urging to love life while it's here. Really, a pretty fantastic message. And a philosophy that I embrace wholeheartedly.

I figure it's fitting to go out, like the movie, on one of Keillor's greatest quotes:

"They say such nice things about people at their funerals that it makes me sad that I'm going to miss mine by just a few days."

In the sweet by and by
Will shall meet on the beautiful shore

Phickle Thoughts

2010-06-01T23:22:00.003-04:00

Well, it's finally happened: some random employee in a store said "hello" to me and I just naturally said "hello" back, without wondering what the heck was going on. It's good to be back in Minnesota. It only took me 6 months to get back into Minnesota nice.
------------------------
I've now seen a fair number of the movies that were nominated for Best Picture. So far, I liked A Serious Man the most. It was executed so tightly, nothing extra, nothing unnecessary. Very quality film making. District 9 and Inglorious Basterds were also pretty awesome.

Of course, I still haven't seen the winner, Hurt Locker. But if my cousin-in-law is to be believed, it's just so-so on the accuracy.
------------------------
Summer in Minnesota is awesome. I'm so glad to be back. It makes the awful winter totally worth it.
------------------------
My brother-in-law just graduated from high school. He's the youngest of 6 siblings, so it's a pretty big happening. We're just starting off with our family, so the idea of being an empty-nester is... well, it's strange. It's also kind of strange because my family still has a long way to go, what with my younger brother just wrapping up his first year in kindergarten. Yup, I said first year... nah, I'm kidding. He could probably jump to like, 5th grade already.
------------------------
I just finished reading a pretty boring book, The Myth of the Rational Market. I was expecting more of an economic treatise addressing the ways in which the fact that humans aren't purely rational affects economic realities, and instead I got a history of finance and approaches to the stock market. The former interests me. The later... not so much. I did get a bit of the history of economic ideas and the way economist embraced the concept of rationality and how they are in the midst of a paradigm shift towards a system that recognizes people don't operate as rational consumers/investors.

It's a pretty important topic, especially given the strong libertarian movement in our country that rejects the idea that the government should be involved in directing our market activities and embraces the idea that the market "gets it right." Because even though that idea might be prevalent in our social discourse as things currently stand, it's falling out of favor pretty quickly in academia, and understanding where it came from in the first place helps reveal some of the fatal flaws behind that approach. Behavioral economics is probably the next wave in econ, and, more importantly, can help us understand where government can be useful in tweaking the market, in order to make sure that we really do "get it right."
-------------------------
Finally, I'm very much looking forward to the new Futurama episodes. Can I get a "Puny Earthlings!"?

I'm walking on sunshine

Lost and Found

2010-05-24T01:27:00.009-04:00

You're gonna be nowhere
The loneliest kind of lonely
It may be rough going
Just to do your thing is the hardest thing to do
--------------------------

I've been a big Lost fan from the beginning. I've seen all the episodes, almost always during their original air time. It's been a pretty sizable time investment for me. So tonight I watched the last episode with an awful lot of anticipation.

Warning: There will probably be some spoilers ahead. Deal with it.

I've always been much more interested in the characters and their relationships than I have the sci-fi/mystery aspects of the show. A lot of the questions that other people had just weren't questions that interested me. I was much more willing to accept things at face value and move on. A polar bear on the island? Sure, it's a strange island. Makes perfect sense... moving on.

So for me, this finale answered the technical, mystery aspects that I needed answered. What happens when the light goes out? People can die, the magic island stopping evil from escaping falls apart, etc.
It isn't really going to be Jack taking over for Jacob, is it? Isn't that too obvious? Yes, yes it was.
Are the sideways flashes real? Well... OK, that one got answered too. But in a less technical way. I'll get to that in a moment.

Other than those three, what questions could people have? It seems to me that any questions remaining are ones that don't really need to be answered. We can make reasonable guesses or accept that some of the Island's story escapes this particular bunch of castaways. Sure, it might have been nice to see the real Henry Gale end up on the Island... but that's a different story. It doesn't really matter to what we had in front of us.

More important to me, than all of the mystery questions, was the emotional storyline that followed the characters. Seeing how they ended up - who lived, who died, who professed their love for whom, etc. - was what it was really all about. I could run down my relationship with every character, throughout the show, and point out all sorts of brilliant elements that made them so compelling. But I think that, fittingly, one character really tells the story: Jack

I was always a Locke guy... (and when it came to Kate, a Sawyer guy). Jack bothered me. His utter lack of faith in the first 3 seasons drove me crazy. He was smart, he was capable, he had a compelling history and he always worked so hard to do the right thing. But it drove me nuts, because the right thing wasn't the logical thing, it was the faithful thing. And Jack couldn't see that. Until they got off the island. When Season 3 ended with the flash forward... it blew my mind. I didn't see the flash forward part of it coming until the end of the episode, when Jack said they had to go back. Completely blindsided me. But what was even more shocking was to hear Jack say that the Island wasn't done with them... to see that he had found faith. It was a glimmer of hope. Seasons 4 and 5 and even part of this past season, he struggled with that faith. It was still painful for me at times. But I'd seen the glimmer, and I knew it would be there in the end. And ever since the lighthouse, yeah, Jack was on board. He was going to do the right thing. And it was fantastic. Watching his journey, from skeptic, to novice, to believer, to Protector, to death... Amen.

It was all so very exciting because I loved all of these people. And this finale did something brilliant to reinforce that fact: it served as a clip show. Seinfeld is remembered for its awful clip-show finale. Lost should be remembered for its brilliant clip-show finale. Because the writers made the flashback/memory scenes a major part of the story. They weren't just nice recalls to earlier parts of the show, they were relevant to the story and moved the characters forward in a deep, emotional way.

Watching every character remember their past, remember their life, become aware of who they were, what they had done, how the died, how they lived, etc.... watching that gave us closure for each of the characters individually. It moved each of them that final step. It was like I was going through the stages of grief while watching the show and with each of the character's realization scenes I moved from mourning into acceptance. This was television at its best. Heck, this was storytelling at its best.

And in the end, well, it was like a great big reunion. Everyone was happy. It didn't matter that people had gotten into fights or gone their separate ways or any of that. Here they were, all together, and all accepting of each other and the lives they'd lived. It was as warm an ending as there ever was.

Finally, onto the big picture. What's it all mean? I suppose we'll never know exactly, and there's some beauty in that. Especially for an old philosopher like myself. But I think the best guess comes when we answer that question I asked before: Are the sideways flashes real?

Maybe it seems weird that asking that question could reveal the ultimate meaning of the show. But the real essence of that question cuts deeper: we want to know if the sideways flashes are real because we want to know if the characters are getting a chance to live their lives again, "uninterrupted." It's a question we all struggle with in our own lives. "If only things were different... if only there weren't some higher purpose pushing us in a particular direction... what would life be like?"

For some, the answer is that it wouldn't be that different at all (without the Island directing her life, Kate still becomes a fugitive). For some, the answer is a significant change (Sawyer is a cop). And for some, it's an almost completely new identity (Jack is a father!).

The beauty of the question is that we can never really know how things would have been different. If there's a higher fate directing our lives (and I do believe that there is), how can we know if we responded appropriately to it? How can we know we made the right choice? How can we reconcile our heart and our head? Do we lament our missed opportunities? Do we celebrate our narrow misses? What connections did we build and which ones did we fail to build?

That's what the sideways flashes were. They were the "life that could have been". They weren't actual - Locke gave that away when he told Jack that he didn't have a son - but they were potential. And in order to move on the characters needed to "let go"; let go of the potential and embrace the actual.

For me, therein lies the real essence of Lost. We can never know what other paths our life might have taken. We have to cherish the one it does take. And, like the final scene of the show, with that acceptance comes peace.

You gotta make your own kind of music
Sing your own special song

Phickle Thoughts

2010-05-17T01:32:00.002-04:00

So it's my birthday today... I'm 29. Which is really just a math-minded person's way of saying "almost old."

A few years back I put up a quality post about my life to that point. It sums me up pretty good. All I've done since that post is graduate law school, get my first (and second) real job, and have a kid, so it's still pretty relevant.
---------------------
I'm still a big Survivor fan. Russel has easily been one of my favorite players of all time. He's gotten robbed twice. And he's right, there's a flaw with the game. Russel suggested the flaw was that we didn't let viewers pick the winner. He's wrong about that.

The flaw is that at the end of the game it isn't about surviving. It's about getting elected. Those are very different things. If they really want to make the game about surviving, they need to come up with some sort way to make the final determination that isn't a popularity contest.

The whole thing has been a problem for a long time. It's allowed an awful lot of weak winners. And now it's allowed a weak repeat winner. Oh well. It's just a game, right?
----------------------
I caught a tiny bit of the Miss USA competition tonight. It's even more of a joke than I realized. The part I happened to see was the eventually winner giving her answer to the big final question. It had to be one of the least well-reasoned answers in the history of pageants. And that's saying something. Essentially, her response was "I think insurance should pay for birth control because it's expensive." Actually, those are almost exactly her words.

Miss Virginia actually gave an articulate answer. She got third place. I'm surprised they didn't bump her down lower. The judges (Johnny Weir, Paul Dean, Carmelo Anthony, etc.) don't exactly seem like the type who would reward the people who actually deserved it.

Kind of the same problem as Survivor. Hmm.
-----------------------
I someday hope to grill a cake.
-----------------------
Looks like the Minnesota legislature is gonna have a deal in place to "balance" the budget. From what I can tell, a lot of it will be pushing the problems to the next governor and legislature (but of course, the current government can't actually bind the future governments, which means we'll get to go through this all again in another year or two). But that's par for the course with Pawlenty. He's been leveraging the state's future and debt spending for his own political career for far too long.

He talks big about spending cuts, but he's actually been approving spending - in order to make himself popular - for 8 years. And when forced to make hard decisions and actually cut the budget, he targeted public schools, health care, and local governments.

The man took office in 2003, amid significant prosperity. He promised not to raise taxes at any point when he was governor. This left him with a tough choice when the economy tanked - either raise the money the state needed by increasing taxes, slash benefits, or debt spend. He chose the later. Not a responsible choice. Now that the ability to borrow has significantly diminished, he's choosing to slash benefits. Truthfully, that's part of the solution. But everyone who looks at the problem knows it's not the whole fix.

Oh, and because local government aid has been drastically cut, local governments have had to significantly increase property taxes, which means that, despite Pawlenty's promise of no new taxes, most MN citizens are actually paying new taxes.

A class act, that guy.

Time is marching on
And time is still marching on

2010 Baseball Preview

2010-04-06T00:31:00.002-04:00

It's that time of year again, when hope springs eternal for your team, unless you live in Pittsburgh or Kansas City. When every little hit means a lot to your fantasy team. When the TV broadcast shows the player's stats from the previous year instead of the current year. When you have to remind yourself that yes, even your team will lose at least a handful of games, and that it'll be alright. So without further delay, here are my picks for the coming baseball season.

National League

NL East: The Phillies are an awfully trendy team to make the World Series this year. It kind of makes me want to spite them. That's probably a bad idea, since they've got so many darn good players and they added Halladay. Yup, I just talked myself into picking the Phillies even though I don't want to. I think the Braves are a team on the rise, and Bobby Cox's last season might have enough magic in it to get them the Wild Card (and Cox another Manager Of The Year Award). The Nationals, my National League team after my time in D.C., are still doing their best Teddy Roosevelt impression. And if you know what that means, big bonus points for you. I laugh at the Mets. There might not be a better team for schadenfreude in all of baseball. So here's how I see it shaping up: Phillies, Braves, Mets, Marlins, Nats.

NL Central: As strange as it might seem, I think the Cubs might be flying a bit below the radar. Probably because this is really just a mediocre division. I think the "under-appreciated" tag could probably be applied to the Brewers too. As unlikely as it sounds, the Reds have been building a little something there in Cincy, but I think it's a team with too many high-upside/not-enough-consistency guys. I've read some stat-heads who think this could be a break-out year for the Reds, but I don't see them doing it day-in and day-out. The Cardinals are probably still the cream of the crop, so they'll get my nod. NL Central finishes: Cardinals, Brewers, Cubs, Reds, Astros, Pirates.

NL West: Of all the divisions in baseball, this is the one I pay the least attention to. Which is probably too bad, because I think it's kind of a young and sexy division. But the late games, and the fact that I'm an American league guy always result in me ignoring this division until about the last 2 weeks of the season, which always seem to be interesting. This year I think there's a clear favorite in Colorado, but the Dodgers are dangerous and San Fran has a team of arms. If the whole divorce thing affects L.A. they might not make it too far. Or then again, they could rally around it and thrive. That human factor thing... Still, I think the NL West goes down like this: Rockies, Dodgers, Giants, D-Backs, Padres.

NL Wild Card: I'm gonna stick with that nice storybook line I proposed above. I think the NL Central is too mediocre, the NL West is too irrelevant for 150 games of the year, and the rest of the NL East is too old (Mets), young (Marlins) or bad (Nats) to be a factor. Bobby Cox gets the Braves to the playoffs one last time.

MVP: Pujols is, of course, the best player in the NL. But he's won the award. The past two seasons and three times total. Voters tend to hold these things against players. So this year it'll go to an "underdog" who gets lots of press as the not-Pujols option. I'm gonna say Troy Tulowitzki is that player, and thus, the NL MVP.

Cy Young: Roy Halladay is the favorite, what with his moving to the lesser league and out of the AL East. But Santana was the favorite when he migrated too, and that didn't quite work out for him. This year it will. Halladay might be more likely to see the playoffs, but I think Santana will eke out a Cy Young award over the new Phillie.

Rookie: Heyward. No questions asked.

American League

AL East: Hmm. After game one it's tempting to pick the Red Sox. Actually, that was a joke. Anyone who knows me knows that I'd never pick the Red Sox. They are bad people who don't deserve any niceness. I'm super peeved at the Yankees, after last year's complete thrashing of the Twins, so I don't want to pick them either. I don't know that the Rays have the consistency to top either team, but they might have the talent. The O's aren't a good team, though they have some good players, and Toronto has got to be reeling, right? The more I think about it, this might be the Yankees last year before they suddenly get too old (and then a year later too young?), so I'm going to give them the edge over the Rays. AL East finishes thusly: Yankees, Rays, Red Sox, O's, Blue Jays.

AL Central: I've been telling people for years about 2010. I've been preaching that every year the Twins were taking a step towards this season. 2008 they made it to a 1-game playoff. 2009 they actually made it to the post-season. Now we're here. And you'd better believe that I believe. This is a very very good Twins team. People are selling their pitching short. That's a mistake. It's hard to do the same with their lineup, though some have suggested that Delmon Young and J.J. Hardy are the holes in the batting order. I think if you have those two hitting 7 & 8, well, then they aren't exactly holes. Until Nathan went down with an injury there wasn't really much negative you could say about this team. And sure, losing Nathan hurts - that's 70 innings of really good pitching that you're missing out on. But a slight downgrade for 70 innings isn't going to kill a team. Especially one that should be able to score like the Twins should be able to score. There's a rest of the division here somewhere... The White Sox have a fantastic rotation and all-around pitching staff. Detroit has some dangerous players to complement their very plebeian players. Cleveland usually does well in the years when they aren't supposed to, so watch out for them too. Kansas City is, as always, a year or two away from being a year or two away. So here's how the AL Central goes: Twins, White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City.

AL West: The Angels lost two of their big stars to division rivals this past year in Chone Figgins and Vladimir Guerrero. And yet, I still like them. Because dysfunction is the name of the game in Texas (Vlad) and early-hype/late-mess is the way they do things in Seattle (ala Starbucks (man, those places turn into a dump late in the day, huh?)). Plus the Angels have the best manager in baseball. I predict the AL West will finish: Angels, Rangers, Mariners, Athletics.

AL Wild Card: Can I pick no one? The Red Sox could easily get this, but I have my principles. The Rays could too, but, like the Red Sox, they play in a crowded division where they could all beat each other up. So maybe this is the second time an AL Central team gets the Wild Card, and I'll give the White Sox the nod.

MVP: Now that we know Mauer can actually get the love, I say he gets it again. Who's better in the AL? Nobody, that's who. Quiet you Yankees fans shouting about A-Rod and Teixeira. Ok, fine, I'll acknowledge that both could give Mauer a run for his money.

Cy Young: King Felix, who should have won it last year.

Rookie: Brian Matsuz is the name I'm hearing a lot of... apparently he plays for... a team.

Playoffs
NLS: Braves over Rockies, Cardinals over Phillies.
NLCS: Cardinals over Braves.
ALS: Twins over Angels, Yankees over White Sox
ALCS: Twins over Yankees
World Series: Twins win a rematch of the '87 Series (I almost went with the '91 rematch) in 6 games at their new Target Field. Magic.

Put me in coach
I'm ready to play

A Health Care Post

2010-03-26T00:43:00.005-04:00

Ah, to write a post about health care. So many ways to take this. So much to say. But I think what would be best is to write a little bit about the background that so many people don't really seem to have a good handle on. Everyone knows the system is broken. Even the critics of the new plan admit that much. But it doesn't seem like a lot of people know exactly how broken the system is. So I'll start with that. Then I'll take a quick look at some of the things the new law does well, and finish up with a few of the things that still need to be improved. It'll probably be a long post. But bear with me.

--------------------------------
Part I: Problems in Health Care
--------------------------------

There are all sorts of problems with our health care system as it stands. Everyone has their own favorite gripes. But I think we can break it down into 3 general areas: 1. No one knows what they're paying/getting; 2. Cost shifting; and 3. Market Failures

1. Let's start with the fact that very few people seem to have any idea how much they're really paying for health insurance. Sure, you might know how much is coming out of your paycheck every month, but do you know how much your employer is paying? By one study the average employer is paying $9,325 per employee. (Don't worry, there won't actually be too many numbers in this post). That's an awful lot of money that, if not being spent on insurance, could be going into employee's pockets as take-home pay. Or into employer's pockets as profit. Or into investor's pockets as dividends.

Bottom line, for every person out there who has insurance, there's a "hidden" cost of more than $9,000. And that number is double what it was 10 years ago. But what's really troubling is how few people know about this hidden cost. Most employees have no idea what their benefits are costing them, and how much more money they could be pocketing every year.

Another area where no one seems to know what they're paying or getting is the way in which insurance companies, in an effort to save costs, have successfully created provider networks. These networks are a great deal for the insurance companies - because the doctors in the networks have agreed to take a smaller amount of compensation for the "privilege" of being in network. Doctors, ostensibly, agree to these networks because it provides them with a guaranteed stream of patients. Trade some income for more security, goes the logic.

Of course, if the doctors didn't agree, then the insurance companies would label them as "out of network". The effect then would be that patients would go to other doctors, because "out of network" doctors cost the patient more money. Essentially, the insurance companies played a great game of gotcha. If the doctor is in network, the insurance company pays less. If the doctor is out of network, the doctor loses patients.

The result of this is that doctors aren't charging the same rates to everyone. Different insurance networks negotiate different payments ahead of time with the doctors, meaning a doctor might charge insurance company X at rate 1, insurance company Y at rate 2, and insurance company Z at rate 3. Further complicating the matter is that if an out-of-network patient comes in, they're probably going to get charged a different rate too. Only their insurance company (let's call them company A) will pay a small percentage and force the patient to make up the difference. So for X, Y, and Z you're probably looking at patients covering a normal co-pay. But for company A the patient will end up paying upwards of half the total cost.

Making the whole situation even more messy is that out-of-network patients and those without any insurance at all often end up getting charged an even higher rate for their procedures than they normally would have because doctors need to make up the lower costs they've been forced into by insurance companies. I once handled a case where my client was being sued for a medical debt. The hospital claimed he was charged the "customary" amount. But when we forced discovery on just how much they were actually charging all of their different patients, rather than reveal the specifics they decided to settle the case. They didn't want the court to see how much more they had charged the guy without insurance than the people with insurance.

That's a big problem. Charges and payments aren't necessarily related to the services doctors provide. They're dictated by the insurance companies. The middle men are running the price show, and nobody else knows what they're paying or what they're getting.

The final phenomena to be grouped under the "you don't knowing what you're getting" heading, is the fact that insurance is most often bought by employers for groups of people. But within that group individuals have different needs and wants for insurance. The company is probably going to buy whatever best fits their needs, not their employees, and employees are pretty much stuck with whatever insurance the company has. When you sign up for a job you'd better hope they've got good insurance.

Although it's a pretty straight forward problem, and doesn't need much explanation, the fact that employment and insurance are tied together is probably one of the biggest problems out there. It actually all started with World War II, when the U.S. put a freeze on employee wages. In order to attract workers, employers had to come up with other benefits, and so they started adding health insurance. There's been a whole history of the relationship between employment and health insurance, but at this point we've reached a point where that connection is probably no longer sustainable. Employers are paying too much. Employees are losing out on wages and don't have a real idea of how much insurance is costing them. And there are affiliated problems like job lock, employers picking plans that don't benefit individual employees, and loss of bargaining power for just about everyone involved except insurance companies. Beginning to wean ourselves off of it is probably a step in the right direction.

2. Ok, on to the problem of cost shifting. This should be a little shorter. The basic problem here is that there are a lot of people out there without health insurance. When these people get sick they go to the hospital, just like everyone else. And, just like everyone else, they get treatment. There's even a law requiring doctors to treat uninsured patients when it's an emergency situation. And really, that's a good law. After all, we don't just want people with treatable conditions dying in the street. There's a type of country where they allow that. They're called "third-world".

So, since doctors have to treat everybody, people who aren't paying end up getting cared for anyway. This means doctors are footing the bill. But practicing medicine isn't a cheap thing, and doctors simply would go out of business if they had to cover all the costs by themselves. Instead they shift the cost of non-paying patients onto paying patients by raising the amount they charge. It's kind of like how the cost of shoplifting is factored into the cost of the items in the department store. Only on a much more expensive and frequent scale.

Another thing to know about the way the system works is that people without insurance only have to be treated if it's an emergency situation. That means preventative care or other early-stage care options aren't provided. This is too bad because preventative care and early-stage treatment are almost always significantly less expensive than emergency care. What that means is that instead of covering everyone, and thereby enabling cheaper treatments, we've opted for a system in which some people aren't covered and are forced into the most expensive treatments, and then we all pick up the cost later by paying more when we go in to the doctor.

The other big part of cost shifting that happens in the current system is government care. Taxpayers cover a huge chunk of our population as it currently stands. Specifically, the elderly and the very poor (through Medicare and Medicaid). Part of the reason we have these programs is because these two populations are among the most expensive to cover. Because they're so expensive, insurance companies don't want to provide coverage, meaning that if the government doesn't, nobody will. The choice for the rest of us is essentially between providing coverage or letting them go without medical services (and therefore, you know, die). So as taxpayers, we're already covering the most expensive populations. That's a big reason why the national debt is so high, and why it'll only keep going up if we don't do anything.

3. Finally, let's consider some of the market failures in health care.

First, you have the incentives of health insurance companies. Primarily, health insurance companies, like all businesses, have an incentive to cut costs. For most companies cutting costs means finding efficient ways of doing business or eliminating waste or other similarly productive processes. But the best way for insurance companies to cut costs is to avoid paying out insurance claims. This makes even more sense when you think about the different business models; most companies make money when you use the services they provide, but insurance companies actually lose money when you use their services and make money when you don't. Thus, cost-cutting for insurance companies is about making sure people don't use their services.

This leads to things like lifetime maximums (when an insurance company determines that they've already paid out too much on your life and that they don't want to pay anymore). This is also what causes insurance companies to double check for "fraud" in your application once you put in a claim. Very rarely do they verify in any detail the truth of your claims at the time you sign up - because they don't care, you're paying in money. But as soon as they have to start paying out, then, if you've made a mistake on your application, they'll turn around and say "this is fraud. We wouldn't have insured you if you had filled out your application differently." And then they use this approach to kick you off of coverage. They have a double standard based on whether or not you're costing them money, and it's built into their system in order to kick people out when they stop being profitable.

They also have an incentive to avoid covering people who are more likely to have big claims in their lifetimes, thus, pre-existing condition denials. The practical effect of these approaches - lifetime maximums and pre-existing condition denials - is that the most expensive people don't have coverage and end up having their costs shifted onto the rest of us, like we described before.

All of the above market failures are about health insurance companies. But the most important health care market failure isn't related to insurance companies. It's just a straight-forward problem of demand. You see, the demand for health care is perfectly inelastic. It doesn't matter how much the price goes up; if you need the health care then you need the health care, and payment isn't an issue. Better to be alive and massively in debt than dead. In a normal market the more the cost goes up, the lower the demand sinks. But with health care that's not true. Demand is in no way related to cost - it's related to health. If you're healthy, well, then you wouldn't pay very much for a doctor, would you? Sorry doc, I don't have any cuts... no need for stitches today. But if you're sick...

Who watched Lost this past week? Richard Alpert was willing to give everything to save his wife's life, right? And no one questioned that fact. Because that's just how it goes. If there's a cure, no price is too high.

Further complicating things is the fact that in health care the absence of something small or routine can end up having huge effects down the road. So, say you get a cut that should probably have stitches. Those are pretty small and routine. But if you go without you run the risk of things healing wrong, tearing, infection, and, if the infection gets serious enough, even death. So how do you charge for stitches? Do you charge some small routine fee? Or do you charge a life-saving exorbitant fee? Demand and supply just doesn't match up like it does in a normal scenario. And of course, we've only got 1 life. So the cost of going cheap is... well, it's the ultimate price.

There have been those who have complained about over-insurance. That we expect our health insurance to cover even routine things, and that this is a problem. They liken it to auto insurance paying every time we need to get an oil change or fill up with gas. But the parallel doesn't really work, given the issues of demand. In health care even the routine things can be life-savers. When it comes to cars, not following through on the routine means not driving your car that week (if you don't have gas) or that it might break down a little sooner (oil change). But you can always go buy a new car. Or take the bus. Or stay at home. There aren't too many options if your body breaks down. There's no such thing as "routine" in health care, and the demand for services is perfectly inelastic. That's about as pure a market failure as you're going to find. And that's the reason that the market doesn't work for health care, and why a non-market based solution is needed. (This isn't to say that market-based solutions can't play a role. I think they can, as I'll mention below. It's just to say that where we have market failures something else will have to play an instrumental role in fixing the problems.).

Ok, there you go. A look at some of the problems. And even though it was long, believe me, it was quick. A lot more could be said. But we'll leave it there, since I think it hits on the biggest issues.
-------------------
II. What It Gets Right

So what does the health care bill that passed do well? Let me take a stab at some of the biggest things. I'll cover a handful, but the biggest thing, and this is important to keep in front of us at all times, is that the evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that countries with government health care have better quality and lower cost than the U.S. So that's the biggest thing - we're taking a step in direction of lower cost and higher quality.

So how does this bill accomplish that? A lot of different little ways and a couple of big ways.

First, and probably most important, it gets rid of pre-existing coverage denials, lifetime maximums and, for the most part, the uninsured. Just by virtue of extending coverage to everyone the government allows people who couldn't get coverage previously to access the care they need. This allows for preventative and early-stage care, which is much cheaper, as discussed before. That fact alone will lead to huge improvements in terms of quality and cost. By eliminating the most notorious ways that insurance companies kick the sick off of coverage the government also ensures that the insurance companies will be paying out like they should be. Previously consumers were double-paying for the sick. They'd pay in once when they bought insurance, which was designed to cover people who needed health care. But then, when those people who needed care were kicked off and forced onto government rolls, consumers ended up picking up the tab as taxpayers, while insurance companies pocketed the premiums that should have been paid out. This means insurance companies will be forced to actually provide the coverage they've contracted to provide, and taxpayers won't be hit twice.

So that's a biggie - lower-cost coverage (preventative and early stage care) and forcing insurance companies to pay out on those who need health care.

Second, since it's easier for people to get coverage and the denials are gone, that means people can actually switch jobs without fear of losing coverage, eliminating job lock. This should be a boost to the economy, enabling people to pursue careers in a freer way than previously existed. Associated with this benefit is a minimum standard of coverage. Every insurance company has to provide a quality product that meets or exceeds the standards laid out in the bill. You won't have to worry about whether your employer has a good plan since it will have to meet the minimum quality standards. (Previously there were some junk health care plans out there that did consumers little or no good, and that bordered on fraud. These will be eliminated.)

Another good thing this bill does is it starts to take some steps towards dissolving the link between employers and individual coverage. There are all sorts of new ways of buying coverage enabled by this bill, including insurance exchanges for small business and individuals. This will give consumers more direct power in purchasing insurance. Previously consumers usually had very limited options when buying insurance, which allowed those companies to increase prices and decrease benefits. More purchasing power for consumers should result in more competitive prices and higher quality plans. Unfortunately this bill doesn't go all the way in this area, and we'll talk about that a little more later. Suffice it to say, it does take some good steps in the right direction.

This bill also does a good job of providing subsidies for coverage, along with the individual mandate. This way people who can't afford health care will be able to. We're providing for the least of our brothers and sisters. That's a good thing.

The bill makes some adjustment to Medicare that will be beneficial to seniors (closing the donut hole) while at the same time reducing some of the over-payments made to hospitals (to cover, for example, uninsured individuals).

It also encourages error reduction and quality improvement efforts, which should result in better quality for everyone, while simultaneously rewarding quality over quantity (and this is an area where I have spent a ton of time and energy and have a little more expertise. This is exciting stuff for me. I haven't spent enough time with this area of the bill, but judging by some of the names that were being discussed in relation to this area, it's on the right path). This might be the most overlooked area of the bill, and one that will affect the most people without them ever realizing it. From what I've seen there appear to be specific reforms tailored towards avoiding medical errors (good models for this have been popping up, including here in Minnesota). There also are provisions aimed at encouraging a continuum of care and team-based health care delivery, something that has been proven to be especially effective (see, for example, the work of the CF Foundation). That's good stuff. There should be fewer errors, less duplication of services, and better quality of care as a result of this bill.

Finally, and this runs back to what we touched on at the beginning of this section, this bill is going to help control costs. Insurance should cost less under this plan, increases in price will be more strictly controlled, and, since more people will be able to get preventative and early-stage care and a lot of the cost shifting will go out the window, the actual health services we're paying for will end up being less expensive too. Numbers have been crunched all over the place, but just about every estimate shows us saving a lot of money over the next 10 years as result. The Congressional Budget Office is the place to check for more info on just how much we'll be saving.

Now there are those who are concerned about how much we will be paying in taxes for health care. But what it's important to remember is that we won't be paying more for health insurance, we'll just be paying through a different method. Here's two hypotheticals to illustrate the difference:
In situation A a person pays $2,500 in premiums and gives up $10,000 in wages in order to get insurance.
In situation B a person pays $2,500 in premiums, $2,500 in taxes, and gives up $5,000 in wages in order to get insurance.

Clearly situation A costs more money. A total of $12,500. That's the way the system currently works. Remember the hidden costs from way at the beginning of this post? That's the $10,000. The second situation is what we're moving to. A lot of people are upset because they think they'll now be paying in extra, in the form of taxes. But what they're missing is that their lost wages will go down. The total cost of the second situation is $10,000, clearly less than the $12,500. And of course, there are subsidies for those who can't afford the tax burden, which will help reduce the total cost for a large percentage of our population.

It's a pretty rough hypothetical, but that's how the new system will work. It will free up employers to be able to give better salary and wages to workers because the burden of paying for benefits will be lessened. And ultimately the total cost for health insurance will be lower in the new system.

So that's what this bill does well. It helps us take some important steps towards better quality care and lower costs.
----------------------------
III. What Still Needs To Be Done

Of course, this isn't a perfect bill. Setting aside some of the pork that's in the bill, which is just a typical product of our current Congressional system, there are other things this bill could have done better.

One of the big problems with health insurance - whether provided by private companies or the government - is that there are tremendous administrative costs. You're taking money from lots of people, you're paying out money to lots of people, and there's a lot of moving parts and variables - providing health care is tough, and figuring out payment for that care is equally difficult.

In the current system a lot of the administrative costs are duplicated in each of the various insurance providers. The fixed costs are tremendous since you need the entire system in place in order to provide coverage, and right now providers are doubling up on those fixed costs. Each additional person on the health insurance program doesn't cost much (or really anything) compared to the fixed costs, and so the more people on a single insurance, the better off that insurance provider is - since their costs are spread over a wider base. It's a simple scale of economy issue.

The ideal then would be a single provider system, where only one provider has the huge fixed costs and those costs are spread over as wide a base as possible. There are, of course, reasons to be concerned about the resulting monopoly. I personally think a single-payer system would end up being the cheapest, but there are other models too that would be improvements on the current system. Ultimately, finding a way to eliminate duplication of the fixed costs that insurance providers face is an important step toward reducing costs.

Unfortunately this might be something the we actually took a step backwards, or at least sideways, on with the new system. The government oversight needed for this bill will create more administrative costs (not much for the insurance companies, but more for the government) that we will have to pick up as taxpayers. Although this is a problem, there are two counter-points. First, to help deal with the problem there were cuts in other areas designed to offset the increased admin costs. Second, already had a system in which the government had a tremendous amount of administrative health care costs, specifically with Medicare and Medicaid. Ultimately we're probably looking at more of a step sideways, where government administrative costs shift to different areas - now there should be more oversight-related costs and fewer delivery-of-insurance costs - than a pure step backwards, where government administrative costs increase suddenly.

Although this is a problem now, in the long run a focus on two things will help turn this area around. First, a focus on eliminating duplication. We should look to other countries in this area to see where they have eliminated administrative duplication. There's no need for us to have every single insurance provider paying the same high administrative costs. Whether that means switching to a single-payer model or something else, eliminating these duplicate costs will go a long way towards lowering and controlling prices.

Second, we should demand government efficiency. There are those who will argue that the government is necessarily inefficient and that corporations are necessarily efficient. This is a fallacy, but that doesn't mean there isn't some truth to the idea that the government is often less efficient than it could be. We should continue to demand government accountability and efficiency. One of the biggest reasons government become inefficient is because people aren't paying close enough attention to the waste. So a vigilant public will help us streamline the government oversight and administration of health care.

The second big area for improvement is that we need to continue working towards a separation between employment and insurance. When individuals are able to buy their own coverage and have it completely divorced from their employment that will help ensure that people are getting the coverage they need and that consumers have more power. Although we're dealing with an imperfect market in health care, giving consumers more power in the health insurance marketplace is one of the steps that will help achieve the right balance. It will also free up money devoted to benefits in order to create more salary for employees (and profits for employers), in which case we'll all be better off.

One thing that I personally would like to see would be the elimination of for-profit health care. I think a lot of what drives insurance abuses is an extreme profit motive. We'd all be disgusted if an individual doctor refused to treat a patient unless that patient signed over the deed to their home. We should be similarly disgusted when the corporations that are running hospitals and insurance companies do virtually the same thing. Eliminating for-profit medicine would go a long way towards containing costs for patients, while still compensating doctors (because you eliminate corporate profits, instead of employee salaries).

Finally, I'd like to see continued financial innovation. For example, I think an advanced copay system can be a productive addition to a health care regime. Co-pays are created as a way of battling over-insurance - instead of any hypochondriac going to the doctor for any old reason - it encourages people to only use services when they really need them. If you have to pay something you're less likely to go to the doctor for minor things, right? But this creates a problematic tension. We want to discourage wasteful visits but we don't want to discourage necessary visits. So what we've done with our current co-pays is set a relatively low bar - somewhere around $10 or $20 per visit.

But a better system would base the copay on the individual patient. So for someone who is really poor, $20 can be enough to prevent a visit to the doctor all together. That's not what we want. And for someone very well off, $20 isn't a drop in the bucket, so it won't discourage wasteful visits. An income-based system of copays would help address this problem.

Or maybe an even better system would consider health behaviors in determining the copay. The classic example would be to take two people with lung cancer, one who is a smoker and one who is not. The smoker should have to pay more for their treatment because their behaviors almost certainly contributed to their condition. Thus, the copay for the non-smoker could be set at $0 or $1, but the copay for the smoker would be set much higher, say $100. This would encourage healthy behaviors and help cover the costs of the system in a more equitable fashion.

These aren't the easiest systems, but some actuarial science could go a long way towards making sure we have a system in which those who create burdens pay more of their way and those who are victims of circumstance aren't wrongfully punished.

These types of innovations need to be continually encouraged. There's a lot of improvements that can be made in our system. And when we're talking about what can still be done, well, that's probably the biggest factor: considering the next innovations in price controls and quality improvement.
---------------------------
Alright, there you have it. Admittedly it's rambling. Not exactly a cohesive vision. Heck, I'm so burnt out after writing this that I might well have written things that I already disagree with. But I think this is a good starting point in the discussion. There are lots of problems. There are lots of things that the new system does well. And there are lots of ways we can continue to improve.

So, if you read the post. Even part of it, let me know. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Let's continue improving our system.

I've got the rockin' pneumonia
And the boogie woogie flu

2 Big Thoughts

2010-03-22T02:06:00.003-04:00

There are two big thoughts bouncing through my head tonight. First, the health care issue. It's huge. And I want to give it its proper due. I do plan on putting up a post about it. Even though this blog is (obviously) coming towards its end. So look for that soon. But for tonight, let me just say: I understand the apprehension that people feel. But a lot of the challenges to the bill, a lot of the "can we afford it?" and other similar questions being thrown around by opponents... well, they're nonsense. And the opponents know it. If the numbers were really on the health care opponents' side you can believe they'd be focusing on them, instead of just asking rhetorical questions meant to raise fear or complaining about the process or throwing fits about the size of the bill. No, those are all tactics meant to distract from the substance.

So for all those who have their doubts: asking the questions is a good thing. But asking a question is just the beginning of the inquiry; you also have to look for the answer. And in this case the answers are most definitely there.
------------------------
The second big thought, and this is the one I really want to talk about, is Joe Mauer.

8 years!

There are those "realists" out there who will caution about devoting so much payroll to one player. They would point out that injury concerns and longevity and basic considerations of chance and risk all mean that someday the Twins and their fans might regret this deal.

But those "realists" are ignoring reality. Baseball is about more than wins and losses. It's about more than playing for the postseason. It had better be, after all, because for every team that wins there's another that loses. Of course I want to see my team make the playoffs every year, but there are things in baseball that are more important. There are the stories. There are the heroes. There is the history.

Joe Mauer is all of that.

Try this for a story: Local kid is the top football and baseball recruit in the country, decides to play for his hometown team, and stays with them his entire career. If that doesn't cut against the "baseball is a business" line then nothing ever will.

You want a hero? Minnesotans are a fiercely loyal bunch. Quiet, unassuming, gracious, hardworking and very often very very good at what they do. Every single one of those words describes Mauer. He's an ideal Minnesotan. Even as the best player in the league he's quiet and unassuming. His work ethic is praised throughout baseball. He was recently touted as the "Fan-Friendliest" athlete in all of sports. Now he's proved his loyalty to Minnesota (just as the rest of us Minnesotans figured he would). Oh, and he's very very good at what he does. A hero is someone who represents an ideal, who lives up to a higher standard. And Mauer is Minnesota's hero.

How about history? Mauer is only 27 and it would already be more than fair to mention his name among the greatest catchers in history. He has 3 batting titles in the past 4 years. That's as many as all other catchers in the history of the game combined. Think about that. Even with a significant decline in his game he would still be a Hall Of Fame caliber catcher. To watch Joe Mauer is to watch one of the greatest baseball players of all time. What has happened over his career so far, and what will almost certainly continue to happen throughout the years, is history.

And, of course, there's the wins and losses. Even the strict realists must concede that Joe Mauer adds an awful lot of wins to a team.

So is this a good deal? The "realists" might have their doubts. But the reality shows us something different. Signing Mauer through 2018 gives the Twins an untouchable story, an ideal hero, and a front seat to history.

So we'll march day and night
By the big cooling tower
They have more money
But we have Joe Mauer!

Anger, Rising...

2010-01-21T23:10:00.006-05:00

This is a dang shame.

Generally speaking, I'm all about free speech (hehe, generally "speaking". Get it? (Thank goodness there's no ban on bad puns, huh?)). But that doesn't mean I don't think there should be limits.

If I had just one limit to impose on free speech, I would outlaw cable news channels.

But if I had two, I would limit corporate speech. That corporations (or anything besides individuals) have the right to free speech is a repugnant idea to me. Rights derive from our human nature. They are a function of our humanity and an expression of individualism. Corporations, on the other hand, are legal fictions. They have the privileges and obligations that we choose, through the law, to impose on them. There is no natural right of corporations, no fundamental privilege to which they are entitled. And yet, the Supreme Court, long ago, in a crazy footnote, extended corporations individual rights, and today they expanded the free speech rights of corporations (against long trends towards limiting corporate speech).

This is worrisome. Corporations are now allowed to spend as much money as they want in elections. They already buy politicians, now they can spend even more to make sure the ones they've bought are the ones who get elected. It's a shame. And it makes me think that it's really time for a big overhaul. I honestly believe that a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporations might be called for.

It's a disappointing day. And how about this... it's just one day off from another very disappointing day in court history.

Come on, come on
Listen to the money talk

Tonight No Show

2010-01-15T17:17:00.003-05:00

So just a few super quick thoughts on this whole Leno/Conan mess...

You really can't blame the talent. Both guys are just comedians who are really good at their jobs. Good enough to be considered for what is, essentially, the top comedy job in the world. It's hard to be upset with an individual for wanting to be operating at the top of his industry. Conan obviously wants to keep hosting The Tonight Show, and now, it turns out, so does Leno. We can't really be surprised by any of this, can we?
NBC is the new Fox. Fox has been long known for its ineptitude (see: Arrested Development, Firefly, Temptation Island, Family Guy, well... they're just too numerous to name.) NBC is now taking the mantle of "stupidest network".
It isn't like Leno just happily stepped down from The Tonight Show. 5 years ago NBC pretty much forced him into giving it up down the line. People seem to be forgetting that. NBC, in their effort to avoid the whole Letterman/Leno succession issue that plagued them way back when, came up with this genius plan to force Leno out and designate Conan his successor.
They could have stuck with their plan, but ultimately they realized the Leno would go to a different network since, you know, he wanted to keep telling jokes (and people wanted to keep listening). Which would have meant Conan competing with Letterman and Leno. So instead, NBC created this 10 o'clock Leno Show. Not because it was good for the network, but because it kept Leno in the fold and prevented them from having to compete with him.
The right move now would be to cut Leno loose and hang onto Conan. That's the only move with any integrity. Of course, this means that Leno would go to a different network and then NBC would have to compete with him. That whole scenario they wanted to avoid. Of course now, they've created a scenario where they have to choose between which of the two they're going to compete with, since Conan will almost certainly jump to another network. The choices are "keep Conan and compete against late night's king Jay Leno" or "keep Leno and compete against a fired-up Conan and the fans who feel he got screwed." In their effort to avoid choosing between the two, NBC created an even more unpalatable choice.
Craig Ferguson is still the funniest person on any network late night show.
I read sentiments similar to these on another blog: "Ultimately, I have to admit that I haven't been watching late night on the networks. I've been watching Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert." I think this is true for a huge group of people under 30. The shows we really care about are still intact.
Given the previous point, you should be skeptical of anyone under 30 supporting Conan. They might be watching him now, but the odds are good they weren't watching him all that often before. That's not to say they don't care about Conan being around, because they do (see the next point), it's just that their support now might not translate directly into eyes on the show.
Ultimately, for those under 30, it's about options. We'd choose Conan over Leno, no question. But we'd also choose Stewart and Colbert over any iteration of The Tonight Show. We just like knowing that when The Daily Show is on reruns or when, heaven forbid, Stephen Colbert hangs up his gravitas for good, that we'll be able to turn back to a Tonight Show hosted by Conan.

We're not watching, but we like knowing Conan's there.

Hey world, you know you got to put up a fight
Hey world, you rumble in the jungle tonight

Top 25 Songs of 2009

2010-01-06T23:08:00.003-05:00

2009 was an amazing year for music. I realize I'm a week or so late for a year-end list, but it's well worth reviewing some of the best songs of the past year. 2008 was pretty much a gigantic void for music, with nothing really spectacular. 2009 was just the opposite. It was just full of great stuff (obviously we're not talking about Lady Gaga, et. al. (I still haven't heard "Poker Face," and I'm totally okay with that.)). So I've put together my top 25 songs that were released in the last year. I largely culled my list from those that made The Current's top 89, but the rankings are way different and there's a couple songs that didn't make their rankings. There's a pretty wide variety of music types on this list, so check 'em out - you'll probably find something you like.

1. "Home" - Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes
2. "I & Love & You" - The Avett Brothers
3. "Gimmie Sympathy" - Metric
4. "Ain't No Rest for the Wicked" - Cage the Elephant
5. "French Navy" - Camera Obscura
6. "Just Breath" - Pearl Jam
7. "Kick Drum Heart" - The Avett Brothers
8. "Never Had Nobody Like You" - M. Ward
9. "Yours Truly the Commuter" - Jason Lytle
10. "Listzomania" - Phoenix
11. "Help I'm Alive" - Metric
12. "The Rake Song" - The Decemberists
13. "Heartbroken in Disrepair" - Dan Auerbach
14. "Never Forget You" - Noisettes
15. "Bruises" - Chairlift
16. "'59 Sound" - Gaslight Anthem
17. "My Girls" - Animal Collective.
18. "Death By Diamonds and Pearls" - Band of Skulls
19. "Hurt Feelings" - Flight of the Conchords
20. "This Tornado Loves You" - Neko Case
21. "When We Swam" - Thao and the Get Down, Stay Down
22. "Dreams" - Brandi Carlyle
23. "Geraldine" - Glasvegas
24. "God Help The Girl" - God Help The Girl (from the album God Help The Girl)
25. "Two Weeks" - Grizzly Bear

Home is wherever I'm with you

Be It Resolved:

2010-01-05T01:11:00.003-05:00

I made two resolutions this year: to read more and to write more.

When we lived in D.C. and I was taking the Metro all the time I spent a good amount of time reading during my commutes. Probably close to a minimum of half an hour a day. I tackled some big books (including two Thomas Pynchon novels in the past 3 years!), so I didn't necessarily get through a large number, but I was satisfied with how much I was reading.

Now that I'm living in MN, and actually driving myself to work, I don't have the opportunity to read during my commute. Tragic, really. So I've resolved to read more. I have a whole pile of great books, left over from my Great Books class, that I haven't gotten to yet. And another pile of great books that either deserve a reread or a complete read (back in college, when I was supposed to be reading a book or two a week I (embarrassingly) often let them go unfinished. There are a sizable handful of books that I've read only two-thirds of the way through.). My current "What I'm Reading Next" list is already at least 4 deep.

I'm starting with Utopia. Yeah, that's right. I've resolved to read More.

My second resolution is to write more. Not so much here on the blog, though if that happens, then great. But rather I want to get working on my novel again. The other day I was struck by some ideas for a separate book, and I've now got couple of major writing projects in the pipeline too. My old writer's group was a huge motivator for writing, and I think I might see if I can't get something else going again. Maybe even just a monthly thing, instead of a weekly event. If there's anyone around in Minnesota who feels like getting together every once in a while to review each other's writing, let me know. I'd love to find something to help create incentive to write.

I thought there was a virtue in always being cool.

What In The Dickens?

2009-12-17T23:24:00.004-05:00

One of my siblings is currently reading A Tale of Two Cities for her high school class and posted a status update about it on Facebook. Her status prompted me to write the following comment (I'm probably too proud of it, but I'm sharing it anyway):

Here's what you need to know about A Tale of Two Cities: it reads exactly like you'd expect of a book that was written for publication part-by-part in a newspaper. It has none of the tightness and editing that one would hope accompanies good writing. Although it contains a brilliant plot and brims with historical significance it fails to overcome its own length and wordiness. It is the equivalent of today's TV show that runs on for seasons beyond its prime. Just like Scrubs, the brilliance is overshadowed by the decline.

I see London,
I see France

Sephaliepod

2009-12-16T08:55:00.002-05:00

You know how you just saw that article about the octopus using tools? You know, this one.

Don't believe it. There's no way it's the first document case of this, because on Monday night I was watching Nature (remember watching Nature when you were a little kid? Before The Discovery Channel satiated your our-world-is-both-amazing-and-insane viewing needs?) and they were doing a show on squid, octopus, and cuttlefish. One of the clips they showed was an octopus grabbing a bottle and running across the ocean floor with it, and then using it for shelter.

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds an awful lot like the tool use described in that article. And clearly, if that show has already made it to air (and Mrs. Fickle swears it was a rerun), it was discovered before these scientists did their little dealy.

Just sayin'.

I'd like to be
Under the sea

Question:

2009-12-10T22:54:00.001-05:00

This one comes courtesy of an old high school friend.

What would be a more Utopian world, one where everyone was self sufficient, or one where everybody cared for one another?

Haste, haste to bring him laud

Goodbye to D.C.

2009-11-06T01:30:00.005-05:00

Time for me to say goodbye to D.C. I can't believe that I spent 6 years out there. That's more than 20% of my life. Some great memories. So what we'll do here is a post in list form, with some of my best memories from my time in D.C. I, of course, use the word "best" lightly. Because some of these are just pure crazy. So, here goes:

I moved out in August of 2003, driving to D.C. with my dad and grandpa. I still remember how horrible the drive through Pennsylvania was. I swear there wasn't a mile of road without construction.
I remember the catering at the first Georgetown Law mixer. There was a mashed potato bar. Best. Potatoes. Ever. These mixers happened frequently during the first weeks of law school, always with piles of delicious free food and intoxicating free drink. It was a kind of "see, this is what life could be like for you" carrot held out in front of us, tempting us on through the horrible horrible drudgery of the 1L class schedule. Of course, I knew instantly that I didn't fit in, and figured I'd be quickly revealed as a fraud, as soon as a professor called on me in class. With this thought in mind, I hurriedly stuffed extra food from the mixers into my pockets and ran off to hide it, so that I could still partake, long after they'd stopped inviting me to these nice events.
A "hurricane" blew through D.C. and cancelled classes. The students threw a hurricane party. There extent of the damage was some rain and 1 tree blown over. This would be just one of the lame weather-related cancellings I'd experience. Lots of cancellations over not much bad weather. Once I even had a class cancelled on threat of snow. They cancelled school the night before and not a single flake fell the next day.
I remember having a "we just finished finals" celebratory cigar with my roommate. On the steps of the Capitol. In a snowstorm. That was easily one of the neatest things I've ever done.
I started this blog early in my second year.
That was the same year I lived in a building with Barack Obama. We once rode in an elevator together, just him and me. Yeah... we go way back.
That was also the year I had pigeons living in my wall. Yeah, freaking pigeons. To address the problem they sprayed really bad poison at them and told us not to go near that part of our apartment. It didn't work. So they tried it again. It still didn't work. So they cut a huge hole in the wall, pushed the pigeon out through the outer wall, where a brick had been missed in the facade of the building, and then left, leaving a gaping hole - filled with poison - in our apartment. After they finally filled it in, I think I managed to get like $10 knocked off our rent. That didn't seem quite fair at the time. And now that I know housing law, it seems even less fair. But I was just a stupid law student back then... what did I know?
Oh, that was also the apartment building where I got stuck in an elevator. Sounds like a piece of crap, right? Actually the place was brand new and very very awesome. Except for the parts that were crap.
I taught a street law class at a D.C. high school. It was awesome.
I got married. That was, you know... big. Of course, that happened in Minnesota, not D.C. So scratch it off this list. Actually, don't, since I got to know what marriage was really all about while living in D.C.
I remember some amazing classes, specifically my health law class with Gostin, my bioethics class with King, and my philosophy class on the main campus.
One of the neatest things we did out there was go to a Supreme Court case. It turned out to be one of Chief Justice Roberts' first cases (it was his second day on the court). If you ever get a chance, you should definitely go. Mrs. Fickle and I also went out for Restaurant Week one time and saw Justice Scalia at the restaurant. I'm certainly going to miss the chance to see politicians and other important people. Mrs. Fickle once served John McCain a cappuccino, I rode the metro with Harriet Meyers (hehe, I don't know if she even counts!), and of course there was the time we saw Angelina Jolie...
I'm really going to miss Ben's Chilli Bowl, along with some of the other amazing restaurants. Nehrimitra Thai, Cantina Mexicana, 5 Guys, and Ray's Hell Burger will always have a warm place in my heart. And my stomach.
Oooh, and there was the crazy stuff that always seemed to happen around Finals week...
I had my first real job, working at Legal Aid in Virginia. Of course, prior to landing that job, things didn't go so well.
There was that whole adventure of taking the bar exam. If you don't read any others, go read this link.
Actually, I take it back. Go read this one. It's from the "talk like a pirate" party we went to.
It was a really nice thing to be able to host all of the guests we did too. At some point we were visited by every member of my immediate family, and every member of my wife's immediate family. As well as a couple of my grandparents, some aunts and uncles, a handful of cousins, and friends from college.
Speaking of friends from college, the greatest baseball game I ever attended happened while we were living in D.C. We drove up to Baltimore and met up with some of the gang from college who had driven from Minny to get together with us and watch the Twins. There was a come-from-behind win, a home run that exploded a beer, another home run that was caught by yours truly, a guy wearing little more than mesh underwear, and swass so bad it became swenis. I don't think that can ever be topped.
Kind of jumping backwards in time here, but going to my graduation gala at the National Building Museum was just fantastic. We had visited the museum one weekend and, knowing that it was always host to one of the bigger inauguration balls, we discussed how amazing it would be to attend a black-tie affair in the beautiful building. A few weeks later Georgetown Law announced it would be holding the graduation gala - a black tie affair - at the museum. Wow.
One thing I won't really miss will be the crazy travel. The stories were always good though.
There were just so many little things here and there that we did that were each really beyond any summary form. Like seeing John Hodgman in person. Twice. Or going to some great concerts at the 9:30 Club (which is a really awesome venue, especially for acts like The Decemberists and TMBG). Or running the turkey trot. Or having the President's motorcade pass you. Or nearly having the wall at my office knocked over. Or the great stuff I saw biking to work along the Potomac. Or the least-haunted haunted-tour ever. Or walking 5 miles to Obama's inauguration. Or all the crazy stuff that ever happened on the metro (lots more on metro, but I don't have the energy to go dig it up.).

The point is, I'll never really be able to say a proper goodbye to D.C. But I'll always look back on the past 6 years of my life with great joy. And hopefully someday I'll be back. I saw this really neat house in D.C. that I think I might want to live in some day...

The District sleeps alone tonight

Here and There

2009-11-01T23:15:00.002-05:00

I've moved back to Minnesota. It's been a crazy couple weeks, but I start my new job tomorrow, back in my home state, (it's virtually the same as my old job, just in a location closer to family.). I'll post a proper goodbye to D.C. in the very near future, but I just wanted to drop in with a quick observation of just how different life is here:

In D.C., from time to time, Mrs. Phickle and I would purchase 67-cent burritos from the grocery store. (You know, to save money.)(And because they were tasty.)

But here in Minnesota the same product does not cost $.67 It costs $.59. That's more than a 10% difference!

Yup, by moving to Minnesota we've upgrade from 67-cent burritos to 59-cent burritos. And that's just one of the ways that Here is different from There.

I had a friend named Ramblin' Bob
He used to steal, gamble and rob

Why I'm Okay With A Pop Tax

2009-10-20T01:24:00.002-04:00

One of the ideas that's been bandied around plenty lately, what with all this health care talk and such, is the proposal that we help pay for health care with a tax on unhealthy things, such as pop (and yes, it's "pop", not "soda". "Soda" is an adjective, "pop" is (in this context) a noun).

Now there are plenty of y'all out there who know me, and what I'm a boutta tell ya 'ill come as no surprise, but fer them folk that don't know me so well, well, this is for their edification: Imma big pop drinker. (Oh yeah, since it's my last week in Virginia, I figer'd I'd work on my Southern Lawya drawl. How's it doin'?)

Now you might think as a pop drinker I'd be apposed to a tax on pop, and normally you'd be right. But them Duke boys had something else up their sleeve all tagether. [Sorry. Slipped too far into the voice...]

Seriously though, I've done some real thinking about this. I drink a lot of pop. It's one of my vices. It helps me relax, it can help me focus, it can help me stay alert. So yeah, I end up drinking plenty of pop, and a tax on pop would certainly hit me. And part of me thinks "well that's unfair, why not tax some one else's unhealthy food? I don't eat foie gras. Let's tax that instead." After all, a calorie is a calorie, no matter where it comes from, right? Why tax some, and not others?

Well, that's wrong of course. There are better and worse calories. But setting that aside, and getting down to an honest assessment of myself, I know that I drink too much pop. It's bad for me. I'm not an entirely unhealthy person, but drinking less pop would improve my physical condition. And of course there's my teeth to think of... pop has not done me any favors there.

So a tax on pop... what's the end result? First, it's probably going to mean I'm paying more. But I've only got so much money, and each can of pop gives me marginally less utility, right? So an increase in price is going to, at some point, reduce the amount of pop I'm drinking. And I know it will, because as pop prices have risen over the past decade or so, I've certainly decreased my pop drinking from it's peak in college. Sure, there are weeks when I might have more, but overall the increase in price has helped me decrease my consumption (and there have even been periods when I've essentially cut pop out almost entirely). And a further increase from taxes will give me more incentive to avoid this unhealthy lifestyle.

And that's a good thing. In fact, it's exactly the kind of thing that government should be doing. I would be a better, healthier person if the government were to increase taxes on pop. Long time readers of this blog will of course know that I subscribe to the Aristotelian view that the role of government is to make good citizens (and that obviously includes health), and so on both a personal and philosophical level, I think this is a great way for government to further its ends.

[And disincentivizing bad behavior is, in this case, superior to outlawing it. There are those who frequently criticize government bans and then extend criticism of ineffective bans into criticism of government itself. This is a prime example of the why conflating those two criticism is problematic; government has many different tools, and when it uses the right ones government itself is one of the greatest tools for improving our lives.]

Of course, I'd still feel better about it if they also taxed some of the unhealthy vices that rich people more frequently consume.

Senora's dance has no title
You jump in the saddle
Hold on to de bridle!

A Quick Thought On Our Sinful Nature

2009-10-04T04:13:00.003-04:00

I happened across a blog tonight that was all about religious literature and reviews of said literature. I clicked over to the author's "Belief Statement" and read this:

"I believe that mankind is hopelessly depraved and incapable of doing anything good on its own. It is this depravity that separates us from God. Our depravity judges us guilty before God, and there is nothing we can do to earn God's favor."

It seems a bit strong to me. Sure, from time to time I've dwelt on the idea that we're all born into sin, it's just that I've never spent a ton of time thinking about mankind's fallen nature. It's just always been a belief that I accept (and not a particularly difficult one to accept at that).

But this belief statement is almost offensively strong to me. It starts with a reasonable premise (people are born into sin and need Grace to recover from that) but then jumps to an unreasonable one (without Grace we are depraved). After all, God created us in His image and endowed us with His greatest gifts. Surely there must be some redeeming qualities in human nature, right? To say that we are "hopelessly depraved and incapable of doing anything good" is an indictment not of humanity alone, but also of humanity's creator.

I guess the question becomes whether there is a middle ground. Can we acknowledge our sinful nature and need for grace while simultaneously embracing human nature and seeing good qualities within us? I think the answer is - and has to be - yes. We are not perfect. That much is true. But it does not follow that we are therefore perfectly opposite of perfection. In our natural state we lack Grace, but that does not mean we are depraved. It is not an on/off switch, either we are sinful or we are saved.

And I'd take it a step further; I would say that even those who are without Grace can live as God would want. That in our human nature God has given us tools towards that life. The person without Grace isn't going to get it perfect, but then again, neither is the person who lives in Grace. But lack of perfection does not mean depravity. God takes joy in all of our lives; He gives us our lives as an amazing gift and calls us to live them to the fullest.

Last week's Gospel really struck me, and it's been with me all week. One verse really sums it all up. Mark 9:40 "For whoever is not against us is for us."

Think about that for a second, and how it turns the ol' "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality on its head. If you aren't against God, then you're for God. So long as you're living your life in a way that isn't against God, then you're as good as living in a way that is for God. And that's the red text.

To tie it all back around, it is a "if you're not with me you're against me" mentality that says lack of Grace is the same as depravity. It views an absence of Grace as a rejection of God. But Christ says otherwise, essentially: "so long as there isn't a rejection of God, then there is Grace."

We aren't perfect. We're born into sin. We need Grace to get us to Heaven and help us live our lives to the fullest. But that doesn't mean we're depraved. That doesn't mean we can't do good without embracing Christ. Because we're never alone. God has already given us our lives, and that gift is such an amazing act of Grace in itself. God wants us to have this gift regardless of how we use it. Throw in natural law and our ability to know right and wrong, and well... I'd say we're already about half way there. Not perfect, but not depraved. Just somewhere in between.

What you gonna spend your free life on?

Baby

2009-09-14T12:11:00.000-04:00

The baby is here!

Posts will be infrequent for a while.

Her?

2009-09-03T00:41:00.005-04:00

Bonus point for getting the post title reference.

Sad news that Charles Gibson is retiring from his news desk. He was very good at his job. I'm not a big news watcher, but whenever I felt like tuning in for the big issues - like the election coverage - I usually turned to him first.

Even sadder news that his replacement will be Diane Sawyer. She's not very good at her job. I'm not a big news watcher, but whenever I felt like tuning in for the big issues I always turned to a different channel because of her.

Yup, I'd tune in for Gibson and then change the channel as soon as Sawyer started talking. She's a completely vapid moron with no appreciable insight. Her analysis is mired in obsolete paradigms of the way the world works. Her voice and cadence are beyond irritating. And worst of all, she's completely out-of-touch with the average American but honestly believes she understands what that life is like.

Fortunately there's still Brian Williams. I like him as much as I do Gibson, and he's a little lighter in spirit (see, for example, hosting SNL). I always turned to him when I saw Saywer on ABC, and I'd all but bet there'll be a flood of people heading to NBC now. Who knows, maybe even Couric will see her ratings rise. She'll be better than Sawyer, that's for sure.

Oh, and I've got the perfect song quote for today too:

One anchor turns and faces the other
Says it's time that I made you my lover

Heath Care Read

2009-08-28T18:29:00.003-04:00

Here's a good read on the health care systems from around the world. I'm personally in favor of a universal single-payer system, but there are lots of good ways to do health care; and almost the rest of the industrialized world has adopted a way which is superior to how we do it.

And that has to be the bottom line in the health care debate: we're way behind the rest of the world in both cost and quality. (Of course, I'd also like to see government payment for abortion removed from, and conscience clauses put into the Obama plan.)

We'd like to help you learn to help yourself

Phickle 5

2009-08-26T02:21:00.004-04:00

As I may have mentioned, I co-host a podcast. One of the features we do every week is a "Top 5" list.

Past lists have been all over the place and they promise to be all over the place in the future too. Fun stuff really. Very light. Popcorn podcasting if you will.

Anyway, I've decide that from time to time I'll put up the Top 5 list here. The idea of posting it here is to solicit comments and spur a fun conversation from time to time. List away, debate selections, have at it. You know, enjoy it. Nothing too serious. All light-hearted and phickle.

Today, I'll give you two, just to kick it off:

Top 5 Robots:
Honorable Mentions: Eric Cartman as Awesome-O (disqualified for not actually being a robot), Rosie from The Jetsons, Roomba

5. Optimus Prime
4. HAL (2001: A Space Odyssey)
3. Johnny 5 (Short Circuit)
2. Bender
1. R2D2

---------------------

Top 5 T.V. Series Cancelled Too Soon

5. Dead Like Me
4. Freaks and Geeks
3. Futurama
2. Firefly
1. Arrested Development

If I was John and you were Yoko,
I would gladly give up musical genius,
Just to have you as my very own,
Personal Venus

Phickle Thoughts

2009-08-21T00:24:00.003-04:00

Posts are going to be less frequent here folks. That's just the way it goes with a baby on the way. As of Friday, when this is going up, we're 13 days away from our due date. Things are still looking good, the baby is healthy and projected at 50th percentile, Mrs. Phickle is doing well and still looking fantastic.
------------------------------
You can color me as one Vikings fan happy we got Brett Favre. The QBs we had were abysmal. Even old, worn out Favre gives us a good chance.

That and Adrian Peterson.
------------------------------
Speaking of Minnesota sports, Joe Mauer is currently closer to hitting .400 than he is to hitting .350.

That isn't to say I think he'll hit .400 because I don't. My eye is on .362. If Mauer can best that, then he will hold the highest batting average ever for a catcher. Since Ted Williams hit .406 only 3 players have had a batting average as high as Mauer this late in the season.

Oh, and he's got 25 home runs. Considering he missed a month of the season... Oh, and let's throw this one out there too: Mauer became just the fifth player EVER to be hitting .380 or better with 25 home runs. The other 4? Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig and some fellow by the name of George Herman Ruth.

And none of those guys had the added challenge of being a catcher.
------------------------------
I'd be remiss if I didn't say something about the passing of Robert Novak. I never met him, didn't really pay much attention to his work, and probably wouldn't have agreed with most of it. But he became a small part of my life during my time in law school and beyond. First, for a good while I attended the same parish where he was a member. As such, over the past year or however long he was fighting cancer, every week his name was on the parish sick list, and we would pray for him in church. (As an aside, I wonder... it seems like you hear the same names on the sick list week in and week out. Does that mean praying for those folks is especially effective or especially ineffective?)

Second, during law school I heard a rumor that I was Robert Novak's son. Apparently this had been going around for a little while when someone approached me to ask about my dad. They were disappointed when I explained that not only was Robert Novak not my dad, he wasn't even my uncle. No relation at all, in fact.
------------------------------
After the earlier post about The Dead Weather, I have to admit that "I Cut Like A Buffalo" has grown on my some, and I no longer hate them entirely. I don't love 'em, or even like 'em, but they're certainly tolerable.
------------------------------
Finally, we've been getting ready for the baby here. Mostly that consists of much talking about the stuff we still need to do, and little actual doing. But we've had a ton of people helping us out, giving much appreciated advice (but not too much that it would be a pain) and wonderful gifts, and we're really excited to have everyone meet our little baby. I just want to say thanks for everything everyone has done for us. It is a wonderful feeling to be the recipient of so much generosity. Thanks all!

I think of him when I'm doing the dishes

Hal Rules

2009-08-10T00:50:00.003-04:00

Bryan Cranston is the greatest T.V. actor of our time. Discuss.

You're not the boss of me now

Classy. And Reuniony.

2009-08-03T23:06:00.003-04:00

I had my 10 year class reunion a little over a week ago now (it synced up nicely with that job interview I had (still no word... I take that as a bad sign. Prayers and good wishes are still appreciated.)). I went expecting to have fun, to see some people I had missed, to catch up with old friends, etc. Generally, a nice time.

I way underestimated. I had an absolute blast.

There were people there that I had completely forgotten exist - people I really liked back in high school, and who I found I really enjoy now too. There were people who I was excited to see that I ended up having really good conversations with - far more than the "so what are you doing now" small talk you'd expect. I became excited to talk to everyone there, and was ultimately sad when I didn't quite get that chance (we had a very large class, a decent number showed up, and I talked to a lot of people, but alas...). And there were people who really impressed me with where they are in life, what they're doing, and most importantly, who they've become. Experiencing the ways that people have kept their best qualities and smoothed over some of their rougher traits was really exciting.

I didn't get as much of a chance to catch up with the people I still keep in touch with, though a breakfast the next day helped alleviate some of that (though my attendance was abbreviated because of a family reunion I had to get to (it was, as is typical when I'm back in Minny, a very busy weekend.)). Despite that, I still had just an awesome time. Two principle thoughts struck me from the night:

First, and this was really built on some things my folks have said, reflecting on their respective reunions: the thing about class reunions is that, generally speaking, the only people who go are the people who are happy with themselves. And I definitely found that to be true. Everyone there really seemed happy with their lives, no matter what they were or weren't doing. I think this might be more true for a 10 year reunion than other ones. In high school, of course, not everyone likes who they are. Heck, it's almost the opposite. So getting to experience the way people have grown to be happy with their lives was awesome.

Second: it's remarkable how sometimes where you come from can matter so much more than where you're at. I thought it would be a lot of small talk and catching up. I was surprised by how many real and meaningful conversations I had that night. We were all able to just slip right into a level of comfort that people don't usually achieve in that kind of setting. But there we were, the class of '99, just hanging out, like we'd spent the past 10 years being friends.

One of the people who impressed me most was a guy who has actually moved closer to the school in the past 10 years. I've moved across country. He works for a bank doing mortgage type things, I'm an attorney who fights the banks on their mortgage issues. He's divorced with no kids, I'm happily married with one on the way. Quite different on the surface. But on a deeper level, we really connected. Reconnected really, since we were friends early on in high school. And to me, that was just a real joy to experience. Even though we've gone very different ways, and are at very different points in our lives, we both understood where the other was coming from, because 10 years earlier we'd been there together.

I'm already looking forward to our next reunion.

When you love without desire
Then you know who you are

Planes, Marines & Automobiles

2009-07-28T00:34:00.006-04:00

I've had some adventures traveling before. This past weekend topped them all. I'm including the full story here, so that those who have heard abbreviated versions can enjoy the full tale. I'll do my best not to embellish (because really, none is needed) and recreate relevant conversations as best as possible. So, here it is, the story of how I got home last weekend:

I had an 11 a.m. interview in St. Paul on Friday morning. To get there I was taking a 6 p.m. flight from D.C. to Milwaukee, with a connection to Minneapolis/St. Paul leaving Milwaukee at 8, arriving at MSP around 9. When I arrived at National Airport around 4:30 my first flight had already been delayed to the point at which I would not be catching my connection. No biggie, I thought, I bought an early enough flight just in case something like this would happen. I walked up to the Air Tran Airlines counter to try to get myself scheduled on a different connection out of Milwaukee.

"The earliest we can have you there is 4:30 tomorrow afternoon," the lady said.
"What? But I have an interview at 11 a.m. I need to be there."
"There's a 9 a.m. from Milwaukee, and that gets in at 10:40, but it's totally booked. Sorry."
"You don't have any other flights to Minnesota?"
"No."
"Well, how about going through other airports? I'll fly through Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, wherever, just get me there tonight. Please." I was willing to try anything.
"Sorry sir, we don't have any other openings."
"You aren't going to check?"
"It's not our fault sir, so we can't do anything for you."
"What?"
"It's because of air traffic control. The delay is because of them, not us. We can't change your ticket. You can take the flight at 3 tomorrow."
"No. I can't. I have an interview. At 11. What about getting me a ticket on one of your partner airlines. I know you can do that. Airlines have done that for me before."
"Again sir, because air traffic control delayed the flight there is nothing I can do."

At this point, I was pretty annoyed. I said something to the effect of, "please don't tell me that you "can't" do what you very well could, please be more accurate and say that you "won't" or "don't" help your passengers.

I asked again what time we would be getting to Milwaukee - we were scheduled now to get in around 8:30 - and then I headed for the other ticket counters in the area. First I hit up Northwest, asking how much it would be to get from Milwaukee to MSP that night. $610 was the answer. Ugh. Then I checked Midwest.

"What's the latest flight from Milwaukee to Minneapolis tonight?" I asked.
"10:30."
"How much?"
"$160," she answered.
"Can you put me on that plane please?"
"No problem."
"Thank you so much."

So I spent $160 bucks on a second flight from Milwaukee to MSP, but I figured I was in the clear. Even if our flight from D.C. was delayed another hour or more I still had time. I made my way through security, sat back and listened to some music while I waited for the flight. After a while the flight crew showed up, and did pretty much the same. I ended up chatting with one of the pilots for a while. He said he'd been told the delay was because of the weather in D.C., though the day had been pretty nice with the exception of a 20 minute storm three hours earlier.

Eventually we got on the plane. Just as we were pulling away from the gate a new front of weather moved in. This storm was a doozy. We sat on the tarmac for an hour; no planes were taking off or landing. Finally the pilot came on and said that we'd been cleared for take off, and we were 12th in line. An hour late, but I figured I still had an hour to catch my flight once we landed in Milwaukee.

Only that's when things got bad. The pilot fired up the engines to pull into the line of departing flights but the plane didn't move. Eventually he came on the intercom to let us all know that we were stuck in a "manhole or some sort of hole in the tarmac, and we'd need a tug to push us out." 50 minutes left to catch my new flight out of Milwaukee.

Eventually the tug made it over to us and gave us a push. 35 minutes left.

The engines roared again, but the plane still didn't move. "Ladies and Gentlemen," said the pilot, "it appears the problem wasn't with the tarmac. It seems our brakes are sticking, and we can't move. We're going to get maintenance over here to take a look. 15 minutes left.

A little while later the pilot got back on the intercom, "maintenance needs to take a closer look. We're going to have to pull back to the gate, so we'll wait for the tug to take us back." 0 minutes.

The tug showed up and pulled us back. -15 minutes.

We're told to depart the plane, and we walk back into the airport -30 minutes.

The same ticketing agent from before is standing at the gate. She instructs us all to get into line and they'll help us one by one to get us to our final destinations. I finally get up to the lady about a half hour later. -1 hour.

"Maybe this time she'll be helpful," I think. I'm deluded. Missing not one, but two, flights out of Milwaukee has given me some sort of delirium. I step up the lady. As I do so I hear her turn to a co-worker and say, "People are so stupid. They just don't plan for delays." Yeah. Guess how helpful she was? Not at all. They told me they'd get me to Milwaukee at some point that night, once the plane was fixed, and then reconfirmed me for the 3:00 p.m. to MSP, arriving 5 and a half hours after my interview. They did put me on the standby list for the one arriving at 10:40.

I figured that if I did get on the 10:40 arrival I could maybe call my interviewer and push back the time slot a little. It didn't look good for getting onto that flight, but it was worth a shot. I also decided I would call Midwest again, to see what they had. There was one that got in around noon. Again, I figured that it would be better than getting in at 4:30, as it would still allow me to reschedule my interview. It cost $100 to reschedule the flight I was currently missing from Milwaukee to Minneapolis. So, all told, I spent $260 on an extra flight because Air Tran couldn't get me to my destination in a timely fashion.

Finally, around 11, they got the plane fixed. They pulled away from the gate to give it a test run, made it about 5 feet, and then announced to all of us that it was still broken and that we'd have to wait another hour for a flight from Atlanta to come in, and then we could take that plane.

Meanwhile, all of the passengers were waiting in a closed airport. National is not a huge airport, and we were in the tiniest terminal. It doesn't even have vending machines, and all 3 of the little shops were shut down so you couldn't even get a bottle of water. I had eaten at noon, and then had a muffin around 6, but that was all I'd had that day. Here we were, nearly 12 hours later, and it was pretty obvious that lots of people were in similar positions. There were several elderly persons who were having a tough time, and my heart really went out to a mom who was traveling alone with a 9-month-old. I offered her any help I could, and she took me up on it, having me keep an eye on her stuff while she saw to her kid for a while. All of the passengers were really nice to each other; lots of conversations between strangers were breaking out and people were pitching in with whatever anyone else needed.

Too bad Air Tran wasn't being equally helpful. They did give us all a future round trip ticket (which I think they might have been required by law to do), but a lot of people had spent money on other flights or different arrangements, or were working to do so. Some people asked about hotel rooms once they got to Milwaukee, since some of the flights left the next evening. Finally, after a number of people had asked, the ticket agent got on the loudspeaker to announce that "We're being more than generous by giving you a free round trip ticket. We will not give you anything else. If you want a hotel room, or to rent a car, or you bought another ticket, that's not our fault and we will not pay for it. You're already getting a ticket, and that's more than enough."

Needless to say, I will be calling Air Tran's customer service line this week.

I ended up meeting a Marine who lives and works in the same neighborhood that I do, and who was also heading to Minnesota. He had a wedding to get to early Friday evening. He'd actually bought the same Midwest ticket that I had, as a backup, when Air Tran announced their first delay. We really hit it off. Eventually we decided that once we got to Milwaukee we would just rent a car and drive the 6 hours to Minneapolis.

There was, of course, a problem with that. When we got into Milwaukee it was going to be at least 1 a.m., and no rental places would be open. Drat. The Marine had been calling his brother throughout the night, since his brother was supposed to pick him up in Minnesota. He mentioned the rental plan, and the brother - a twenty-something who owns his own contracting business - decided that he would drive out to Milwaukee to pick up the Marine. The Marine in turn offered me a ride (of course checking with his Contractor brother), and I accepted, figuring I could always back out once we got to Milwaukee.

The plane from Atlanta finally landed (late, of course), and we took off around 1 a.m., arriving in Milwaukee around 2 a.m. (we gained an hour going from East to Central time). Landing, the Marine and I walked out towards the main part of the Milwaukee airport, looking for a place to crash for a couple hours, or get some coffee, or anything. Fortunately there was a small stand open all night, and they had sandwiches and salads and such.

"Let me buy you something to eat," I offered.
"Sure, sounds good," said the Marine.
We each grabbed a couple items and went to check out. As she was ringing us up the clerk noticed the insignia on the Marine's bag and asked if we were military. "I'm not, but he is," I said.
"That's ok, you're together. I'll give you the military discount."
"Even though I'm paying?" I asked.
"Sure."
20% off! First time in my life I've ever gotten a military discount!

We ate and found some chairs to catch a rest in. His brother (and now his dad as well) were on their way, and would be there around 4 or 4:30. Just before they were to arrive I went to the bathroom to clean up, since it looked like I'd have just enough time to get to the interview.

I took my suit out of my suitcase, pondering the amazing packing job my wife had done. I asked her to put my suit in for me, just in case I didn't have time to get it pressed (the plan was to take it to Men's Warehouse for their free pressing service (which I use all the time when I travel, and absolutely love. Seriously, buy your suits at Men's Warehouse.), but if that didn't work, I didn't want to be too wrinkled.). There were some creases, and I did my best to get those out using the hot air blow dryers in the bathroom. It didn't work too well.

I brushed, got dressed, and headed back to find the Marine. After almost no time the Contractor and his did showed up. It was the moment of no return, and I decided to chance the ride with the strangers. As we were walking to the car the Marine turned to me.

"Oh yeah," he said, "this might be awkward. Or maybe not. But you should know, my dad is deaf."
"No problem," I said. It really didn't matter to me.

Or at least it didn't matter until the Deaf Man did about half of the driving. I don't know how much being deaf affects a person's driving. He wasn't really a good driver, but that probably had less to do with him not hearing the sounds from the road and more to do with the fact that he was carrying on conversations in ASL while driving.

The Contractor wasn't a much better driver. Though he was very fast. And actually pretty skilled at swerving between semis. We made a nearly six hour drive in five. I did my best to sleep along the way, since I hadn't been able to sleep on the plane. I managed about 3 hours. I'd had a cold that was getting better before this whole experience, but by the time we got to Minnesota I was back to a severe cough. Ugh.

The Marine, the Contractor, and the Deaf Guy (sounds like a joke, right?) were nice enough to drop me off at my brother's. I had just enough time to shower and get dressed again before he took me over to the interview.

The interviewer knew I was coming from D.C., and the first question she asked was whether I'd had a good trip. I gave her an abbreviated version, but even then I think she got the impression that I really wanted the job. After all, I bought two different plane tickets, missed two connecting flights, stayed up all night, bought a man a meal, got dressed in a bathroom, and made a six hour drive with three total strangers all just to get to the interview.

I'll let you know how it goes.

I may be limping
But I'm coming home

Once Again

2009-07-23T14:38:00.004-04:00

It seems non-embryonic stem cells are just as good as embryonic stem cells.

And this comes just a couple of weeks after the final rules were issued allowing government funding on embryonic stem cells.

So, to summarize: there are totally non-controversial stem cells that can be used for research that are just as good as controversial stem cells. And yet Congress and the President rushed to authorize the use of the controversial stem cells.

Why? I guarantee you - it's because of the money. Lots and lots of politicians getting paid by the embryonic stem cell companies.

Some days, I hate politics.

And does anything I say seem relevant at all?
You've been at the helm since you were just five

Music I Don't Like

2009-07-22T01:08:00.003-04:00

Has anyone heard anything by Jack White's new group, Dead Weather?

I've heard a couple songs and I'll be honest: I hate it.

I know, I know, he's Jack White. The White Stripes are awesome. This is essentially a super group and therefore supposed to be awesome too. But I just really hate it. Not apathy. Not dislike. I actually turn the radio off when it comes on. I would rather listen to nothing. Anyone else?

I'm also discovering that I feel the exact same way about almost any song by Art Brut. I like the song Emily Kane, but all of their new stuff is terrible. Plus every one of their songs sounds exactly the same. I thought I liked them the first couple times I heard their songs but after about a half-dozen listens I turn their music off too.

I can be a bit of an indi-snob with music, and yet I really hate these two indi-fav groups. That strikes me as odd. Anyone else know their stuff and/or have an opinion?

I want school kids on buses singing your name

Definitional Issues

2009-07-19T20:54:00.004-04:00

At what point does a cupcake cease being a cupcake and become simply a cake? Apparently it's a higher line than I would have drawn.

I say, "Baby, scoot over please."
And then she's right there next to me

Camping

2009-07-17T11:36:00.004-04:00

Every year my dad's side of the family does a massive weekend camping trip. They've been doing it now for something like 300 years. It's quite the gathering. Just to give you some sense of the size: my dad is one of 9 children. All of his siblings are married and none of them have fewer than 4 children. And those children are at this point procreating too; we're at the point where not too far down the road the great grandchildren will catch and pass the number of grandchildren. Throw in some other assorted first and second generation relatives, and you've usually got a group of more than 100 people camping together. It's a blast.

There's always a ton of stuff to do, and it's so much fun. It's a great opportunity to see family, share stories, meet the new additions to the family, hang out with uncles and aunts and cousins, get in some fishing or water skiing or just sitting around the campfire with a s'more.

All of which makes me so sad that I'll be missing it. Again. This is, I think, the sixth year in a row that I won't be there (maybe even the seventh). Living so far away from family has been really tough because I miss out on stuff like this. There have been too many other major events that I've had to devote my vacation time towards, and flying back just for a weekend is often prohibitively expensive, so it's been a long time.

My hope is that next year I'll finally be able to make it back. I'd love to have my kid grow up experiencing the same wonderful times that I had at the Novak Family Camping Trip.

Oh, and if you're interested, we made the news for this even a few years back. Kind of one of those nice fluff pieces. You can see the video here.

Spent a week in a dusty library
Waiting for some words to jump at me

I'm Back

2009-07-14T23:07:00.003-04:00

I'm ready to start posting again! Yay!
------------------
I know I was on the fence about Obama in the lead-up to the election. I think the phrase I used was "cautiously optimistic." I had a lot of skepticism. But I'll tell you what: he's won me over.

I can't point to any specific policy or political move that he's made as the cause. It's actually that I love having a populist President. He's a celebrity, and I really like that quality. I wish he were a bit more of a thinker; despite his intellectual credentials I still get the impression he doesn't actually do most of his own thinking, and that the great ideas have always come from other sources. Maybe that's not fair. I don't know. It's really just an impression.

Regardless, I love his celebrity status. I like watching him on Leno. I like that the restaurants he goes to get more business. I loved watching him throw out the first pitch at the All Star Game, and listening to him chat with the guys in the booth. Of course Bush did a better job with both last year in the Nationals' first home game. He even spent some time calling that game from the booth, and handled it well. I don't think Obama could pull that off.

But that's ok, Bush is more of a baseball man than Obama. This is, of course, clearly demonstrated in Obama's choice of favorite team. Seriously, what kind of man picks a team of pure evil to root for? On second thought, I might have to reconsider my praise for Obama...

May you stay forever young

Podcast

2009-06-25T00:45:00.003-04:00

This isn't quite a content post, but it is directing you towards new Matt Novak-content.

As some of you may know, I am a fan of the web comic Freaks and Squeeks. I'm related to the writer, but that doesn't mean it's any less quality (seriously, go read his latest storyline, starting Wednesday June 3rd. Fun stuff.)(I'll ignore the panel on the 24th... unless he's going somewhere with that.)

Anyway, once a week Patric draws the strip live on-line, and while it is being drawn I co-host with him a podcast called simply, "Patric Draws". We've discussed a bunch of fun stuff in the past, including the big 90's music topic that was featured here a month ago. We have a couple frequently recurring features (and we're working on adding more, to provide better structure to the show), including a weekly top 5 that has proved somewhat popular.

Anyway, it's a fun little podcast, and you should feel free to check it out. You can also find it on iTunes if you're so inclined. This past week we discussed the RIAA and functional vs. dysfunctional copyright, Transformers, and a list of the Top 5 Robots of all time. Now if that doesn't at least interest you a little, well, I think you need to get some help. (If the robots is the only part you're interested in, I'll cop to the fact that it's at the end of the podcast.)

Go check it out!

Despite of my rage
I am still just a rat in a cage

A Pause

2009-06-22T00:02:00.002-04:00

I think I'm going to be taking a little pause from blogging here for another week or so. Maybe a little longer (though probably not more than 2 weeks). I'm working on the next section of my novel, which is proving awfully tough. I'm also trying to devote a little more time to my physical fitness. And work is busy, as always.

I'm still going to be posting nearly daily at www.dctwinsfan.com, and I'm actually going to be trying to step that up a little more, with extra posts, beyond the Hero Of the Win entries.

So worry not; I'll be back before too long. And who knows, maybe I'll have something I want to post tomorrow. But tonight I feel like I want to give myself a little break, and that's what the plan is for now. See you soon!

You may be King
You may possess the world and it's gold

Stand Up

2009-06-11T00:45:00.005-04:00

So it's been a while since I've posted, and it's going to be a while again, since I'm heading to Minnesota for a quick little vacation. I'm sure there will be stories when I come back. But to tide you over, I'm going to go ahead and put up the video of my stand-up comedy act that I performed about a month ago.

Mind you, it clearly won't be as funny over the internet as it was in person. And if you want to go ahead and have a couple drinks before watching it, that would probably help too. But it was a good time, and there's been enough requests, so I'll put it up.

Enjoy!

You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht

Question: Music Of The 90's

2009-06-03T00:40:00.003-04:00

I'm working on putting together a compilation of songs from the '90's for one of my younger sisters who pretty much missed that decade musically, because of her age. Now I confess, I only really caught the second half of the decade myself, however, it seems to me that the mid-to-late-'90's were a high point in music. Maybe everyone feels that way about the music of their high school years, but I stand by it.

The problem is narrowing down the list of songs. I'm only making one CD, which means roughly 20 songs, probably a few less. Right now I've got quite a sizable list of songs to pick from. I'm gonna throw it out here, and I'd like people recommendations. Folks like Ben and Jeff and Mike, I'm expecting you to come through for me here. Other regular readers who have any insight into music from the '90's, your insight is also much appreciated.

Pick as many as 20 songs that you would include on a '90's album. They don't have to be ones on my list, as I'm sure I've overlooked some good ones. And I'm not going for just representative stuff (you'll notice there are no boy band songs), I'm going for the songs I think people who missed '90's music should make sure they hear. I won't do more than 1 by any single artist though, so keep that in mind. Some artists have multiple nominations, so pick between them.

Now, without further ado, the list of potential songs:

Alanis Morissette - Hand in My Pocket
Barenaked Ladies - If I Had $1,000,000/One Week
Beck - Loser
Billy Joel - River of Dreams
Cake - Sheep Go to Heaven/Stickshifts & Safetybelts
Chumbawumba - Thubthumping
Collective Soul - The World I Know

Corky & The Juice Pigs - The Only Gay Eskimo

Counting Crows - Mr. Jones/Round Here
The Cranberries - Zombie
Crash Test Dummies - Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm
Dave Matthews Band - Crash
Deana Carter - Strawberry Wine
Everclear - Wonderful
Fastball - The Way
Garbage - Special
Gin Blossoms - Follow You Down
Goo Goo Dolls - Iris/Name
Green Day - Basket Case/When I Come Around
Harvey Danger - Flagpole Sitta
Joan Osborne - What If God Was One Of Us
Lit - My Own Worst Enemy
Local H - Bound For The Floor
Macy Gray - I Try
Matchbox Twenty - Real World
Marilyn Manson - The Beautiful People
The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - The Impression That I Get
Moby - Run On/Porcelain
Natalie Merchant - Kind & Generous
New Radicals - You Get What You Give
No Doubt - Spiderwebs
Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit
Oasis - Wonderwall
The Offspring - Pretty Fly (For A White Guy)
Pearl Jam - Better Man
Prince - Pussy Control
Radiohead - Creep
R.E.M. - Losing My Religion/Night Swimming
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication
Reel Big Fish - She's Got A Girlfriend Now
Santana - Smooth
Shawn Mullins - Lullaby
Sheryl Crow - If It Makes You Happy/Strong Enough To Be My Man
Simpsons Cast/Michael Jackson - Happy Birthday, Lisa
Sixpence None The Richer - Kiss Me
Smash Mouth - Walkin' On The Sun
Soul Asylum - Runaway Train
Spin Doctors - Jimmy Olsen's Blues
Third Eye Blind - Semi-Charmed Life
Tori Amos - Cornflake Girl
Train - Meet Virginia
Tracy Chapman - Give Me One Reason
Verve Pipe - The Freshmen
The Wallflowers - One Headlight
Weezer - The Sweater Song

Ok, there you have it. Advise away!

Tonight I'm gonna party like it's 1999

Wytheville Weirdness

2009-06-01T01:25:00.006-04:00

Just a couple of quick stories from our short little trip to southwestern Virginia:

1. We decided to go out for a nice meal our first night in town. We asked the folks at the front desk what one of the nicer places in town was, and they first told us that they didn't eat at any of the restaurants around. That seemed odd. Usually hotel staff are a bit more helpful. Eventually we were able to coax a couple of suggestions from them. We headed off towards one, but changed our minds and decided to go instead to the Steakhouse.

We figured it was a steakhouse, and so we should at least look presentable. I'd been bumming around in shorts and a t-shirt, and we almost went back to the hotel to change, but instead figured we'd just check it out. I was glad we didn't change because even in shorts and a t-shirt I was significantly overdressed. You see, I had sleeves. And mind you, this was the nicest place in town.

2. At the restaurant there was this cute little boy. He had to be no more than 2. He was kind of noisy throughout the meal, which frankly we enjoyed immensely. It was dinner and a show. Eventually his folks got tired of him and tried to find something for him to play with. They came up with a cell phone. As soon as they handed the little kid the phone he began imitating all of the adults he'd seen use cell phones. That is to say, he put it to his ear and began yelling at the top of his lungs, totally oblivious that no one else cared about his call.

3. We went out for barbecue one night at a local joint that was supposed to be good. When we arrived I tried to order a slab of ribs, only to find out that they were out. This was relatively early on a Saturday night. Kind of strange, right? That was a pretty big sign that this restaurant was inept. Ultimately it turned out to be a good thing though, because they did have a sample size of ribs, and trying them I discovered that they were absolute crap. I was saved from the restaurant's ineptitude by the restaurant's ineptitude.

4. Driving through town we noticed a large building with two distinct signs on it. One said "Dollar General," while the other proclaimed "Super Dollar." There was just one parking lot, and one building, so we figured it had to be the same store, just with two different names.

Nope, it was two totally separate dollar stores sitting right next to each other, in direct competition with each other. Adding to the comedy was the fact that literally across the street was Family Dollar. Apparently this was the "dollar district".

We decided to patronize Super Dollar and Dollar General, to see how they compared. Dollar General was first on the list. Not much in the way of food selection, but it had some school supplies and off-label clothes. Including Wrankler brand jeans. That's right, knock-off Wranglers.

Next we stopped into Super Dollar. This was pretty much a grocery store, with generic everything. I saw a giant jar of pickled eggs. It was a big jar filled with eggs floating in some sort of orange water. Disgusting. The absolute highlight had to be the cereal aisle though. If you thought Wranklers were funny, then you need to buy yourself a box of Coco Krisp Ricies.

We decided to pass.

Anywho, it was a pretty fun trip in all. It's a beautiful part of the country down there, and it's well worth stopping to take an extended look if you're ever in the area. Virginia is a gorgeous state, and I'm glad we got to explore a little more.

I'm not the kind of girl

Who gives up just like that

Fantastic Female Voices

2009-05-30T03:52:00.004-04:00

I was listening to The Current this morning. Every weekday they have a little feature where they throw out a topic, take requests on that topic for an hour or so, and then play 3 of the requested songs. Today the subject was "bands with female vocalists," as an homage to Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and their new album.

Don't worry, of course they played Rilo Kiley.

Well I've been spending a bit of time thinking about this today, and I realized that I've been really liking female voices in music lately. In particular I've been drawn to voices that..., well, I'm not quite sure how to describe it, but I might say, that have a certain longing or subtlety to them. It's almost like there vocalists are giving a little wink with singing. And there's something so compelling and attractive about a female vocalist who can just nail a song - especially a fun song - and yet leave so much unsung. Does that make any sense to anyone?

I'm thinking in particular not so much of Jenny Lewis or Karen O, though they certainly can accomplish this, but more of artists like Tracyanne Campbell of Camera Obscura, Katie White of The Ting Tings, Lenka, and Emily Haines of Metric. To get right to the point, I'm pretty much smitten with certain songs by each of these artists. I'd recommend checking out other tunes by these folks too, but here's one song by each that I absolutely love:

French Navy by Camera Obscura
That's Not My Name by The Ting Tings
Trouble is a Friend by Lenka
Gimme Sympathy by Metric

Anyone have any other suggestions for songs that fit into the whole "simultaneously powerful and subtle female vocalist who winks flirtatiously at you with her song" category?

After all of this is done
Who'd you rather be, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

4 Years

2009-05-28T00:38:00.002-04:00

4 years ago today was the best day of my life. Except for every day since. Except for the ones when I or Mrs. Fickle were apart from each other.

I know there's been a dearth of posts lately. Between computer issues and craziness at work and a little weekend vacation and blogging at http://www.dctwinsfan.com/, I've been a bit busy lately. There'll be a post coming soon about the trip we took, so watch for that. And go check out the Twins blog, where I've had almost daily posts.

And finally, in honor of my awesome marriage, I'll give you the link to the blogged summary of the wedding. Enjoy!

I'm strange and you're strange

I'm Going To Like Being A Parent

2009-05-18T00:49:00.004-04:00

It was my birthday today. Mrs. Fickle put little happy birthday notes all over the apartment. One of them said, "Happy Birthday Dad. From: Baby."

It was the first time I was called 'Dad'. I really liked it. I can hardly wait to meet my kid. Especially if he/she's going to be this thoughtful all the time.

I wish you better than your heart desires

Baby Humor

2009-05-16T02:38:00.003-04:00

Matt: You look pained. Is something wrong?
Ms. Fickle (looking pained): Not really, I've just got a cramp.
Matt: Where?
Ms. Fickle: In my stomach.
Matt: That's not a cramp, that's a baby.
Ms. Fickle: It's a cramp. A cramp in my style.

One of them says "You know I've been thinking..."
Other one says, "That won't get you too far."

Movie Review: Star Trek

2009-05-10T00:36:00.005-04:00

The new Star Trek was, in a single word, flawless. Over my life I've seen maybe a dozen different episodes, give or take, of the original Star Trek series. I've also seen the first two movies in that series. I was always more of a Next Generation fan (I think I've seen probably all, or very nearly all, of the episodes, and all of the movies). But after seeing this movie I want to go watch all of the original series. It was that good.

This film does a fantastic job introducing us to the characters. Having some familiarity with the original cast I appreciated how true this movie stayed to the essential characteristics of the roles. What I knew of the characters showed up in this film, but at the same time I didn't need to bring any background with me in order to get who these people were. The movie brought it all to the audience and introduced us to the protagonists with a knowing wink that served as tribute to the history laid out in the original franchise's extensive cannon. Some of the inside nods I got. Some I didn't. I loved the ones I was able to catch and the ones I wasn't left me wanting to explore the series more fully.

The acting is terrific. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto might even surpass their predecessors in the roles of James T. Kirk and Spock, respectively. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy are iconic in those roles, yet these two young actors turned in spectacular performances that more than did the originals justice. I'd like to think that Nimoy's presence in the film is an indication of his strong approval. The supporting cast was equally up to task. From Bones to Sulu to Uhura to Scotty there wasn't a single missed note, a single flat performance, a single character I didn't want to know better. The casting was fantastic, the acting superb.

Star Trek was full of amazing action. This was a sci-fi movie but I found myself pleasantly surprised at how clean and unencumbered much of the action was. Rather than rely on special effects for all of the action we got to see real people doing real stunts and fight choreography. The scene was set with special effects - a giant drilling rig miles above the planet's surface for example - but the action was real. George Lucas should take note. This is the film that science fiction fans have been waiting to see for 10 years; ever since the anticipation of The Phantom Menace fizzled into that awful, forgettable mess. The reintroduction of Star Wars was a disaster. The reintroduction of Star Trek is quite the opposite.

It has been a full day since I saw the film. I wanted to give it some time before putting up this review, to see if I felt as strongly as I did immediately after seeing the movie. If anything my estimation of the film has only grown. I'm already trying to find room on my calendar to go see it again. With movie prices being what they are, that certainly says something. It is with eager anticipation that I hope for a sequel staring this same cast. In fact, the Star Trek franchise has gone 4 years without a single new episode on television; after seeing this movie I've been entertaining wishful, and admittedly ridiculous, dreams that J.J. Abrams could somehow convince this group of actors to commit to a weekly show for the small screen. After all, Abrams did get his start in television...

I would be remiss if I didn't say a little about J.J. Abrams here. A tremendous amount of credit needs to be given to him for having the courage to tackle such an iconic and beloved show, to have the insight to make it true, and the creativity to make it fresh. I mean for this to be the ultimate compliment one can give a filmmaker.

Finally, let me just note one personal hope that this movie gives me. I have always been a fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation. After seeing how capably this reimagining was handled I look forward to the day, maybe a dozen years from now, when that franchise is also reborn. I never would have thought it, but after the brilliance of this film I can't help but think of it as a mere eventuality.

Let me close by saying that this was easily the best film I have seen in a long time. It was a fantastic movie on its own, it stands as a marvelous tribute to what came before, and it lays the foundation for a future filled with potential. Not only do I want to see this movie again, I want to go back and watch all of the original episodes and am simultaneously giddy with anticipation for a sequel to this film. I hope that the new Star Trek is a franchise that will live long and prosper (Well you didn't honestly expect me not to use at least one lame line, did you?).

I give it an A+.

Like a pinch on the neck of Mr. Spock

500

2009-05-09T03:42:00.003-04:00

This is my 500th post. I was going to put up a Phickle Thoughts but I think this is a significant enough thing that it deserves it's own post, right?

When I started this blog I really had no idea what I was doing. I just figured I'd jot down a thought or two here and there and maybe my family would read it. I still don't have a huge readership but there's a really solid community of people who read and comment here (and on many of the blogs that belong to those commenters) and it's been a really rewarding experience to "meet" so many different people through this blog.

It has also been a terrific way for me to share more of what's going on in my life with friends and family that I'm far away from. Now that Baby Philosofer is on the way it'll be an especially useful tool for insight into my parenting experience. I don't know how much I'll talk about the baby, since obviously some level of privacy is important, but I'm sure I'll share here and there.

Anyway, I don't really have much more to say about this post. I just happened to notice that my last post was 499 and it really struck me. If I had had to guess I would have said I was at maybe 300 posts. The fact that I'm already up to 500... well, it's pretty cool.

It's like a, it's like a call

A Little Strange...

2009-05-04T00:54:00.005-04:00

A little over a week ago the swine flu hysteria really broke out. It seems to have died down quite a bit in a week. Part of that is the short attention span of the news cycle (and the problems caused by 24 hour news channels), and part of that is the realization that the early numbers were way out of proportion.

But another big piece of the puzzle is how well prepared we seem to be to deal with a pandemic. I learned a lot about preparing for these issues in my Advanced Health Law class. I was in the class shortly after outbreaks of bird flu and SARS, when governments really started to work on the issue of preparation. I really enjoyed the class and looking at all the difficulties in dealing with pandemics.

It isn't a super easy thing to prepare for a pandemic. A lot of proposals turn out to be things that would actually be completely ineffectual, such as closing down borders. A government that takes ineffectual steps will be causing more harm that good. See, for example, slaughtering all of a country's pigs or suggesting that people avoid planes and trains.

If you look at the steps the CDC took, at least initially here, it looks like they handled things pretty well. In another 6 months we might look back and see that that statement is completely absurd, but I doubt it. I think the plan that was put in place - and the execution so far - appears to be on the right track.

And you know who we largely have to thank for this? George W. Bush. These were plans that were really put into place under his watch, at the direction of his administration. It feels weird to throw some real praise his way. But it really looks like it's due. Of course, we can always balance that by pointing out that it was the Katrina fiasco that really kicked the administration into gear on this sort of planning.

Yeah... that feels more natural.

He waits in the wings
He's gotta play a part

Friday Funny

2009-05-01T21:40:00.002-04:00

Here's a link to a "Partial Compendium of Latvian Humor".

I first came across this on a different site but this seems to be the full list of jokes. A highly recommended link. Funny stuff.

My favorites:

Joke
Latvian walk into bar with poodle under one arm and salami under other. Eat salami first.

Joke
Latvian: Is so cold.
All: How cold is?
Latvian: Very. Also dark.

Joke
How many Latvian is take screw in light bulb?
Only one. Obtain light bulb is hard part. You have potato?

Joke
What are one potato say other potato?
Premise ridiculous. Who have two potato?

Monday you can fall apart
Tuesday, Wednesday break my heart
Thursday doesn't even start

Souter?

2009-05-01T11:15:00.002-04:00

I hardly know her!

I don't really have any thoughts on the retirement right now, other than that I'll enjoy watching the proceedings again I'm sure. I just wanted to use that joke before I read anything else about Souter and inevitably see that line used someplace else.

I'm sorry baby
But you can't stand
In my light anymore

Busy

2009-04-27T23:28:00.002-04:00

I realized it's been a week since I posted. It doesn't feel like it has actually been that long, but I can't argue with the facts. I've just been really busy lately. A quick run-down of the things I've been doing, and we'll call it a life update and pretend it's a meaningful post.

First, I've been doing a good amount of writing over on my new Twins blog. Baseball takes up a lot of time, and writing about the games - even short posts - can be time consuming. If you haven't been reading it, please check it out from time to time. There's at least some new content almost every day.

Second, in conjunction with baseball season we've upped our cable package to once again receive ESPN. This means I've admittedly had more TV watching lately... Weak, right? But I missed Stephen Colbert, so having him back is pretty awesome. And Decemberists tonight!

I've also been doing a good deal of writing on the first draft of the novel I'm working on. For those who are still wondering as to the topic I'll say this: the plot is loosely centered around a major archaeological find, but the book is really about what it means to be creative and discover something new in a world where everything has been done before. I'm currently working on chapter 5, and I've got more than 50 pages. Not too shabby, right?

Let's see... I'm two weeks into a stand up comedy class, so I've also been working on that routine quite a bit. Our performance is on May 13th. If anyone is around and wants to comes see it, I'd love to have you there. All I ask is that you don't heckle. You don't have to laugh, just please, please, don't heckle. I've actually probably got more raw material than I need, but a ways to go in honing things down for maximum laughs.

Finally I've been hanging out with the Mrs. a lot lately, holding my hand on her stomach and such. We've gotten to the point where we can feel the baby kick sometimes, which is really exciting. Oh yeah, for those who might not have heard yet, we're pregnant. So you know... there's that keeping me busy.

So far I had known no humiliation
In front of my friends and close relations

A Crazy Crazy Day

2009-04-20T22:22:00.004-04:00

This morning I was waiting for a co-worker to pick me up at the metro so that we could carpool to an all-staff meeting that we had. It was pouring rain, and so I was waiting with a couple of other people under the area around the exit that was covered by the building above. Among the people waiting there was an elderly gentleman who appeared to be an immigrant.

All of a sudden this elderly fellow dashed past me, towards a cab that was driving by, to try and flag it down. Only instead he ran straight into a garbage can, fell back, and hit his head on the sidewalk. It looked like he blacked out for a brief moment. He tried to sit up, made it only part way, and then fell back again. He was laying on the ground. I stepped over and helped the man to his feet and over to a set of stairs that were nearby so that he could sit down. His pupils were swollen and he seemed completely out of it. I told him I was going to call 911.

He said, in a quiet, broken English, "No. I just need a minute. I'm going to the hospital anyway." And then he lifted up his shirt to reveal a gigantic gauze bandaged to his stomach. It almost looked like he had a feeding tube underneath the gauze, though I couldn't tell, and the bandage stretched almost the entire way across his skinny body. "I have an appointment," he said.

"Where is your appointment?" I asked. "I think you need medical attention right away."
"Arlington Hospital."
"Is there someone I can call?"
"Can you please get me a cab? I need to go to my appointment."
"I'll try to get you a cab. Wait here."

I ran out in the pouring rain to try to flag down a cab. There aren't a ton that pass by the metro stop we were at, but after a couple minutes in the downpour I was able to flag down a Redtop. "There's a man here who needs to go to Arlington hospital. He's right around the corner."
"No," said the cabbie. "I'm only taking people into the city." And he drove away (splashing me in the process. Not that that mattered, I wasn't getting any wetter.).

I ran back to the man to make sure he was doing ok. He wasn't. He had vomited a little and was now rinsing his mouth out with a bottle of water he had. "Is there anyone else I can call? You don't want me to get an ambulance? 911?"

"No 911," he said. I surmised that he either probably wasn't a legal resident or didn't have insurance to cover an ambulance ride. Both were issues I see regularly in my work, so I wanted to respect his decision. "Can you call my wife?"
"Yes. What is the number?"
He gave me a number but stopped after 8 digits. It was like that scene from The Injury episode of The Office when Dwight starts talking and then just stops mid sentence. I eventually coaxed two more digits out of him, but no one answered on the other end and I don't know if the number was right.

"I'll try for another cab," I said.
As I was standing in the rain to hail another taxi my co-worker pulled up. I explained the situation and she tried to help me flag down a cab. Eventually we got another cab - this time it was Crown Cab Co. - and the driver told us the same thing. He wasn't going to take someone further out into Arlington. My co-worker figured it was probably because with the rain they were making a mint off of taking people into the city and picking up short fares downtown. I figured she was right. She ran off the check on the guy, who apparently had vomited some more. After that she went and found a number for Red Top's dispatch, so we could order a cab. Before she did all this she offered me her umbrella. I told her to keep it, since I wasn't going to get any wetter than I already was.

I stayed out in the rain, trying to hail more cabs. Eventually another Red Top pulled up and the driver didn't even bother telling me no. As soon as he heard "Arlington Hospital" he rolled up the window and sped away. My co-worker found the number and brought it over for me. I called the dispatch. I was on hold for 5 minutes, during which time another cab - Yellow Top - was flagged down and refused the fair. Finally dispatch picked up. It was no easy task to convince them to send a cab for a guy who needed to go to the hospital, especially when I couldn't even give them his name. As I was in the middle of this frantic call, talking to dispatch, another passerby asked me if I could call a cab for her too. I pretty much yelled at her and she left in a huff. I'm sure she's telling people about the rude guy who wouldn't even ask for two cabs. Eventually I convinced the dispatch to send a cab, but told me it would be 20 minutes. I said to send it, and went back to the guy.

He seemed to be doing a bit better, though he still wasn't ready to stand up. My co-worker helped me flag down another cab - Red Top again - and we explained that dispatch was supposed to be sending someone, so couldn't he just pick him up instead. "No way," he said. "It's not my call." And again he drove off.

We were already 30 minutes late for our meeting, and nothing we were doing seemed to have any positive effect. I felt really bad for my co-worker, who kind of got sucked into this whole mess (and she was a great support with it), but I didn't want to leave the guy. Finally something good happened - a metro employee came up for a break. I was able to grab his attention and explain the situation - that I saw him fall, the concussion, that he was already going to the hospital, that I hadn't been able to get a cab, but there should be one in 5 minutes and he needed to get in it, etc.

The metro employee was awesome. He agreed to help the guy, went right over and started talking to him, to see what he could do, how he could help him, everything. At that point it was clear the elderly fellow was in good hands, and we were finally able to take off. I felt a little bad not seeing him into a cab, but I feel pretty confident he was taken care of.

On the way to the meeting my co-worker and I talked about whether we should have just given him a ride. I didn't feel I could volunteer her car, and she was apprehensive because the hospital wasn't on the way at all, she really didn't have much room, and the vomiting thing was an obvious detractor. We both felt bad we didn't just take him there, and looking back, we kind of wished we would have.

Still... we did what we could. It was hard to know what to do in that situation. I spent the rest of the day soaking wet, wishing things had gone better, and still in disbelief that 5 separate cabs turned him down.
-----------------------------
Then we had an all-staff meeting where we talked about all sorts of ways to make our offices more efficient and better for clients and what not. After which, we got to go bowling! A nice end to a long meeting. I bowled a 112 and a 122. Not my best games. I have 5 strikes in each game, but also managed a 0 in frame in the first game, and a bunch of 4's in both. Very inconsistent. But it was fun.
-----------------------------
And while I was on a break at the meeting I was able to use a different co-worker's iPhone to check the results on the Minnesota Bar exam, which were posted this morning. I passed! That makes me undefeated in bar examinations. And I think I'll go out on top, and announce my retirement from taking these tests. Of course it seems that these days everyone comes out of retirement at least once... hopefully I won't have to!

And a big yellow taxi took away my old man

Friday Funny

2009-04-17T00:08:00.003-04:00

This isn't so much funny as it is adorable. It features a great song, a very funny man performing a lip sync (not nearly as funny as some lip syncs that were done in the past, but still pretty solid), and puppets.

But I know one thing
That I love you

New TV

2009-04-14T21:29:00.004-04:00

Last week I watched two new shows: Parks & Rec and The Unusuals. I enjoyed both. The Unusuals has a lot of potential. There's obviously going to be an overarching plot to the entire show, but the first episode had a tight enough arc in its own right. The characters seemed real engaging, with plenty of unique attributes that will provide a healthy dose of comedic relief. And the roles seemed well acted, at least this first time around. There was also enough, well, unusual stuff going on that it didn't feel like a formulaic procedural. I'll keep watching.

Parks & Rec seemed pretty funny. Not as good as The Office, though that's hardly a fair expectation. The first episode seemed a little too plot driven, and hopefully the rest of the plot happens more organically throughout the run of the show. One of the things that's so great about The Office is the host of supporting characters, like Crede and Phyllis and Stanley. That'll be something that Parks & Rec needs to develop.

The main characters have some very nice potential. I like Amy Pohler and Rashida Jones. I don't quite get the Rashida Jones character yet, but hopefully that'll come. Tom and April look like they'll be pretty funny, and Ron Swanson is already hilarious. Let's give this one some time to develop and hopefully we'll have another great addition to NBC's Thursday comedy lineup. Which, by the way, is what everyone should be watching on Thursday nights if they have their TV's on. There's simply no reason to be watching anything else on at that time. I'm looking at you women between 18 and 39 who are still gushing over Patrick Dempsey...

I was also considering watching Southland, because that looked like a really good police drama. I just wasn't willing to start three new shows, and so it lost out to those other two. Did anyone watch it? I saw good reviews... what did you think? I also was considering that show Kings. It looks like a pretty ambitious show (and it's based on stories from the Bible apparently), but the time slot and everything just didn't click for me. I also just had a feeling that it wouldn't get very far before cancellation... maybe I'll check it out on DVD someday. Oh, and I also stopped watching Heroes after the fall season ended, and frankly I'm still glad about it.

Yup... I just put up a post about my TV viewing habits. Shameful really. Sorry.

Got a curse I cannot lift
Shines when the sunset shifts

Into Thin Air

2009-04-14T00:23:00.001-04:00

When people lose weight, where do the pounds they shed physically go?

I ain't missing you
No matter what I might say

Which One Is The Alien Monster?

2009-04-09T00:28:00.002-04:00

I had no idea how hard it would be to find a usable picture of Lindsey Lohan. If you're ever compelled to do an image search for her, do yourself a favor and use the strictest filter you possibly can.

We can't go on together
With suspicious minds

DCTF

2009-04-07T23:39:00.003-04:00

As a reminder to everyone, and a shameless self-promotion, I have a new Twins blog. It's DCTwinsFan. Technically I'm posting as DCTwins Fan, and it's anonymous, but I'll let my readers here know that it's me. The link is in the sidebar. I'll be posting there with some frequency, so if you're interested in the Twins, or in reading more of my writing or anything else that compels you to click the link, check out the page or bookmark it.

Also, I'm rather proud of today's entry.

You've got a lot of money
But you can't afford the freeway

2009 Baseball Preview

2009-04-05T22:34:00.002-04:00

Yeah, my picks last year didn't go too terribly well. I followed the "experts" far too much, and paid the price of getting things wrong. Of course, the year before that I deviated a bunch and still got a lot of things wrong. But I've done ok some years. I guess the point is, sometimes my picks are right, and sometimes they're wrong, and we get a whole awesome summer of games to figure it all out. So, here we go with the picks:

National League

NL East: You know, when the Mets died last year I just laughed. It was really kind of a nice, sweet feeling of inevitability as they perfected their collapse. It was almost like watching the Cubs. I can't imagine we'd be so lucky as to see it happen three years in a row, and I think they have the pieces to be solid, so I'm picking them to win the NL East. After that, I kind of like the Braves, but they just don't have the offense, and it's hard to pick against the World Series winners, especially because they can really hit. The Nationals, on the other hand, are abysmal. They're my local team, so I'll still root for 'em, but man are they bad. The good news is that now that Bowden is gone they can star getting better. So I'm predicting the East to finish: Mets, Phillies, Braves, Marlins, Nats.

NL Central: I'll quote myself from last year: "Never a fun division to pick because there are so many middling teams, and it's baseball's biggest division." I think that's true enough again this year, but I think the Cubs aren't quite as middling as the rest, so they'll win the division by a couple. I've always kind of liked the Brewers, and watching their resurgence has been fun. I also think St. Louis could probably surprise people. A lot has been written about the new and improved Reds, but I just think they're too young, and not a complete enough team. Picking young has been the way to go lately in baseball it seems (the Rays for example), but I just don't think the Reds have enough polish. They're still better than the Astros and Pirates though. NL Central in order: Cubs, Brewers, Cards, Reds, Astros, Pirates.

NL West: Well we can count San Diego out, right? I'd say they, the Nationals, and the Pirates will all probably compete for worst team, right? And the Giants are still rebuilding, though I hear they have a lot of pieces in their minor leagues that we'll see soon enough. I don't think the Rockies are back to where they were two years ago, but they're a fun team. That leaves the Diamondbacks and the Dodgers. With Manny the Dodgers have plenty of offense to go around, while the Diamondbacks play a great team game. Is this getting to be a heated rivalry? I don't know, because the NL West is probably my least-followed division, but there should be a good battle between these two again. I'm going to give the edge to the Dodgers, since Torre knows how to keep a team plugging away. Your NL West finishes Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Giants, Padres.

NL Wild Card: East or West? It's between Arizona and Philly. I like the Diamondbacks more, but I don't feel right picking against a reigning Champion team that didn't lose any pieces. Well, I don't feel right doing it now. Just wait until we get to the AL. Phillies take the Wild Card.

MVP: Last year's prediction: David Wright leads the Mets to a East title over the Phillies and takes home the MVP trophy as a result. This year's prediction: David Wright leads the Mets to a East title over the Phillies and takes home the MVP trophy as a result.

Cy Young: Mr. Johan Santana sits batters down and takes home his third (should be fourth) Cy.

Rookie: This is always hard, so I just go with a prospect whose name I've heard before: Cameron Maybin? Maybe? Maybin. Maybe.

American League

AL East: Hmm. The Rays won the East last year, made it to the World Series, didn't lose any pieces, and have David Price available for a full year if they want. And yet... I'm going to pick the Yankees. They're old, I know, and that's not good. Age will certainly handcuff their offense a little more than it has in the past (though Texiera should help with all of that). But they added some pitching, which they just haven't had the last couple years, and that's going to make them a more well-rounded team. And they'll have the magic of the new stadium, so that'll help propel them too. Boston is going to be right there with them, but I hate the Red Sox, so they won't get any more love than that nod. The East finishes up: Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Jays, O's.

AL Central: Last year I picked against the Twins, (for the first time since I've been doing this I think), and they were as close as you can get without making it. A 1-0 loss in a one-game-playoff? Wow. I said they were building to something, and they surpassed my expectations. This year they return to the top of the heap. I'm a bit worried about Mauer, just because the injury is kind of strange and no one can predict when he'll be back, or whether the injury will return. And I'm excited to watch Liriano, Span, Casilla, Gomez and Young all build on what they did last year. I'm sure some of them will take a step back at times, but I think overall they'll all add more to their games (setting them up for their World Series title in 2010... but I'm a year ahead of myself). And they've got really great pitching. Liriano might be an ace, but every other guy on the staff is no worse than a number 3 pitcher, and they're all working with two of the smartest catchers in baseball, so that helps them step up their game. The White Sox took a step back in the offseason, but that was happening no matter what. They were smart enough to do so in a way that puts them in a good place in the future. The Indians... they're gonna be good. Grady Sizemore is an amazing player. This is a team that always manages to play a bit below where they should, and so I think that'll keep 'em from winning it all, but it'll be a battle. The AL Central goes: Twins, Indians, White Sox, Tigers, Royals.

AL West: The Angels absolutely ran away with it last year. This year it'll be much closer, but what they lost in Texiera and Rodriguez isn't enough to keep them out of first. Oakland is on their way to building another contend-every-year-but-not-good-enough group, just like in the first part of the decade. Seattle takes a step forward with better pitching performances and Ken Griffey Junior's smile. The West goes down: Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers.

AL Wild Card: "Once again, screw you Boston. Indians take the wild card." I think this is, what, the third time I'm writing the same thing I did last year? And this time, it's especially appropriate, because hating the Red Sox is a timeless joy.

MVP: Grady Sizemore, but a healthy Joe Mauer would give him a run for his money.

Cy Young: I'm gonna go with Liriano, because I root for the Twins, and I don't know who else I would pick. Plus the way he finished the year last year was spectacular, so if he can carry that through, this isn't entirely crazy.

Rookie: Well, he's starting in the minors, but Matt Weiters is apparently going to be a very good addition to the O's.

Playoffs
NLS: Cubs over Mets, Dodgers over Phillies.
NLCS: Cubs over Dodgers.
ALS: Indians over Angels, Yankees over Twins
ALCS: Yankees over Indians
World Series: Yankees over Cubs. Note, I almost went the other way with this... but that's just crazy.

Put me in coach
I'm ready to play

Er...

2009-04-02T23:14:00.002-04:00

I haven't watched ER in about a decade, but tonight I caught the final episode. It was really good. Though I suppose that makes sense, since ER was probably one of the better dramas on TV the past 15 years.

You realize that life goes fast
It's hard to make the good things last

That Sounds Reasonable

2009-04-01T17:49:00.007-04:00

In a number of recent posts the issue of "when does life begin" has come up. Nothing new for this blog, to be sure. Zhubin (the man who got me started blogging) has repeatedly made the claim that that question can only be answered "subjectively." His point is that because the answer is not objective it should be left to every individual to decide on their own (thus paving the way for abortion (even late term), embryonic stem cell research, etc.).

As a result of his argument I've spent a good deal of time thinking about subjectivity and objectivity, and the way those can play into this debate. I've spent some time talking about this in comments sections before, but I think it's something that warrants it's own post.

My working premise here is basically that subjectivity is completely irrelevant to the question of when life begins. Let's take a step back though, because I think Zhubin is right, that the answer itself is subjective.

What do we mean when we say "subjective"? Only that it cannot be known without reference to a person's internal state of mind. Objective means the opposite - that the answer can be known by looking at the world. Subjective questions are things like, "Do you feel hot or cold? What is your favorite color? Why are you marrying him? What things do you value?" Objective questions are things like "Is this an apple tree? How many apples are on the tree? If I drop the apple why does it fall to the ground?" It's not a difficult distinction.

Notice though that just because a question is subjective does not mean that the answer is relative (by relative I mean that every answer is as good as every answer). Objective questions cannot be relative (I'm pretty sure... if anyone can come up with one, I'll withdraw this claim). On the other hand, subjective questions can be relative. For example, "what is your favorite color" is a completely relative claim. It's a question of opinion.

But just because some subjective questions are relative doesn't mean they all are. In fact, I would say that most subjective questions (or at least the interesting ones) aren't relative. For example, "why are you marrying him?" is a subjective question to which there are better and worse answers. A very good answer would be "because I love him." A very bad answer would be "because then I get to go on a honeymoon."

We can all see quite clearly what makes the good answer good and the bad answer bad (if you need me to explain it, I suppose I can...). Not only that, but we'd all agree that the good answer is the better one, and the bad answer is the worse one. Maybe someone could say something about what's missing for the good answer, or what the bad answer has going for it, but ultimately we're all going to agree that the good answer is the better one, and the bad answer is the worse of the two.

The fact that we would all agree on this speaks volumes about the fact that subjectivity does not equal relativity. First, this shows an expectation that we all carry. Unlike with an opinion, we expect that a person will give a reasoned response to the question "why are you marrying him?" This is the kind of question we would think about before giving the answer, and we naturally assume that others would think about it too. Secondly this shows a universality to the answer. There might ultimately be lots of good reasons that answer the question, and different people might weigh the good options slightly differently. But when you get right down to it, there's a heck of a lot more agreement about what constitutes a good answer then there is disagreement. It'd be a rare person who says a honeymoon is an appropriate reason to get married.

Beyond the the fact that we all agree roughly on the answer is a more important point: the fact that there is a good answer and a bad answer reveals that the subjective is susceptible to reason, and is not merely the product of opinion. We can evaluate, appraise, debate, construct, hone and share our subjective conclusions. Using reason as a tool we can come to a better subjective answer to a question. We all do this, all the time. Or at least I hope we do... We aren't simply born with a set of subjective views, nor do we simply happen upon them in our lives. Our subjective views are learned. Through our experiences, through our classes, through our families and heroes and examples. Our subjective views can change and transform over time, as we learn new things and allow reason to continue to work on our ideals (I suppose it can also work the other way too, that we can continue to let prejudices and lack of reason affect our subjective views).

The ultimate point here is that, because our subjective views can be influenced by reason they are not relative. Reason directs us to the better answers, and away from the worst. There is no necessary connection between subjectivity and relativity. To say so is to deny that reason plays a role in developing our subjective views. We might not all reason to the same result, but we're probably all going to get pretty close, and narrow the disagreements down to just a few points. The resulting disagreements aren't a reason to disengage, but rather a call for us to actively work towards consensus. Working together - listening carefully, advocating constructively, and reasoning precisely - will move us all in the direction of the best results.

And... to bring this all back around to the abortion issue: Zhubin has said we should leave it to the individual mother to answer the question "when is life worth protecting" because the answer to that question is subjective. My response is: so what? There are still better and worse answers to that question, and it is our duty to put our reason to work coming to the best resolution of that question that we possibly can. The subjectivity of the question just gives us all the more reason to engage our reason.

No more a rake and no more a bachelor
I was wedded and it whetted my thirst

Movie Review: Monsters vs. Aliens

2009-03-29T02:15:00.002-04:00

It's been a while since I've done a movie review. Well, it's been a while since I've seen a movie in theaters, so that helps explain it.... anyway, this weekend I saw Monsters vs. Aliens, and I figured it was worth reviewing, so here goes:

The worth of this movie can pretty much be summed up in one basic premise: If you're seeing it in 3D, it's totally worth it, otherwise... meh. The 3D experience of this film is simply amazing. We saw it on an IMAX 3D, which is apparently somehow different from regular 3D. I don't know if there's actually a difference, and if regular 3D is less impressive, but the effects we saw were spectacular. It starts off with a bang, flying through space, and the amazing physical depth of the film never stops.

The movie itself was entirely formulaic. There are some monsters, all spoofs of classic monsters (The Fly, The Blob, Creature from the Black Lagoon & Mothra), and there's an alien, and they're pitted against each other. The main character is Susan, who, on her wedding day, gets hit by a meteor. The meteor turns her into a giant and, apparently, sucks her dry of all personality. Pixar excels at creating characters the audience has an emotional investment in, who are vulnerable and decidedly human, even when they're not. This is no Pixar film. Dreamworks does a decent job putting together a fun concept, but they don't really get us attached to the characters. We just don't share in their failures and triumphs the way you do with the characters in a good film.

The voice work is solid all around. I expected a little more from Stephen Colbert and Will Arnett, as the president and The Missing Link, and I got a little more than I expected from Seth Rogen, who was flawless as B.O.B. There were a handful of really fun gags that older audience will get, and some quality slapstick too. The plot itself was rather pedestrian, and rather than rooting for the heroes I found myself cheering for spectacular visuals, regardless of the outcome on the screen.

All in all, I'd recommend this movie, but only if you're seeing it in 3D. That experience is a ride I'd gladly duplicate. I just wouldn't ever feel a need to see this movie again.

Grade:
With 3D: B+
Without: B-

Well I saw the thing comin' out of the sky
It had the one long horn, one big eye