Entry 349: ... and Major

After two recent police shootings, there is much civil unrest in Charlotte right now, but ironically (for lack of a better word) that shooting probably was justified (update: or not, see below), while the one in Tulsa almost certainly was not.  But this probably has more to do with the demographics in those respective cities than it does with the merits of the cases.  (The percentage of African Americans in Charlotte is over twice that in Tulsa.)  Also, the officer in Tulsa has been charged with felony manslaughter, while in Charlotte a lot of the protest is about the police department releasing the videos they have of the shooting.  I find this obstinacy by Charlotte P.D. troubling and strange.  It completely flies in the face of the police transparency movement that is supposed to help build trust between law enforcement and residents.  (Although, North Carolina recently passed a bill that will go into effect in a week that makes it illegal to release police footage without a court order.  So North Carolina seems to not really be down with this police "glasnost" concept at all.)  The police chief in Charlotte claims that he’s not releasing the videos, because there is no compelling reason to do so, and that it might further inflame things.  But my thought is – Isn’t thousands of people protesting in the street a compelling reason?  And aren’t things already quite inflamed?

With that said, looking at the evidence dispassionately, I do think the man who was killed in Charlotte, Keith Scott, was in fact holding a gun and refused to let it go when he was shot.  Reading the transcript of the video released by his wife who was recording the incident on her cell phone (I can’t bring myself to actually watch these videos) the police officer -- who it is worth noting is African American -- says the following: “Gun. Gun. Drop the gun. Drop the fucking gun.”  Then later he says several times more to “drop the gun.”  So either (a) Scott actually had a gun; (b) the police office straight-up fabricated it on the spot; (c) the officer confused something else for a gun and the department is now covering it up (they said they recovered the gun on the scene).  In order of likelihood, these go (a), (c), (b) for me.  Although I certainly don’t begrudge people – especially black people – for thinking (c) deserves more weight than I’m giving it.  As we have learned from other tragic incidents, such as the Laquan McDonald shooting in Chicago, the Walter Scott shooting in South Carolina, and the Samuel DuBose shooting in Cincinnati, police officers will lie to cover their asses -- or at least they will "massage" the facts, consciously or subconsciously, to produce a version of events very favorable to themselves and very divergent from reality.

Update: Apparently since I started working on this post, they have released the dashcam footage.  Here is what a friend of mine on Facebook said about it.  I'm going to quote him verbatim and leave it at that since I agree with him.  

(1) No police officer is going to get charged if Mr. Scott had a loaded gun in his hand at the time he was shot by the police--regardless of whether it was pointed at the officers or not. (2) There was no reason for police to engage with Mr. Scott, who was sitting in his car minding his business (and maybe rolling a joint) in the first place--especially after the wife told them he had a TBI. Why would they order him out of the car and force a deadly confrontation? Why not secure a perimeter, take safe cover, and wait it out? Nobody had to get shot or die that day...

I mean, just look at the Tulsa case.  If the video on that didn’t definitively show that the victim, Terence Crutcher, was not a threat when he was shoot, I guarantee the officer would not have been charged.  She could have told her side of the story about being scared and thinking he was going for a weapon – and who would have refuted her?  The other cops on the scene?  (As we've also learned, first and foremost cops protect one other.)  It’s not that she would have been lying necessarily; it’s that her perception of the events would have been a wild distortion of what actually happened, and nobody would have been able to really challenge her on it.  That’s one of the truly insidious things about disputed killings.  Often the only person who can credibly contradict the killer’s narrative is dead.

I read a lot of articles on stuff like this, and then, on occasion, I do something that I know I shouldn’t do, but I do it anyway: I read the comments section.  It's an awful habit of self-flagellation.  If you are ever feeling too optimistic about the current state race relations in our country, read the comments of an article about the shooting of a black man by police.  You are guaranteed to cringe at least twenty times by the third comment.

Once you get past those cringes, though, you do notice the same recurring arguments for justifying the actions of the police officers, no matter what (even in the cases where the officers actually get charged with a crime).  I thought I would list out the most prevalent of these arguments and debunk them in turn.

The victim wasn’t following the officer’s orders.  Had he complied he wouldn’t have been shot.
There are many problems with this argument.  One that I rarely hear mentioned, but is true to my own experience, is that it isn't always easy to follow police instructions.  Once I disobeyed a "no turn on red" sign that I didn't notice, and I got pulled over by two police cars.  The officers had me get out of my car and do a sobriety test.  (I think it was a quasi-drunk driving sting, as it was near the main bar district in a college town at around midnight.)  Although I was sober, I completely failed their field test, because I was having a lot of difficulty following their instructions.  My adrenaline was pumping like crazy, so I was struggling to retain the things they were saying, and then I couldn't tell who was talking exactly because they were shining their lights in my face, and they weren't exactly epitomes of clear communication.  So the whole thing was a mess.  They were about to arrest me, but, of course, they gave me a Breathalyzer, and I only blew a  0.03 (the legal limit is 0.08).  "You are the winner tonight, my friend," said one of the officers before they let me go and drove off.  Yes, I didn't go to jail for a crime I didn't commit -- winning!

It's completely understandable that in an incredibly stressful situation, somebody wouldn't be able to fully process the commands a police officer is shouting at them.  And even if they can, non-compliance is not a capital offense!  In America, we have a process in which people are tried before a jury of their peers for crimes -- even truly heinous crimes.  They aren't executed on the spot.  That's for fascist dictatorships.  (So it's completely unsurprising that most of the "comply or die" crowd support Donald Trump, whose role models of strong leadership are fascist dictators.)

Parents need to teach their kids to respect police!  Yes, sir, no, sir!  Do as they say!  Then this type of thing wouldn't happen.  I know this will never happen to my kids because I taught them how to behave around police officers!  
This is just a different way of phrasing the same argument as above.  And I would be willing to bet that the person who wrote this is white.  Well, I know he is white, because I wrote it.  But I see comments like this all the time, and I bet those commenters are white.  Because from what I've heard from black parents, they do talk to their kids about how to behave around police, and they are still scared to death of them getting shot because they flinch and an officer has an itchy trigger finger.

Also, white parents, I bet your kids aren't as well behaved around police as you think.  I know this because I went to college with a whole lot of white kids, and I'd go to parties where there was pretty much only white people, and the police would show up to break it up, and it was not "yes, sir, no, sir," I assure you.  Kids would run away; kids would talk back; kids would lie; kids would mockingly hug officers; and kids would occasionally challenge officers to mano-y-mano fistfights (this actually happened, more than once).  And what happened?  Well, these kids would sometimes get citations for disorderly conduct or minor in possession or something of the like.  But you know what never happened?  Nobody ever got shot!  I never even saw an officer so much as motion toward his or her weapon.  For some reason, the police officers, despite the obstinacy never viewed us as threats.  Now why would that be?  If we were a bunch of young black kids, doing the exact same thing, it would have been totally the same -- right?

Yeah, but black people commit a far higher percentage of violent crimes than any other race.  So police should profile them.  It's not racism; it's just facts.
Okay, but it's also a fact that a very small percentage of people of any race are going to commit a violent crime at all -- particularly killing a police officer.  So shouldn't the risk assessment be "How much of threat is person going to be to me?" not "How much of threat is this person going to be to me relative to somebody of another race?"  If it's the former, which it should be, then the answer is that a person is almost never going to be a mortal threat to you, because most people, even those who get stopped by police officers aren't killers.

And why are we so quick to lump together "black people" when it comes to crime, anyway?  We don't do this for white people -- or for men.  I mean, men commit a far higher percentage of violent crime than any race does.  But can you imagine if police treated all men the way they treat black men, and women defended it by saying "hey, men are more violent than women!"?  How would that go over?  

The real problem is black on black violence.
No! That's not the real problem because there is no single real problem.  Police brutality toward people of color is a problem; gang violence (which is what I think most people mean when they use the awful term "black of black violence") is a separate problem.  Why are you bringing up the latter when we are discussing the former?  Imagine if we used this logic in other areas:

"We need to stop foreign terrorists from getting into our country!"
"Actually, more Americans kill Americans than foreigners kill Americans.  So that's the real problem!"

"We need to find a cure for cancer!"
"Actually, more people die of heart disease.  So that's the real problem!"

It's nonsensical.

All these people are criticizing the police, but if somebody broke into their house, who would they call?!
I would call the police.  It's their job to protect people.  I would also like it to be part of their job that they not kill so many unarmed black people.  Is that too high a standard for you?

That's all I got.

Until next time...

Entry 534: In The Meantime

We are now less than a week away from election day.  Although, that's not really an accurate term anymore, being that the election has already been going on for weeks, and the nobody will actually be elected that day.  We are now less than a week away from the last and largest day of in-person voting.  For some states this is also, unfortunately, the last day a ballot can officially be received.  I probably don't have many readers in Wisconsin, but if I do, and you haven't yet voted, please do so, for Biden/Harris, in person or via an official drop box.  Don't rely on the postal service to get your ballot there by Tuesday.  Wisconsin doesn't have a posted-marked-by grace period for late ballots.  Six days is probably enough time, but why risk it?  That should be everybody's attitude in general.  Why risk it?  Even if your state has the most liberal laws in the union, let's not rely on the mail at this point.*  You have plenty of time to hit up a drop box (make sure it's legit and everything is in order), or, even better, to get your booty to the polls.  Wear a mask, bring a snack, check the website to find out when lines are reasonable, if you can.  Just vote -- for Biden and Harris.

*I voted by mail several weeks ago, which gives plenty of time for my ballot to be received.  I'm sure it already has been.  Also, I vote in DC where the presidential stakes couldn't be lower.  If I lived in a purple state, I likely would've done in-person early voting.  That's what I've done before.

A lot of people are already doing this and early voting returns and the latest polls look really good for the Democratic ticket... which comforts us supporters exactly 0%.  Nobody thinks this is in the bag; nobody even feels remotely good about it.  We should hope it's all true and act as if it isn't.

To that end, if you want to help, it's not too late.  You can volunteer to help get out the vote in swing states (phone banking and the like), or you can donate money to help pay other people to do so.  I don't know how much stuff like this actually helps at this point, but it can't hurt, and if the election is anything like 2016, fractions of percentages could decide the difference.  If your money helps add one new Biden voter for every 200 people that actually could matter.  You can make a blanket donation to something like ActBlue or you can target an individual state.  I just gave something (through ActBlue) specifically to help GOTV for Biden in Pennsylvania, because that's the closest state that Biden (almost) certainly needs to win.  But Michigan is a good one too.  So is Wisconsin and Arizona and Florida and a few others.

Here's my breakdown of most important swing states: 

Tier 1 (critical): Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin
Tier 2 (very-winnable backups): Arizona, North Carolina
Tier 3 (could-win luxuries): Florida, Georgia, Iowa
Tier 4 (close, but probably not): Ohio
Tier 5 (the holy grail): Texas

There are also some important Senate races out there, particularly Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia (x2), and Maine.  If the Democratic candidate can take the seat in five of these seven races, very doable, then they would likely control the Senate.  That would be good.

Well, we shall see.  In the meantime, consider making a donation.  It's easy -- just Google and click.

Until next time...

Entry 250: It Takes a Kinda Big Man ...

It takes a kinda big man to admit when he is kinda wrong -- and I am just such a man.  S was mostly right about the trip to OBX.  I'm very glad we went; it was super fun.  I only say "mostly right," however, because she was wrong about the length of the drive, which was my main objection in the first place.  She was insistent it would be under five hours, but she was basing this off a text message from a friend who said they did it in four-and-a-half hours with two stops.  Everybody I talked to (and Googlemaps), on the other hand, said it was five-and-a-half to six hours.  It ended up being right around five hours and twenty minutes.  And that was driving in the middle of the night, with almost optimal traffic, and one five minute stop.  Like I said to S at the time, I do believe our friend was mistaken.

And by the way, isn't it a really silly move to dig in so hard on something that is about to happen, unless you're really, really sure about it?  If it does, in fact, take longer than five hours to get from DC to Corolla, NC, then at some point during our drive, we are going to eclipse the five hour mark, and then what do you say if you insisted it would be shorter?  As it turns out, you don't say anything and then act like the other person is being petty if they bring it up.  So, on second thought, maybe it's not that silly after all.  It's actually kinda genius.

One of the other reasons I wasn't so keen on going is because I thought Lil' S was too young.  I thought he wouldn't appreciate it, and we would just be running after him the entire time to keep him from drowning or falling off a balcony or something.  Again I was half-right: He loved it, but keeping him safe was in fact exhausting.  Part of the problem is my irrational fear of him falling from a high place.  We had a huge rental house, and I got really uncomfortable when he was on the top deck even if he wasn't near the railing (which would have been incredibly difficult for him to get over, anyway).  It got so bad that I had to leave him with S and go inside because I couldn't relax we were out there together even if I knew rationally that the likelihood of anything bad happening was extremely low.  But another part of the probably is that he's often too bold for his own good, and does put himself in legitimately perilous situations.  Case in point: See below.

This was taken approximately five minutes after waking up our first morning there.  It's about a ten-foot drop below him.  The very first thing he did when he woke up in a new house was go to the highest point and hang over it.  That's what we were up against.  (S is holding his leg here, by the way.  I wasn't letting him risk a broken neck for the sake of a pic, I swear.)

Then when we took him to the ocean -- really no fear about going in the water.  The fact that his little legs can't move that fast in the sand saved us a few times from watching him plunge into the sea.  And then when we went to the pool -- he jumped right in straightaway.  Our friend actually said something like, "Wow!  I've never seen a kid his age just jump in like that."  He was wearing this floaty thing on his back, but it's not a proper life vest, so he was just face down in the pool for a second until I pulled him up.  Actually this did kinda freak him out (thankfully he does have a little bit of innate fear), as he was very apprehensive about going in the pool again after that.  He was OK chilling on an inflatable raft, and he would sometimes let you swim around while holding him, but he did not want to put his face in the water again.

The trip was great for the adults too -- a lot of boozing.  But it's a different type of boozing than it would have been 15 years ago.  There were no wild nights (how can there be, when everybody has to wake up at six with their kids?); instead the first drops of alcohol would be served around noon, and then it was a slow-burn buzz the entire day.  And why not?  You're at the beach, and the only things on the agenda are salt water and chlorinated water.  I discovered a new favorite sunny-day cocktail: gin and tonic with a twist of lime and a splash of grapefruit juice.  It's very refreshing.

The drive back Saturday evening was not nearly as enjoyable as the ride in.  It was cute to hear Lil' S demand we all sing ("Song!  Song!  Bah black sheep!  Song!"), but toward the end I started to get really tired.  (I didn't have any drinks Saturday, but I was sapped from waking up early sitting in the sun all day).  Worse, I got a speeding ticket: 73 in a 55 zone.  In my defense, it was a three-lane highway in each direction, in pristine conditions, and traffic was very light.  I didn't even realize what the speed limit was or how fast I was going.  I was not driving unsafely by any means.

Coincidentally, the other day, I was listen to The Adam Carolla Show, as I frequently do, and his guest was the Republican lieutenant governor candidate for California.  I was about to skip ahead because Republicans rarely have anything new to say.  It's always a big anti-union, anti-regulation, anti-Obama jack-fest.  They all regurgitate the same four or five zombie lies, and if you've heard them once, there's no reason to subject yourself to them again.  But I thought I'd keep an open mind and listen, and to my surprise the main point of discussion was something I very much agreed with the man on: the tyranny of traffic laws.

Traffic law and its enforcement gotten way out of hand, and it has completely strayed from what it should be -- a deterrent for unsafe driving -- and become a system of extorting revenue from citizens by local governments.  Take my situation: You know how much this ticket is going to cost me?  $500.  That's right, $500.  And for what?  Driving at a speed millions of people drive at everyday on a flat stretch of smooth highway, in a safe, new car (just had the oil changed and tires rotated a few weeks ago), with no other cars near me.  That is crazy.

And it gets even crazier when you break down that $500.  $263 is the fine.  I talked to a few lawyers -- yes, I had to lawyer up over a speeding ticket -- and they all told me the same thing: They can bargain my charge "down" to improper equipment.  (It's actually a more expensive fine, but it doesn't affect my insurance.)  How this is even possible, I have no idea.  I didn't have improper equipment; I was speeding.  There's Exhibit A that the system is crooked.  Then I have to pay $250 for a lawyer fee because if I don't get a lawyer, then I have to appear in court.  Since I was going more than 15 m.p.h. over the speed limit, Currituck Country, North Carolina will not allow me to pay the fine over mail.*  I actually have to make a court appearance.  Or I can hire a lawyer and grant him or her power of attorney to appear on my behalf.  There's Exhibit B.  You don't have be a Jesse Ventura-esque conspiracy theorist to come to the conclusion that the police, the courts, and the lawyers have a nice "understanding" worked out; everybody gets their piece of my $500.  (I received ten ads in the mail from lawyers for legal services the past two days.)  I mean, if I was doing something so unsafe that it necessitates an appearance in court, why wasn't I taken off the road.  How could I have been let free to continue to menace other drivers ... and myself?  My wife and kid were in the car for Pete's sake!

Because, or course, I wasn't really doing anything unsafe.  I wasn't cutting through traffic; I wasn't swerving; I wasn't tailgating; I did nothing to suggest an accident was imminent.  I was driving in a straight line with no other cars in the immediate vicinity.  It's clearly not about safety.  If it was: 1) As pointed out on The ACS, the areas of highest danger -- the ones in which most accidents occur -- would be the most patrolled.  But that's not the case.  In fact, I suspect it's the opposite.  I suspect most speeding tickets are given in relatively safe situations because the vast majority of people speed only when they feel safe doing so.  2) Police wouldn't pull you over on the side of the road sometimes blocking a lane of traffic.  What's less safe then having cars zoom by you or go around you at high speeds on the side of the road?  And try driving until you find somewhere better to pull off; see where that gets you.

So now I have to pay an exorbitant fine ... whatever.  I'm employed; I can swing it.  The bigger issue is I hate the society we've crafted.  I hate that local governments are funded in large part by making traffic laws so onerous that everyday citizens cannot avoid becoming law-breakers.  It's not right, and it's un-American.  If municipalities needs money, bring back the policemen's ball (as Adam Carolla says), or raise the gas tax, or even charge a toll on your roads.  Nobody likes higher taxes or tolls, but at least they're honest.

And by the way, this is the case everywhere, not just Nowhereville, North Carolina.  My father in-law, for example, just got a ticket here in DC for parking in a street sweeping zone, despite the fact he came and left without a street sweeper coming anywhere near his vehicle.  He's about as by-the-book as one can get, so if he can get dinged, anybody can.  Now, you could argue that we should all just follow the law.  But my response would be: How much energy should the average citizen be expected to exert to avoid punitive traffic fines?  If you make the laws strict enough, everybody will eventually break them.  It's very similar to credit card companies charging exorbitant fees for violating small-print regulations in user agreements.  Sure, in theory, customers could avoid them by following their contract to a tee ... Or the companies could just not be allowed to do them, and we could all get on with our lives.  The credit card company analogy is apt in another way too.  Just as predatory lenders will levy bullshit fines and then drop them if you complain, DC government will frequently write you iffy tickets and then dismiss the charges if you contest them.  It's such a racket. (By the way, if you think I'm being hyperbolic to make my point, read this.)

In conclusion, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I hate the Tea Party, but I get why they exist.  If you don't, try owning a car in DC or driving a little too fast through Currituck County, North Carolina.

OK.  I'm now dismounting my soap box.  I feel better.  Thanks for reading.  Fight the power.  Until next time ...

*By the way, the cop could have at least been nice enough to put my speed at 69 to avoid being 15-over, but he didn't.  He did however praise me for being courteous.  One of the biggest lies cops propagate is that it is in your best interest to cooperate with them.  In my experience, it's almost the exact opposite.  If you push back a little (in a legal way), things work out better for you because they don't want the hassle.  In this case, there wasn't really much I could do other than help expedite the process as much as possible, so I could get on with my criminal lifestyle.

Entry 198: So I Guess My Wife Isn't Going to Iraq After All

Turns out S isn't going to Iraq after all.  You might not even have known she was going to go in the first place, but she was.  And now she isn't.  This whole Syria quag has elevated the threat-level in the Middle East or something like that, so her trip is off.  I can't say I'm disappointed.  It was only going to be for a week, and she would be in a guarded compound the entire time (safer than a lot of neighborhoods in any major city in the US), but still.  Iraq is Iraq.

One thing that's funny is how S, whenever she has to go on a work trip to a country with a bad reputation, always tries to downplay the safety concerns by telling me things that don't mean anything to people outside her field.  For instance, her thing with going to Iraq was, "It's just Erbil."  Oh!... Okay... it's just a city I've never heard of* in a country we've been invading for the last decade, where a non-trivial percentage of the population thinks killing random Americans is religiously justified.  Gotcha.  And here I was worried.  I'm sure "It's just Erbil" is very meaningful to people who work in international development but for a guy whose knowledge of geography comes almost exclusively from studying an atlas made in 1964 as a 10-year old (Hey, there's a New Mexico.), it doesn't do a whole lot.



S's canceled trip set off a chain reaction that has turned into a near farce.  S's mom and aunt are currently staying with us.  The plan was for them to stay through next week while S was in Iraq, so that they could help out with the little guy -- fill in the gaps between daycare (Lil' S started daycare last week) and my work schedule that S usually fills.  Now that we don't need them to do that, they want to go back to South Carolina this weekend.  But there's a problem.  S's aunt left her passport back in SC, which is going to make taking a plane difficult, being that she has no ID, isn't an American citizen, and can't speak English.  (If you're wondering how they got here in the first place, they drove from SC with S's dad who drove back last week.)  The easy solution should have been to have S's dad overnight the passport from SC via certified mail.  But there's a problem.  The passport is in a safe, and the keys to the safe are, you guessed it, with S's mom here in DC.  See, what I mean about the farce part?

By the way, I completely understand this type of forgetfulness.  I do shit like this all the time.  (See the time I had to call a locksmith to get my stuff out of my gym locker.)  I am certainly not judging here.

So now, there are a five options: 1)  Rent a car,  2) Overnight the key, so that S's dad can overnight the passport, 3) Take a bus, 4) Take a plane and set up an "interview" with the airline before hand so that they can verify S's aunt's identity, 5) Have S drive her mom and aunt to North Carolina where they will meet S's dad who will take them to South Carolina.  1) is out because S's mom doesn't drive long distances and her aunt doesn't drive at all.  2) is out because I'm not sure why.  I never really got a straight answer from S, and she speaks to her family in Kannada, so I can't always figure out the dynamics of the situation.  3) is out because S doesn't feel comfortable putting them on bus, especially one involving a transfer.  4) is out because the language barrier seems too formidable to even try it.  This leaves option 5).  So S is going to drive them to NC tomorrow.



And this is where I get put in a lose-lose position.  Either I have to take care of Lil' S the entire day by myself without a break, which at his age is a nightmare.  Or I have to be a deadbeat dad and have S take him with her, which, by the way, she is willing to do.  But then I'm basically saying I'd rather have my kid sit in a car for six hours, while I goof around on my computer than take care of him.  That doesn't seem right.  Like I said, lose-lose.

And my whole thing is, wait, what's wrong with option 2 and option 3 again?  You know they have certified mail... and the buses these days are very nice... But it's not worth pushing the issue with S and potentially causing marital discord.  I'll just suck it up and take care of my kid.  Yes, I am a hero.

Until next time...

*Actually, I knew how to spell Erbil without looking it up, so it must have been somewhere in the recesses of my mind.  

Entry 355: Just Vote, Gonna Be Okay, Da Da Doo-Doo-Mmm

Just vote, gonna be okay, da da doo-doo-mmm

Just vote, mark that ballot babe, da da doo-doo-mmm

Just vote, gonna be okay, v-v-v-vote

Vote, vote, just, j-j-just vote

The 2016 presidential vote is happening on Tuesday, and I'm trying really hard to channel my inner Lady Gaga, only instead of being inebriated in a club whose name I can't remember, I'm anxious in a land of election news I can't make sense of -- a place where sanity has little standing, facts matter not a whit, and we are a missed 38-yard field goal away from having President Pussygrabber become a reality.  

And that, unfortunately, might be underestimating Trump's chances.  My boy Nate Silver is even more bullish on the Great Orange Groper, giving him a 35% chance of winning, roughly double that of the New York Times' Upshot, linked above.  (Note: both forecasts are frequently updated, so their respective odds might have changed a little, but I doubt either will move drastically this close to the election.)  The difference, as I understand it, is that the FiveThirtyEight model responds more aggressively to poll fluctuations than does the Upshot's model.  The most recent polls are relatively favorable to Trump -- due perhaps to natural tightening as the election draws nigh, perhaps to the (utterly bullshit) resurgence of Hillary's emails into the news (I tend to think it's mostly the former, actually) -- and so this is reflected more strongly in the FiveThirtyEight model than the Upshot model.  Also, FiveThirtyEight -- because they weigh poll fluctuations more heavily and because of the large presence of undecided and third party voters -- see the race as inherently more volatile than Upshot.  This leads them to be more bullish on Trump, but also more bullish on a Clinton landslide.  That is, they are more open to the possibility the polls are significantly off in either direction.

Which model do I personally think is more accurate?  I lean toward FiveThirtyEight, because Nate Silver has a good track record with me.  He's gone 100 for 100 in calling states the past two presidential elections, and I've relied heavily on his college basketball forecasting in my annual office March Madness pool, and I've done quite well in it.  Not trusting him now would feel like cherry-picking, i.e., believing him only when he tells me what I want to hear.  Either way, this will be a very interesting experiment as FiveThirtyEight and the Upshot are quite far apart on several swing states (see below), so there should be a conclusive forecast "winner" this election.

Florida: 538, Trump 52%; Upshot, Clinton 69%

Ohio: 538, Trump 68%; Upshot, Trump 53%

North Carolina: 538, Trump 52%; Upshot, Clinton 71%

Nevada: 538, Trump 49%; Upshot, Clinton 66%

New Hampshire: 538, Clinton 62%; Upshot, Clinton 75%

One more thing I will say about FiveThirtyEight is that I've found their election coverage this past week kind of annoying.  Reading the headlines and the tenor of the articles, you might get the impression that Trump is the two-to-one favorite, not Clinton.  I understand that they want to emphasize that, in their view, many people aren't giving Trump enough of a chance, and that they have to write something new each day.  (If everyday they ran the same article with the headline "Clinton is still the clear favorite, but Trump could possibly win," it would be an accurate reflection of reality, but it probably wouldn't attract many readers.)  But it's starting to come off as overly-contrarian, sensationalistic, and click bait-y (for a data-journalism website, anyway), which isn't super surprising being that they are now owned by ESPN.  You can find some examples of what I mean here, here, and here.

But I think it is very important to not confuse FiveThirtyEight's election coverage with their election forecasting model.  Despite what many people commenting on their articles have charged, I don't believe that they have monkeyed with their model to make the election seem closer than it really is.  I think it's basically the same model that predicted with great accuracy that Obama would win handily in 2008 and 2012.

As you can gather, I've been spending way too much time analyzing this election.  One reason is that I appreciate the math that goes into the polling and modeling; another reason is that the stakes are so damn high this election.  I personally have much more emotional capital invested in this election than I have in any other election.  If Trump wins, I will be devastated in a way that I wasn't when Bush won in 2004 (in 2000 I was out of the country, so I mostly missed that whole kerfuffle), and that I wouldn't have been if either McCain or Romney had won in 2008 or 2012, respectively.  It goes beyond policy (although a Trump presidency would be a policy disaster); it goes beyond existential fear of my country (we survived a literal civil war; we will survive a Trump presidency); it's something more personal: If Trump wins, I will, for the first time in my life, be ashamed to be an American.  That's not something I ever want to feel.

Well, that's about all I have to say for now.  I'll catch you all on the flip side of November 8.  But before I go, I ask -- nay, demand -- that you vote (and not for Trump).  Also, I leave you with this bit of encouragement.  Sam Wang isn't some lefty crackpot.  He's a smart dude, and he could very well be right.  Let's hope he is.  We shall all find out soon.

Until next time...

Entry 575: Fuuuuck... I Got Covid

Despite being fully vaccinated, I got Covid. I don't mean I asymptomatically tested positive for the virus, which is not that uncommon among the vaccinated; I mean, I got Covid. I have been quite sick the past few days, and I'm still not 100%. I'm apparently in the body-aches phase of the sickness. My back is killing me, and a friend who also got a breakthrough case told me the same thing happened to him. I do feel cheated, if I'm being honest, getting vaccinated and still getting sick, but maybe it would be worse if I didn't. I mean, I've had pretty much every symptom imaginable -- cough, headache, body aches, sore throat, running nose, sneezing, exhaustion -- with the notably exceptions of chest pain and shortness of breath. If I stay alive and out of the hospital, the vaccine worked? I guess so, but I would've preferred it worked better. I also was lamenting the fact I got the J&J vaccine instead of waiting to get one of the other ones, but my aforementioned friend got Pfizer and ended up in a similar boat. So, it's probably just a product of a vaccine -- any vaccine -- being good, but not perfect. Nine out of ten is great for society as a whole; it's awful for that tenth person.

It also goes to show how dangerous the delta variant is and how it changes (or should change) the safety heuristics we adopted in the spring when we were all getting vaccinated and it looked like we might be on our way out of this thing. I don't know for sure I got delta, but I strongly suspect that's the case. What happened is, we got a beach house on the Outer Banks with some (vaccinated) friends, and our second night there, they got a text saying one of the kids in their six-year-old's camp tested positive for Covid. Apparently, they live in a delta hot spot. In retrospect, we should have asked that their kids got tested before we shared a house with them. But this didn't occur to me because the safety protocols are so different in our DC neighborhood than they are in southern North Carolina where our friends live. Here it's just a given that kids have been recently tested because they test them every ten days at camp or school. It's not like that everywhere in the country (although it should be). I also didn't bother to check what the case rate was like near where they lived. So, it was mostly bad luck, but we were a little bit complacent

Anyway, after getting the email, our friends' other son, a toddler, started hacking and wheezing, so everybody got scared, and the families stayed apart for the rest of the night. They got rapid tests the next day and their older son came back positive (but weirdly not their younger son, who was the only one actually showing symptoms). They then left.

S and the boys and I all felt fine but figured we should play it safe, so we left the next day (Wednesday). That was a good move as during the drive home we all started feeling sick -- a lot of coughing and sneezing. We got tested Thursday and kept our distance/wore masks as we waited for the results. S and Lil' S2 seemed to be okay, but Lil' S1 and I were laid up in our rooms all day.

I was convinced the two of us had it at least, but then their results all came back negative. This made me think I didn't have it, as I probably just had whatever Lil' S1 had. But then I got my results and I was positive. I haven't really left my room since then. It's so strange that I would get it, being vaccinated, and Lil' S1 and Lil' S2, who aren't, didn't, especially considering they were in direct contact with this boy much more than me. Lil' S1 shared a bedroom with him, and Lil' S2 was grabbing and wrestling him every chance he got. But I would much rather have myself get it than my kids.

Thankfully, we have a house that can accommodate my quarantine. We actually have an entire basement that's like a separate apartment, but S's sister is staying there at the moment, so I can't use it. But it's a net positive overall, as she can help S with the kids, which is much more important than me having space. I mean, how much room do I need to nap and watch old football games on YouTube? (Plus, my bedroom is significantly bigger than a studio apartment I lived in for a year in Bellingham, WA.)

At the moment, I'm just focusing on getting better, but we are going to have to make some decisions very soon, because we have a trip planned to the PNW to visit my family. In theory, we could still do it within the stated safety guidelines. Thursday will be ten days since contracting the virus, so we could all get rapid tests on Thursday and, assuming we are all negative, fly out Friday. It would be just as safe as if I never got the disease -- safer even, because we would have gotten tested the day before.

In practice, I don't know if it will work out that way. I don't even know if we will feel like traveling, and I don't want to spook my family. It's not totally rational, but not totally irrational either. If nothing else, this is a reminder that the delta variant is no joke and there is still reason to tread cautiously. Maybe it's better to wait until things calm down -- I've heard some epidemiologists posit that the delta variant is going to burn out in the next few months, as everybody either gets it or gets vaccinated (or both, as the case may be).  And the vaccine for children under 12 is coming soon... right?

On the other hand, what happened to me was a low probability event (and assuming I get better in a day or two, as expected, ultimately not that bad). How much do you want to base your life decisions on low probability events (that ultimately aren't that bad)? It's a confusing time, to say the least.

Until next time...

Entry 331: At Least Lie to Us

S and I had a strange interaction with some friends of ours this week – or, more accurately, we had a strange lack of an interaction.  Some back story: A few summers ago, we went to the Outer Banks in North Carolina with two families.  True Crocodile DG aficionados will remember me blogging about the trip and bitching about a speeding ticket I got on the way back (such a racket!).  At first I didn’t want to go, but S did, and it caused a fight, but ultimately we went, and I was mostly on the wrong side of the fight in this one – we had a blast.  So this year the three families made plans to go again.  There were a few rounds of emails about dates and logistics and all that, and it was left at a point where one of our friends, B, was going to find us a house and get back to us.  So we waited… and waited… and waited… and then a few weeks ago I asked S about it (she’s better friends with this crowd than I am), and she tells me that she hasn’t heard anything, but she’s assuming the trip is off because B got pregnant.  OK.  I shrug my shoulders and forget about it.

But then a few days ago, S ran into her friend from the other couple, and she said that they are going.  And then she told S about how it caused a big tiff because they were originally supposed to go on one date, but B and her family couldn’t do it that week, so she booked the house for the prior week, but Sa (the woman talking to S) has a conference that week, so she can’t go.  Now, B and her family might be stuck with the entire house that week, which means their costs are doubled, and so she is apparently upset with Sa, and the two families are kinda in a fight or something like that.  The details are a little hazy, as I got the story second-hand, and Sa is obviously only telling her side of things (if we asked B what happened, she might have a different take).  But one thing is for certain: We never got brought in to the loop on any of this.  I have no idea why, and S thought it would be too awkward to ask Sa abou it point blank.

At first I didn’t care in the slightest.  If we’re not invited somewhere – so what?  Our friends could have all sorts of legitimate reasons they wouldn’t want us come.  We have all sorts of reasons we don’t invite certain people to certain things.  That’s just how things go.  It’s not a big deal, and it’s nothing to get mad about.  But then as we looked back over the email chain, I started to get genuinely piqued.  Because, the thing is, we were invited.  B sent an email expressly inviting us and discussing possible dates.  S replied to it.  There was a back-and-forth.  There was no gray area.  We said, yes, we would like to come, and then we just never heard anything.  We got totally left in the lurch.

Now, given that everything got messed up and the two families are in a tiff, it’s probably for the best we got left out.  However, all that happened after we got dissed.  There was initially a coordinated plan by the other two families on the date and the rental house and all that, and we weren’t a part of that conversation – no emails, no texts, no nothing.  It is very strange.  It would be one thing if it was just like a “oh hey, we should go to the beach again sometime” type of thing, and then we never heard back, but that wasn’t it.  We were way past the casually-flake-out stage.  It’s like, if you don’t want us to come, just tell us that, or if that's too awkward, make something up.  I feel exactly like Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm when (he thought) Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen were snubbing him and his wife Cheryl, by inviting them to a concert and then not following through on it.

Larry: What kind of people invite you to go to a concert and then they don't call you? It's 4:30 p.m.
Cheryl: Maybe we should call them.
Larry: Do you know how awkward that is? They know they invited us to the concert.  They're obviously deliberately not calling.  How could I call them up and go, "We're waiting for your call."  And then they'll say, "Well, we don't want to go with you." At least lie to us.
Cheryl: Right, something.
Larry: Call us and lie.  Don't let us sit here like schmucks.
Cheryl: Yeah.
Larry: A lie is a gesture, it's a courtesy.  It's a little respect.

Exactly.  A lie is a little respect.

Now, to be fair, that’s probably not it.  Like Larry David, I am probably mistaken.  Our friends are actually really kind and giving people, so I’m probably assuming the worst.  There probably was an honest mistake, and they got it in their heads that we didn’t want to or couldn’t go or something.  But I don’t know how that happened.  They should know they invited us to the beach -- it's all recorded in Gmail and everything.

Also, it is doubly bad, because we kinda still want to go, but we don’t want to do it the same week as they will be there, because then things could get really awkward.  (If life actually was a Curb episode, we would go and then run into them there.)  But we don’t know exactly when they are going, and the two weeks they probably will go just so happen to be the best two weeks for us as well.  So I think we will probably just do something else altogether -- take the kids to Sesame Place or something like that.  I could do without that long drive, anyway.  I mean, the beach is fun and all, but we might go with my family when we are back in the Sea-Tac region in August.  Sure, it will probably be 55 degrees and overcast, and we will have to dodge pickup trucks because Washington state allows cars on the beach for some reason, but at least we will be with family, so we don’t have to worry about getting left in the lurch.  That’s the beauty of family: They have to tolerate you whether they want to or not.

OK, that's it.  Until next time...

Entry 249: OBX

No time for a longish entry tonight -- or this weekend.  Tomorrow evening we are headed to Corolla, North Carolina, a city on a strip of beach known as the Outer Banks (sometimes abbreviated OBX as I've come to learn).  It should be fun -- it had better be fun, as this trip almost ruined my marriage.  Allow me to explain.

S has been saying that she wants to take Lil' S to the beach for a long time now,* and we have some friends who get a house for a week at OBX every year who gave us an open invitation to come stay with them.  So when S brought up the idea of a visit a few months ago -- we'd drive up Thursday night and come back Sunday afternoon -- I said sure.  But I did so under two assumptions I later found out were wrong.

First, I thought we were going Labor Day weekend.  This is because the email S forwarded me about this event was labeled "Labor Day Weekend".  However, that was describing when our friends would arrive.  We would be coming the weekend after Labor Day.  I didn't get this, and once I saw "Labor Day", the dates in the email didn't mean anything to me -- I had Labor Day in my head.  As did S, by the way; she thought it was Labor Day also, so she never corrected me.

Second, I was under the impression it was a four-hour drive when in fact it is likely closer to a six-hour drive.  When S first Google mapped it, she accidentally put in the wrong address -- she put in the house where our friends picked up the keys for the rental house.  But the actual house is another few hours away, because you have to drive down the coast across a bridge and then back up the coast, which apparently can take a while.

Now can you guess why these two things were such a big deal?  Can you guess why I was devastated once I learned we'd be driving Thursday night and Sunday afternoon this week instead of last week -- and driving several more hours to boot?  I'll give you a hint.

The opening weekend of the NFL season is literally my favorite sporting event of the year.  And because the Seahawks won the Super Bowl last year, they play in the Thursday night opener.  So basically our travel plans were now perfectly concocted to prevent me from enjoying one of my favorite weekends of the year.**

Anyway, I now didn't want to go to the beach (not just because football -- the extra time in the car was also a huge factor, as is the fact the forecast calls for rain much of the time we will be there).  And so S got mad and said that I was trying back out of a commitment.  And then I got mad and said she gave me bad information.  And then we both got mad because it's 90 degrees here and our air conditioner ran out of coolant (refilled now, thankfully).  

But we reached a compromise: we leave tomorrow evening about 7:00 p.m. and driving back Saturday evening about 7:00 p.m.  This way S gets to go the beach with her family; I get to watch the 'Hawks on Thursday (I made sure there is a TV at the house) and be back in time for the Sunday games; we will likely hit less traffic; Lil' S can sleep the entire time; and I'm a more alert driver at night anyway.  Win.  Win.  Win.  Win.  Win.

Well, I still have to spend 12 hours in car this weekend -- that didn't get resolved -- but sometimes it's the price a man must pay for a happy wife and a weekend of football.

Until next time ... 

*I personally don't understand the obsession with taking a two-year old to a "destination" when a) he won't remember it, b) he'd be just as happy at the splash park down the street.

**During our first round of arguments, S was annoyed that I wanted to change our plans to watch the Seahawks because "it's just one football game".  True.  But the best way I can explain it is, imagine you have a TV show that you really love -- like how people loved Breaking Bad -- and the first episode of a new season is about to air.  Further suppose it's been revealed that a big event is going to happen on this episode, but nobody knows what it is, and the catch is, if you don't watch it when it airs then this big event will be spoiled for you.  There is no way in this hypothetical you can avoid spoilers.  If this was the case, watching the episode would be a big deal, right?  That's how I feel about the Seahawks game.

Entry 530: 2020 Gonna 2020

A few hours after I put up my last post, I learned RBG died.  It was pretty crushing for me, as it was for many people.  Aside from the loss of a civil rights icon, much like John Lewis’ passing early this year, it portends a possibly substantial swing in the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court.  It also sets up what’s sure to be an excruciating confirmation fight in the already highly contentious weeks before the election.  It will be excruciating, in large part, because my side is almost certainly going to lose.  In all honesty, I haven’t really been following it because I already know – I already knew as soon as the news broke – exactly what would happen.  A Trump appointed judge, probably this Barrett woman, is going to be confirmed and seated.  There just isn’t enough, if any, resistance among Republican senators to stop it.  The only thing the Democrats can possibly do is cry hypocrisy, which they should do, but nobody in a position to do anything cares about such cries.  Hypocrisy is not the political liability we wish it was.  A lot of voters, I suspect, even prefer a hypocrite, provided they are hypocritical in their favor.

Democrats could also threaten to “pack the courts,” but in order for that to happen they would need to win the presidency and a majority in the Senate (and hold the house).  Then they would need to get everybody onboard to abolish the filibuster, and then get everybody onboard to change the number of Supreme Court justices.  That’s a lot of conditions.  I mean, it’s not an impossibility, but it’s also not really much of a deterrent for Republicans like Mitt Romney in the here and now.

It is something I would absolutely do, however, if I was Joe Biden and I had the chance.  The rules surrounding the Supreme Court have needed to be updated for a long time.  Even among good faith actors (which out leaders most certainly are not), it’s weird and arbitrary to have vacancies determined by the whims of health of octogenarians.  Also, nine is too small a number.  It concentrates too much power and doesn’t allow for enough diversity and variance of opinion.  If I were in charge I would do something like: 15 justices, 15-year terms.  This way one justice is replaced every year on a fixed schedule, and every president gets four selections per term, and I would make it so that they could only be blocked by a supermajority in the Senate.  No games; no procedural shenanigans.  No multigenerational fixtures; no minority rule.  If you win a few elections, you get the court majority.  That's how it should go.

But something like this is obviously not going to be in effect before November, and that's worrisome because it's possible the Supreme Court will have to rule on a disputed election, and we all know in which way they will be leaning from the get-go.  There's also a possibility Trump loses the election and just refuses to leave.  (Bill Maher has been banging this drum for years.)  I tend to think this won't happen, but I definitely don't feel good about it.  If, knock on wood, he loses decisively -- like Biden carries all the "Blue Wall" states by a comfortable margin plus any of Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, or Ohio, I think he'll put on a show and cry foul, and then come up with a bullshit reason why it's actually better for him to leave, anyway, and then he'll start his own cable channel, telling his lies and conspiracy theories (and outright gibberish) to the 30% of the country that eat that shit up.

But, I could be wrong, and if he stays then I think there are two things to do.  First, say to Republicans "come get your boy."  I'm more optimistic about this working than most people I've heard talk about it.  I don't think that most Reps want the US to become a failed state over Trump.  (What good is a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court if the government doesn't even function?)  I don't think they even like him, or his presidency, very much.  They know how dangerous he is.  They know he's full of shit.  They just want to be in charge, so they're willing to put up with it.  But straight-up denying an election result is a bridge too far, I suspect, for all but the most hard-core Trumpists.

But, I could be wrong, and if I am, then you go to Plan B: Biden just never concedes.  If Trump loses but Republicans in Congress (and on the Supreme Court), find some sort of way to claim he actually won, by not counting certain ballots, or by changing the law in swing states to appoint Trump-loyalist electors, or by doing something I haven't even thought of yet, then you start a movement in which every Democratic politician and voter refuses to accept it.  We all treat Biden as if he is the president, and he acts like the president.  In effect, we start a parallel government of the United States of America, and claim, rightfully, that ours is the real one.

This sounds absurd, and it is, but what the fuck else are we supposed to do?  And it could work, if you think about it.  If major Democratic-run states -- California, New York, Washington, etc. -- don't accept a government as legitimate and just don't abide by their laws, how can they be forced to do so?  In theory, the military could be deposed to hold these places by force, but would our military turn against its own people to fight for an unpopular wannabe dictator who's trying to stay in power after losing a democratic election?  I don't think so.  I mean, this would lead to a civil war -- not a contentious political battle that we half-heartedly follow on cable news while football is on commercial, but a literal, blood in the streets, civil war.

And on that cheery note...

Until next time...

Entry 732: Tryouts

Unfortunately, I got sucked into the VP debate on Tuesday. I didn't set out to watch it and successfully forgot it was even on, but then I turned on the TV to watch a baseball game, and the debate came on mid-discussion point, so I watched a bit to see what they were talking about, and then when I was ready to switch over to the game, one of the teams had scored a bunch of runs and made it a very uninteresting game, so I just watched the rest of the debate, even though I knew it would agitate me.

And it did.

JD Vance was agitating because I find him very smarmy and disingenuous, in general, and especially so when he's "sane-washing" Trump's extreme positions (abortion bans, repealing the ACA, election denial, etc.). And Tim Walz I found agitating because I don't think he did as good as he should have in rebutting Vance and selling himself. A perfect example of this is when he was asked about his apparently untrue statement that he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protest. What he should have said is something like, "Yeah, I misspoke. Sometimes when I'm telling an off-the-cuff story I get caught up in the moment and exaggerate a bit. But the gist of that is true. Here's what really happened..." And then he could have gone into a pro-democracy spiel, and used it to pump up Harris and take down Trump. Instead, he gave a rambling personal history that didn't really address the question and I doubt satisfied anybody.

Also, when they were talking about election denial, and Vance was trying to turn it around into a censorship issue, Walz engaged with Vance and gave lame mumbled responses like "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." I would have liked him to say, "That's a separate issue, and I'm happy to discuss it later, but right now we're talking about election denial, and this clearly makes you uncomfortable, and so you're trying to change the subject..." And then hammered home all the points he wanted to make about January 6. It just wasn't a great performance by Walz. Honestly, I never really got the Tim Walz VP selection, and he looks even more like the wrong choice to me after this debate. He didn't seem adequately prepared or able to rise to the occasion. I would have much rather Harris had chosen Josh Shapiro or even Mayor Pete.

With all that said, Walz was not a disaster by any means. He did make some good points and get in some good soundbites on reproductive rights and Vance's refusal to say Biden won in 2020. So, most of what I wrote above is probably armchair quarterback palaver. The conventional wisdom is the VPs don't matter very much, and I think that probably holds true in this election. From what I gather, not looking at the polls but still kinda looking at the polls, the race has been relatively steady for the past few weeks, and I don't expect that to change before election. I think Kamala has a small -- uncomfortably so -- advantage. If the polls are accurate, she will win narrowly (Biden's states minus Arizona and Georgia). If the polls are underestimating Trump, like they did in both 2016 and 2020, Trump will win similarly to how he did last time. If the polls are underestimating Harris, the way they underestimated Dems in 2022, then she will win comfortably (Biden's states plus North Carolina). I'm hoping for the latter.

Enough about that though... In other news, Lil' S2 is going to try out for the "kids elite" flag football league this winter. If he makes it, we will get the privilege of paying a large chunk of money to take him to two practices and a game every week in the freezing cold (and by "we" I mean "I"). I could joke and say I hope he doesn't make it, but of course I hope he does make it, because football is his favorite thing right now, and he will be very happy if he makes it, and I want my kids to be happy. I think he probably will. He's pretty good -- he's big and strong for his grade (which is somewhat odd because he's younger than most his classmates, and I was skinny and weak at his age), he can throw decently, he can catch really well, and he's smart about tactics and whatnot. The only flaw in his game is that he's not very fast (which does make sense, I've never been particularly fleet of foot), and unfortunately that is a sizeable flaw in football. You can be bad at just about every other aspect of the game and still be good at football if you can run fast. We have a kid like that on our team now. He can't catch or throw well, and he often lines up in the wrong spot, but when we give him the ball and point him toward the end zone, Forrest Gump style, it mostly works out well for us. (He's not slow off the field, however, and I've never once heard his mom say "stupid is as stupid does.")

There's also a decent chance this tryout is more of a "tryout" than a tryout. As mentioned above, this league is not cheap, so there is incentive to keep as many kids as possible. I suspect anybody who comes to a tryout and shows they actually want to be there will make the cut, but I don't know for sure. It was cute, though, Lil' S2 told me he was "nervous" about his tryout, and it took me back to the time when meaningless shit seemed like the most important things in the world. I remember I got cut from the JV junior high football team in 7th grade and was devastated, even though only four kids from my grade made it,* and then I got cut again the next year (very unjustly, I might add), and I legitimately had never felt lower in my entire life. Then I made the varsity team in 9th grade and didn't even really like it.

*One of them died a few years ago under very mysterious circumstances. We were never close, but we were friendly with one another back in the day, and it's just an incredibly tragic story.

It's amusing to think that as children we put such import on things that seem so utterly frivolous now, but the truth is, I miss it. I miss the feeling of things mattering like that. I miss believing everything was on the line and the unabated ecstasy I experienced when things went my way.* I've found it's nearly impossible to recreate that sensation as an adult. Nothing really gives me that same unbridled joy any more. The good things I experience now fall somewhere on a spectrum between relief and satisfaction. On the one end, it's only solace that the bad thing that could have happened didn't (which is what I'll feel in November if Kamala wins). On the other end, it's gratification that I accomplished something cool, like, when, say, I get a crossword puzzle published. I'm happy about it, but it's a contented, job-well-done happiness. It's not an over-the-moon, you-just-single-handedly-diverted-an-asteroid-and-saved-the-entire-world elation. I haven't had that feeling in years, and I doubt I ever will again. 

*A few times I remember feeling this: When our team name got called because we won districts in Odyssey of the Mind; when my high school lacrosse team scored a goal in overtime to beat Lakeside High (Bill Gates' alma mater, incidentally); when I watched Edgar Martinez hit "the double" at my friend JP's house; when I was backstage celebrating with cast mates immediately after a performance of a high school play I was in.  

But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. So many of the pleasures of being young are a direct result of youthful naivete (I know the world isn’t on the line now), and so you should lose them as you get older. I miss aspects of being young, for sure, but I don't lament the loss. That's just part of living a completely life. I mean, I certainly would not want to have the mentality and emotional maturity I had as a schoolboy as a middle-age man. I've already been there; I've already done that. Now, I want to experience the things that old-ish age has to offer -- the wisdom, the autonomy, the comfort in my own skin, the arthritis. Okay, definitely not that last one, but the others are good.                

Until next time...

Entry 579: New York, New York Bound

Probably a short entry today, as we are headed to New York, New York anon. It's a weekend without kids; the first one in a very long time. After our Covid-related misadventures in North Carolina last month, I'm a bit apprehensive about traveling right now, but we have to live our lives. We simply cannot shut down and shut in like we did last year. It's not feasible. It's unhealthy from the standpoint of societal functions (the economy, schools, religious/social groups, etc.), and it's unhealthy from a personal standpoint. We learned a lot about the mental effects of being mostly isolated for an extended period of time, and what we learned is that it isn't good.

So, at this point, I think we need to do our best to strike an imperfect, ever-changing balance between doing what we want and being safe. Concerning a trip to NYC, S and I are both vaccinated and we also both tested positive to Covid within the past month, so our levels of immunity should be sky high. We are staying with a friend who is vaccinated, and we will be outdoors and/or masked almost the entire time we are in public. Also, NYC has guidelines in place, and we've been instructed to bring our vaccination cards because you can't get into most places without one. That seems to me to be about as good as we are going to get for now.

In fact, I'm more worried about an October trip we have to visit S's parents in Florida than our NYC trip this weekend. But we will cross that bridge when we come to it. (A lot of family dynamics and feelings are in play.) I'm hoping somehow things magically (or scientifically) get better by then, even though that is totally unrealistic. We are in the midst of a Covid downswing, however. Cases have been dropping slowly, but steadily the past few weeks. Whether or not this is a blip or finally the beginning of the end (whatever that means) nobody really knows. I've heard smart, knowledgeable health professionals argue both sides of the coin. I find the "beginning of the end" argument slightly more convincing (the rationale being that the Delta variant is going to run out of easy targets at some point), but only slightly. And of course there are psychological factors in play, so I'm not going to get my hopes up just yet.

Okay, that's all I have time for right now. Until next time...

Entry 178: Just Me, My Son, a Thermometer, and Butt Cream

The little man is sick these days.  Sick enough that I took him to the doctor yesterday.  Doctor's appointments and things of this nature are usually more my wife's milieu; she's better at the whole "nurturing" aspect of parenting than I am (I'm more in it for the vicarious living -- I've already got Lil' S tabbed as the first World Series MVP to win the Fields Medal), but it was more convenient for me to take a day off work than for her, so I had to do it.

He's got a fever and a diaper rash that proved impervious to over-the-counter ointments.  The doctor thinks he might have hand, foot, and mouth disease, which sounds much worse than it actually it is (note to whoever names these things: don't call something that typically takes only a week to run its course a "disease" -- "sickness", "illness", or "bug" are far less death-evoking and patient-friendly).  He doesn't have any lesions, but he has some of the other symptoms: fever, fatigue, malaise, loss of appetite, and diarrhea.  Of course, these are pretty much the symptoms for every illness ever, so who knows?

[I wanted to talk about Jason Collins this entry, but I ran out of time.]

The doctor told me to give him some baby analgesic to keep the fever in check, and she prescribed some sort of concoction for the diaper rash that's a mixture of zinc oxide and butt cream.  This is in fact the medical term for it; "butt cream" is actually what it said on the scrip.  It ended up being a pain in my butt to get filled.  I had to drive all over town (in the heart of D.C. traffic) looking for a pharmacy that could do it before the end of the day.  And then after that I had to drive up to my office to get my work computer so that I could work from home today.  Somehow my kid getting sick segued into me spending all day in the car.  Thank God (and Chinese slave labor) for the iPhone; at least I could listen to my podcasts.  Normal radio just doesn't cut it anymore.  If it's got commercial breaks I can't fast forward through, I'm out.

This morning Lil S's fever was gone and the rash had abated significantly.  Things were looking up.  But by the afternoon the fever was back (the rash thankfully not).  It's been touch-and-go with him all day.  He was in good spirits before he went to bed, and he went down pretty smoothly, so hopefully he's better in the morning.  We shall see. We already had to cancel our nanny-share for tomorrow because he has to be fever-free for 24 hours before hanging out with other kids (doctor's orders).  And then S unfortunately has to leave town super early tomorrow for a work meeting in North Carolina, and she's not coming back until Friday morning, so I'm in for a full day of some hardcore parenting tomorrow.  Just me, my son, a thermometer, and butt cream.

Alright, that's all for this entry.  I had a few more things I wanted to talk about like Jason Collins coming out as the first active, openly gay athlete in one of the four major American sports, and some typical Krugman fanboy stuff.  But I'm out of time.  I'll get to those topics later, or not.

Until next time...    

Entry 291: Eight for Three Hundred

It's Entry 300 [note: due to early misnumbering this actually only Entry 291... oh well], and it's coming at you a little later than usual.  I returned from a two-week vacation to Washington state a few days ago, and I didn't bring my laptop with me, so blogging wasn't in the cards.  It was a really nice trip -- just me and the little man (S is too pregnant for travel).  We went to Ocean Shores and spent a lot of time with my family in University Place.  I also was able to sneak up to Seattle for a night sans child and hang out with old friends.

Here are eight pics.

   

This is the view from the beach house at which we -- meaning my parents, my sister's family, Lil' S, and I -- were all staying.  If you look carefully, you can see the ocean in the background.  The beach was fun, but the weather did not cooperate.  The day I took this picture was the only non-overcast one of our three-day stay, and it was pretty cold the entire time (high 50s and low 60s) as well.  Also, just to taunt us, the weather in U.P. was gorgeous the entire time we were at the beach.  We left 80-degrees and sunshine and drove into a blanket of chilliness and fog.

One thing I really don't like about beaches in Washington is that cars can drive on them anywhere they want.  This is especially annoying if you have a toddler.  It's stressful enough making sure they don't drown; you shouldn't have to worry about them getting flattened by some yahoo in a pickup truck as well.  In general, Washington beaches aren't that great.  I used to love going to Long Beach as a kid, but that's primarily because I didn't know any better.  After living on the coast in Australia and going to the Outer Banks in North Carolina and even Cannon Beach in Oregon, Washington beaches are kind of a let down.

But it was nice to spend time with my family.  And the kids loved it, which, I suppose, is the most important thing.  It's funny, looking back, in none of my memories from the beach as a kid do I remember what the weather was like.  I think weather is something adults care about, not children.  My nephews and Lil' S all went in the water when it was like 65 degrees and windy.  My mom had on earmuffs and gloves, and they're just running around like it's nothing.

Here's a great shot of Lil' S trying (and failing) to keep up with his older cousins.

After the beach, I spent most the time in U.P., just hanging out on my parents' patio with the family -- a lot of cookouts.  Lil' S got fussy sometimes, but for the most part he was pretty good.  I took the "hey, I'm on vacation" approach to parenting, so I was quite lax with rules.  You want to watch a TV show?  Well, you already watched two hours earlier, but sure.  And you want M & Ms while you watch?  Knock yourself out.  The M & Ms were part of trail mix, so I justified it to myself that he was getting some nourishment from the nuts.  He wouldn't eat the raisins though.  He really only likes the peanuts and the "blue peanuts."

While at my parents, I spent quite a bit of time with my sister and her family.  Here's a shot of the Titlow splash park -- Lil' S is the orange suit; his cousins B & G might be in there somewhere also.  As my sister explained it: "B is somewhere pretending that he's peeing, and G is somewhere nearby also pretending that he's peeing."  It's a universal equation: Running water + Little Boy = Pantomime Urination.

I also spent quite a bit of time walking around my parents' neighborhood.  In the afternoon, I would load Lil' S into the stroller, slather on some sunscreen, and hit the streets.  He would get his afternoon nap in, and I would get in some exercise -- two birds with one stone.  The weather was beautiful -- literally not a single spurt of rain nor an overcast day my entire stay, which is amazing for U.P.  It might not be healthy for the ecosystem, but it is amazing.  Below is a shot of the park in Fircrest, WA where I played my first ever t-ball game. 

In that same park is a little pavilion that my friend's father designed.  He was an architect, and once another friend of mine was giving my friend shit, asking him what his dad had ever designed.  And when my friend responded with this pavilion, we all laughed, because it's just a little rinky-dink pavilion in a suburban park, and not like the Pantages Theater or Stadium High School or something historic and cool like that.  Basically, we were being dicks.  Actually, that's how we interacted most the time.  It's weird to look back and think of the way in which my friends and I treated one another in our late teens and early 20s -- we were incredibly hard on each other.  But, many of us are still friends today, 20-plus years later -- which is pretty remarkably -- so there must have been a strong undercurrent of love beneath the ostensible harshness.

Here's something else I came across -- a holistic pet food store.  I don't understand holistic medicine, and I don't understand our pet (particularly dog) crazy culture, so this is like a double bullshit picture to me.  It's bullshit on bullshit crime.

Here's another interesting sign.  Is it just me or does Chad have the eyes of a crazy man?  Maybe chose a photo that doesn't make you look possessed by a demon -- just a thought.

The next pic was taken a few blocks from the duplex in which I was born.  (Yes, that is correct, I was a home birth.)   I've it said before (and before), and I'll say it again: The Tacoma area is way underrated for how beautiful it is.  The vistas of the mountains and the water superb.  There is nowhere in the DC region that can match a view like this, and this was snapped about a quarter mile from my parents' suburban home.

And I'll leave you with that.  Until next time...

Entry 563: Long Weekend, Figuratively Speaking

Exhausting weekend -- fun, but exhausting.  A bunch of people came to town to celebrate the birthday of one of S's oldest friends, N1.  N1's brother, N2, drove up from North Carolina with his wife JN and his parents.  The four of them stayed with us and N1 (who lives in NYC) stayed with a friend who lives in my old neighborhood in DC.  Then, randomly, my brother-in-law was in the area visiting his parents (who live about an hour away in Maryland), so he came to visit Thursday evening, and it was a huge (by 2021 standards) get-together at our place.  All the adults are fully vaccinated, so it was a mask-free affair.  My first one in over a year, and I gotta say it felt pretty damn good.

It was a nice mix of people too.  Sometimes when you have two sets of visitors in town, it can be awkward to get everybody together -- like you'd rather just see each set separately -- but this wasn't like that at all.  The conversation was flowing all night.  We ate, some of us drank, and a good time, I believe, was had by all.

Well, except for one small niggling detail in the back of my mind.  I was nervous that at any moment I was going to get a whiff of sewage and find our utility closet filling up with with shit-water.  It happened again Tuesday night, and it feels like a ticking time bomb.  It's a good news, bad news situation -- or rather a good news, bad news, bad news situation.  The good news is that we finally diagnosed the problem; the bad news is that it's not fixed yet, and the other bad news is that fixing it is going to be a massive undertaking both logistically and financially.

The problem is that the main sewage line under our house is severely corroded.  In some places it's busted wide open and roots and dirt are causing clogs which are causing the disgusting backups.  The clogs will usually work themselves out, so everything ostensibly works fine, until the next major clog.  (Thankfully we didn't have one while people were here.)  So, we can either spend the rest of our lives dealing with these clogs, or we can do what we are going to do and nip it in the bud, bite the bullet, and get them replaced -- and all that takes is many thousands of dollars to hire a crew to rip up our carpet, jackhammer through our foundation, and replace the pipes.

It's all pretty irritating, but what can you do?

Even more irritating is that before we bought the house, we had a plumber come out with a camera and examine the pipes, and he didn't find anything.  Either a great deal of the corrosion happened over the past two years, or we unwittingly hired a plumber who isn't very good at his job -- either one is possible.

Anyway...

I also ate at a restaurant this weekend for the first time in forever.  Well, that's not exactly true.  I did technically eat at a restaurant last fall, but it was outside in a very socially-distanced manner.  This time it was also outside (open walls at least), but everybody was packed together.  Again, I gotta say,  it felt pretty damn good.  It was in a bustling part of the city, and people were out and about, and it was a lovely sight to see.

Some people still wear masks; some people don't.  It's kind of a weird time where nobody is exactly sure of the proper protocols.  I've pretty much ditched the mask outside.  I was ready to ditch it at my two-week-after-shot mark, but a lot of people still had them on, and I didn't want people thinking I was some sort of anti-mask Covid-denier.  (I fit the profile: white, middle-age, often clad in Cargo shorts.)  But now enough people don't wear them outside that this is not an issue.  Inside, I just play it by ear.  If I'm supposed to wear a mask or if everybody else is wearing a mask, then I will wear one, but I don't feel I need to.  Trust the science goes in both directions, and right now, from what I can gather, the science is that if you're vaccinated, you are extremely unlikely to get a serious case of the disease or pass it on to somebody else.  So that's what I'm going with.

In addition to gallivanting in mask-free areas this weekend, I also went to two baseball games, one for each son.  They went, okay.  I pretty much judge success or failure on whether or not they strike out when they're at bat.  In that regard, it was a 4-for-5 weekend.  Lil' S2 made contact on both his at-bats (it's coach-pitch, and if they miss enough times, they use a tee), and Lil' S1 put the ball in play on two of his three at-bats (it's machine-pitch, and if they miss enough times, it's a strikeout).  In none of the four cases did they hit the ball hard -- they were all weak grounders -- but so it goes.  My expectations are low.  I don't think I'm raising Vladimir and Wilton Guerrero here.

Youth sports are different now, and I don't think it's just my kids.  It's so much harder to get kids to play sports.  I think they just have so many more options and neighborhood culture is changed.  When I was a kid, the vast majority of sports were played on the street or at the playground, and rec leagues were a supplement to that.  Now, it's like rec leagues are the only time kids play, and only because parents "make" their kids do it.  I dunno -- maybe I'm wrong about this.  Maybe I'm remembering wrong or maybe it is just my kids.  But talking to other parents, it doesn't seem like it.  I'm not complaining, by the way, just saying.

Alright, the clock just struck eleven and I gotta get some good sleep tonight.

Until next time...