Entry 426: The End of an Era

Time flies when you're having fun, eh?  Lil' S2 will turn three in August which means he qualifies to start PK3 in the fall.  PK3 is perhaps the best part of DC schools.  It's good for kids developmentally, and it's good for families financially.  I believe we made our last daycare payment recently (I don't know for sure because S handles all the finances in our household), which means it's the end of an era -- and a welcome one at that.  In a few short months, it will be no more daycare for the G & G family -- well, most likely, anyway.  In theory, S and I could still have another kid, but it's not something we are planning.  In fact, it's something we are actively trying to avoid, but, without getting too inappropriate, let's just say, it wouldn't be a miracle if another one entered the picture.

But assuming that unlikely possibility does not come to bear, we are done with daycare.  That's thousands of dollars a year that will no longer be leaving our bank account.  If I ever actually logged in and looked at our account summary this might mean something to me.  Actually, it will affect my day-to-day life positively in that Lil' S2 will be going to the same school as his brother in the fall, which means one-stop drop-off/pickup.  That is huge.  Money is nice and all, but I'll take quality of life improvements over financial gain nine times out of ten.  What good is being wealthy if you're miserable?



Speaking of which, I'm halfway through Tiger Woods, by Armen Keteyian and Jeff Benedict.  It's a very compelling biography of one of the weirdest dudes in sports history.  His parents, particularly his dad, essentially raised him from birth to be the world's greatest golfer, and it worked -- no golfer has ever been as good as Tiger in his prime -- but not without some pretty severe side effects.  I won't go into it too much here, but I will say that I recommend the book if you're looking for a compelling page-turner.  For the most part it's an interesting exploration of the growth of a child prodigy into a middle age man, but it's got just a hint of trashiness to it -- with all the sex and drugs and whatnot -- which makes it extra fun to read.

It also makes me respect Lebron James more.  James, like Woods, was designated the "chosen one" in his sport before he finished high school, and he also lived up to it.  But unlike Tiger, he seems to be an incredibly well-adjust dude and a good family man, all things considered.  Of course, outward appearances can always be deceiving.

I just read that James played the last three games of the finals with a broken hand sustained when he punched a whiteboard in frustration after his team lost Game 1 in heart-wrenching (and tragically hilarious) fashion.  This is more common than it sounds.  I know at least four people who have inflicted a nontrivial injury on themselves in a moment of frustration.  One of my friends in high school made his knuckles swell up by punching a CD case on the floor after I beat him in a Nintendo game; another one broke his toe kicking a wall after losing a point in racquetball; another one had to wear a splint on his finger after punching a wall during an argument with his wife; and my "favorite" one, a guy I knew briefly bloodied his knuckles by punching through a window after he caught his girlfriend in a compromising act with another man.  I've hurt myself in many different ways, many different times -- I stabbed myself with scissors and had to get stitches; I turned myself purple, literally, dark purple, by sitting out in the sun for hours without protection; and I once had to go to the ER because I swallowed a plastic fork tine -- but these were out of thoughtlessness or klutziness.  I can't think of a time I injured myself out of frustration.

In other sportsball news, the Washington Capitols won the Stanley Cup to give my current home city its first championship in over 25 years.  I actually jumped on the Caps bandwagon before the playoffs started, so I'm pretty happy about it.  There are a few guys at work I've bonded with over this team.  It's not even close to when the Seahawks won the Super Bowl -- it's more like when the Sounders won the MSL Cup two years ago.  It's just not the same with a team you adopted as an adult -- and that's not a bad thing.  It's pathetic to have your mood deeply affected by a bunch of professional athletes to whom you have no really connection other than they happen to play (at the moment) for the team you like.  With the Capitols I didn't pay any attention in the regular season, and then I watched most the playoffs and was entertained.  Had they lost I would have quickly put it out my mind.  A lot of joy, little pain.  That's the way it sports should be -- the good should drastically outweigh the bad.  Otherwise, why do it?



I hope my sons like sports, so that it becomes something we can do together.  But at the moment, it's not looking great.  Lil' S1 is still young enough that he could come around -- I didn't get into sports until I was six or seven -- but he shows very little interest at the moment.  I'm going to get him a baseball mitt for his birthday, maybe that will help.  Lil' S2 is way too young to tell, but he does seem to be an aggressive kid, more so than Lil' S1 was at his age I think, so that bodes well.  I'm very conscientious about not pushing them hard in any particular direction.  A little nudge here or there is fine, but if they're not into it, they're not into it.  I'm not Earl Woods.

Well, that's about all I have time for this week.  This might be my last post for a few weeks, as we have a vacation planned, and I'm not bringing a computer.

Until next time...

Entry 425: Child Rearin'

Rough night last night with the kids -- mainly Lil' S1.  He's been acting up a tad lately.  I think not having S around messes with his emotions a bit, and it manifests in brattiness.  A friend of ours who also has to travel frequently for work said that her daughter did the same thing at his age.  It started with a school performance of Moana he was in last night.  He's been talking it up for a while, so it was obviously something important to him.  I went, but I got there right as the show started with Lil' S2 in tow, and the little auditorium was already busting at the seams, SRO, so I couldn't get close enough to Lil' S1 to let him know we were there.  He did his dance, and the show ended (it was mercifully short), and then he just burst into tears because he thought nobody came to watch him.  He was happy/relieved when he finally realize we where there, but it took a little while to get him back to a normal state, and I had to show him a little video clip I took on my phone to totally convince him that we were really there the entire time ("but I couldn't see you!").



As part of the show, he got a glow-stick necklace, and when we get home he keeps turning out the lights to see it glow, and I keep telling him not to do that.  I'm trying to cook dinner, and Lil' S2 is literally hanging on my pant leg, and it's annoying to be right in the middle of something and then have everything go dark, especially since I'm working over a hot stove with a toddler clinging to me.  (It happened to be thunder-storming outside, and it was latish in the evening, so there was next to no light coming through the window.)  It's one of those things where it's not the worst thing in the world -- but it's, like, how many times can your kid not listen to you before you ramp up the discipline?

The answer in this case is about five, because the sixth time or so that he turned out the lights I told him sternly, at a volume one notch down from yelling, to not do it again, and I banished him from the kitchen and made him go downstairs, where he could make it as dark as he pleased.  He was kinda pouty, but he seemed to take it reasonably well and just went downstairs for a few minutes.

Dinner went fine, and then they got to watch iPad for twenty minutes, which is always the calm before the storm.  Getting them ready and in bed is always the worst part.  They're tired and especially ornery, so they just fight over everything -- who gets the first book, who gets to sit where, who gets the Spider-Man toothbrush, who gets the yellow stool, etc., etc.  They were in especially rare form last night for some reason, so my pique was already at uncomfortably high levels, and then Lil' S1 did something that drives me absolutely crazy -- something I've asked him not to do approximately 500 times.  He stuck his leg under me as I was sitting down on the couch next to him.  I don't know why he does this.  I think he's trying to "get me" -- like it's similar to putting a tack on the teacher's chair or something -- but it obviously does next to nothing to me because I'm a 200-pound grown man and he's a five-year-old with legs like dry spaghetti noodles.  I usually notice it, so I don't put the full brunt of my weight on him, but a few times it legitimately caught me by surprise, and I fully sat down on him, and I could feel his leg smashed underneath me.  Nothing bad happened because the couch is mostly soft and usually in life nothing bad happens, but it does if you give it enough chances.  One of these times, his leg is going to be at the right-wrong angle, and I'm going to break his ankle or blow-out his knee.  So, I was really hot when he did this, and I yelled at him pretty good (by 2018 standards, at least, it would have been mild 30 years ago -- and this is just a fact, by the way, not a value judgement one way or the other), and he took off crying.

By the way, Lil' S2 is now at the age where he does that thing kids do of trying to curry favor with their parents by contrasting themselves against their misbehaving sibling -- "He's not listening, already.  I listening, already."  (For some reason he randomly puts "already" at the end of sentences.)  Part of me finds it cute; another part of me finds it disheartening.  I'd rather have my boys stick up for one another than connive against each other, even if it makes me the common enemy.  But it seems like that's almost never how kids function -- at least not when they are young.  Kids would have so much power over their parents if they stuck together and worked as a team, but instead they in-fight over petty shit, and they all end up worse off because of it.  (If that's not a metaphor for American politics, I don't know what is.)

After theatrically crying in his room for a bit, Lil' S2 came back, and I tried to play it very nice and sweet with him -- my own little version of good-cop-bad-cop, I guess.  I embraced him and told him that I was only concerned for his own safety:

"Listen, I'm much bigger than you.  When we are playing -- wrestling and stuff like that -- I have to know what your doing, so that I don't hurt you.  If you sneak your leg under me like that I might accidentally crush it.  That's why I get so mad.  I don't want you to get hurt."
"That's *sob, sob* not why I'm *sob, sob* crying."
"It's not?  What's wrong then?"
"I'm *sob, sob* having a really *sob, sob* bad day."
"You are?  Why?  What happened?"
"You got mad at me too many times *sob, sob* for turning the lights out."

Now, I definitely felt like I was too hard on him.  I figured the best move was just to get both kids to bed ASAP -- everybody was super tired, including me.  "Go brush your teeth, and we'll all watch a video clip on my phone in bed."  So they both run into the bathroom, and what happens?  Lil' S2 stands on the toilet to reach the sink, and Lil' S1 wants to use it, so he pushes open the seat while his brother is standing on it, causing him to stumble off and hit the ground.  It wasn't a hard fall, but that's only because I came in right in time and was able to kinda catch him.

"Hey!  That's okay!  Be nice to your brother!" I yelled instinctively.  His face just melted.
"You're doing it too much!" he wailed in response.
"*Sigh*... let's just watch a video and go to bed," I replied regathering my composure.

So that's what we did, and it mostly worked out.  The only thing is that Lil' S2 woke up in the middle of the night and started crying/moaning.  I went into his room and asked him what was wrong, but he couldn't or wouldn't tell me.  He was clearly still mostly asleep, and he stopped when I went in, so I just let him be.  He woke up this morning and everything seemed totally normal, and tonight I put him to bed very easily (it was his brother who was acting up tonight), so I think/hope it's all good now.

The thing is I don't know what the right thing to do is.  He's upset because I'm getting upset with him too much, but I'm getting upset in response to him misbehaving, and isn't that the really issue?  Doesn't that logic work with a five-year-old?  Should the take away be that I was too hard on him, or that that's what happens you don't listen, and it's a teachable moment?  The turning off the lights is one thing -- that's just being five, and I probably should've let it slide (although, to fair, I did mostly let it slide the first n times it happen).  But doing things that could potentially hurt himself or his brother that's another story -- I can't abide by that, right?  Like I said, I don't know.  My only saving grace is that I don't think anybody else knows either.  That's the main thing that keeps me sane as a parent -- the only thing I have figured out is nobody else has it figured out either.

Until next time...

Entry 424: Tough Guys

A quick update on my last post: See this article about how Donald Trump's racist rhetoric might be backfiring politically.  This coheres with my "people are people" campaign strategy for a theoretical Democratic candidate.  Trump won the election in large part by whipping up racial resentment toward immigrants.  But it's one thing to talk tough, and it's another to experience the real-world effects once the tough talk is put into place.  Very few people actually like seeing children torn apart from their parents or hearing of people dying of dehydration trying to make a better life for themselves and their family.  And they don't usually like seeing people in their own communities deported -- it's the other immigrants they don't want in the country -- the "bad" ones.  The key to pursuing a strategy of racial grievance to woo voters is to do it in such a way that said voters don't feel guilty for their racism.  It's easy get behind deporting somebody who is in this country illegally in theory.  It's a lot harder to get behind gratuitously terrorizing people in your neighborhood who were always nice to you.

This is especially true when few of the promised benefits of cracking down on immigration actually come to bear.  As the article points out, Trump hasn't delivered much on this front -- there's no wall, crime rates haven't plummeted, and there is no spate of good, entry-level, industrial jobs in beleaguered communities (because immigrants aren't the actually cause of crime and unemployment).  Trump's base will never leave him, but a lot of his voters aren't in his base -- they voted for him and are supporting him reluctantly.  And the vast majority of them will do so again in 2020 (and they will vote Republican in the upcoming midterms).  But in super close swing elections, stealing one voter from the other side out of 1,000, or getting a small percent of the them to stay home, could be the difference.  "People are people," Democrats -- don't be afraid to say it.

Anyway...

In more personal news, I have a week of single-dadding on the horizon, as S has to take one of her work trips to Africa.  I'm not exactly looking forward to it.  It's not the extra time with my kids that gets to me; it's the added logistical hassle of being the only caretaker.  Not being able to leave the house, even for a few minutes, without two kids in tow is brutal.  You can't run a quick errand; you can't go for a jog; you can't stop by a happy hour event; you can't do anything.  S also spent a few days in Cuba recently for a girl's trip for her birthday, and her parents came up to help, and even though the kids don't really let them do any "work" (I have to get them up and dressed, brush their teeth, entertain them, bathe them, put them to bed, wake up with them in the middle of the night, etc. -- S's mom does cook, however, which is helpful), just having other adults around takes a ton of stress off my shoulders.  Also, this time they were able to pick them up from school/daycare, a relatively minor task -- it only takes about 20 minutes total -- but a huge help because it means I don't have to rush home from work, and I can go to my Krav Maga classes, which have become an important bit of self-care for me.

Speaking of Krav Maga, I've been trying to take it more seriously of late -- I really need to "test up" into the next-level class, but it's hard to stay committed.  Again, it's not the work, it's the logistics.  I really only have time to go three days a week, and I can't even keep up that schedule, because every time S goes out of town or is otherwise unavailable to pick up the kids for the night, I have to skip my class.  The next test date is July 7 (having it on a Saturday also doesn't help), but I have to miss all next week because S is gone, and then I'm missing two more weeks in June for vacation, and it's apparently not the type of test you should take unless you are "studying" hard leading up to it.

So, I'll just remain a level-one patzer a little longer.  It's not that bad, but I'm well past the inflection point and now getting diminishing returns.  I need more of a challenge.  The big thing is the intensity of the training partner.  Sometimes instructors-in-training come to level one to practice working with less skilled people, and I train with them, and I get so much more out of it.  On the days I get a particular weak partner, it's more of a conditioning class than a self-defense class, which is okay, but if I wanted to take a conditioning class I would just take a conditioning class.  (Actually, I do, once a week I do strength and conditioning instead of self-defense, and it's awesome.  You do all sorts of over-the-top, strongman-competition shit like flip tires and drag chains and carry boulders and swing sledge hammers.  I don't know if that makes you stronger than just doing the machines, but it certainly is more fun.)

One thing Krav Maga has taught me is how worthless a typical person would be in serious fight.  Sometimes we do stress drills, where you have to close your eyes, so you don't know when an attack is coming, or you have to do a bunch of burpees and then defend yourself when your tired -- and unless your muscles and mind are trained through repetition to handle the situation, everything just goes to shit.  This is true even in a relatively basic, controlled simulation like a level-one self-defense class; imagine what would happen when shit got real.  That's why this article from The Onion is so funny (the video too).  People -- well, men, really -- have such an inflated sense of their own physical toughness and ability to handle stressful combat.

And to bring it back to politics, this gets at another position I wish the Democrats would adopt: Republicans promote irresponsible gun ownership.  As much as some liberals might dream about making all guns illegal and sweeping through the country to collect the ones already out there, it's not a practical solution constitutionally, politically, or logistically.  But, what can be done, maybe, is putting stringent training requirements on the most dangerous guns.  If you want an AR-15, you have to prove you know how to use it, and, yes, this means government regulations.  The honor system ain't working.  One thing about trying this route is that it's something that law enforcement and the military understand and could potentially get behind.  They know how ridiculous it is to allow any dumbass off the street to buy a weapon of war.  I'd use that: Our military spends hours and hours training our soldiers to operate powerful weaponry in stressful situations, and we're so egotistical we think we can be just as safe and effective?  Right now our society is super divided on guns, because we're super divided on everything, and it's a black-or-white issue -- you're either "fer" or "agin'" -- even though most people are somewhere in the middle.  That's not allowed right now.  So, I don't know if anything would work.  But if I was a politician, this is the tract I would try.

Well, that's all for this week.  Until next time...

Entry 423: People are People

My experiment to eschew social media is going pretty well so far.  I haven't logged in to Facebook or Twitter for about three weeks now, and I don't really miss it.  I still fiddle with my way phone too much -- Sporcle, Words With Friends, MLB Gamecast, etc. -- but I think that my anxiety levels are down overall.  I'm not constantly wondering what's going on out there, because out there effectively doesn't exist to me anymore.  My outrage levels are much lower than before too.  I still know what's going on -- I still consume a lot of news -- but there is a lot less of the blood-boiling, click-bait-y "Stupid Liberal/Conservative Does Infuriatingly Stupid Liberal/Conservative Thing" type of story in my life now.  Honestly, however, I'm not sure if being less angry is a net positive or a net negative.  It's definitely good for my health, but outrage is a good motivating factor.  If anti-Trumpists are going to strike back in a major way this fall, we need some level of outrage.  We need to be pissed off.  You don't get millions of people turning out to the polls without a large dose of dander and discomfort.  So, I don't know -- I don't know what the right mix is between staying sane and fighting back like a cornered rabid animal.

Speaking of animals, Trump used the term this week to describe members of MS-13, the criminal gang of mostly Latino immigrants that nobody had really heard of until a few months ago when Republicans realized they needed something other than their record to run on this year.  I think this presents a good opportunity for Democrats.  They should position themselves diametrically opposed to Trump on crime.  They should adopt the phrase "stupid on crime" to counter his "tough on crime" rhetoric.  Make the two become synonymous.  Hammer home how bad ostensibly harsh measures are.  I think there is a large segment of the population open to this message.  People have seen and are continuing to see the futility of measures like the War on Drugs.  Here's what I would say if I was a congressperson in response to Trump's comments:

Members of MS-13 are not "animals."  They are people.  Not only is it immoral to treat people -- even people who do terrible things -- as animals, it's stupid.  The only way to eradicate gang violence is to call it out for what it is -- crimes by people against people.  It is a human problem.  To pretend it's something other than this, is to go down a path of continued failure.

"People are people" is another angle I would hit hard if I was a Democratic politician.  Every comment I said about immigration would start with the disclaim, "Look, they are people in a desperate situation trying to do what's best for themselves or their family just like you or I would do..."  I think there is a desire for that right not in contrast to Trump's ugliness.  I suspect even most people who favor stricter immigration enforcement can empathize with immigrants on a human level.  They don't want to see people ripped apart from their families or held indefinitely in detention centers.  Such a message will utterly fail with hardcore Trumpists, of course, but any message delivered by a Democrat will utterly fail with hardcore Trumpists.  The worst thing Democrats can do, in my opinion, is bend over backward to try to placate "real Americans."  At best, it will come off as insincere and be ineffective (Fox News and Republican politicians will cast Dems as disrespectful elitists no matter what they do); at worst, it will repel voters on the other side of the coin and erode the Democrats base.  I think this article gets it right -- the best thing Dems can do when dealing with Trump Country is to not make apologies for being "elitists," but instead to change the subject and continually hammer the GOP on economic issues.  The goal is just to pick off a small fraction of a small fraction of disenchanted Trump voters -- a possible margin of victory in a close election -- not change hearts and minds en masse, because that ain't happening any time soon.



The other thing about the "people are people" message is that it could, somewhat ironically, actually help with the "your don't understand real Americans" messaging problem, because Trump voters are people too -- even those who harbor hateful and prejudice feelings.  "Racists are people" is a corollary of "people are people," and I think liberals would be well-served to remind themselves of this sometimes.  The thing is, a lot of people in this country come directly from a lineage of white supremacy.  White supremacy was a legally codified, defining characteristic of our country for almost a century, and you can argue it is still a de facto one in many areas today, especially in much of the South.  (Based on the data I've seen, I believe a desire to hang onto the vestiges of white supremacy is the primary reason Trump was elected.)  So, if somebody grows up in an area with deep racist roots and everybody around them -- everybody they love and admire -- is racist, it is overwhelmingly likely they are going to be racist too.  What do we do with such people, tell them all to fuck off die?  That's not practical, even if it's what we want to do.  And it shouldn't be what we want.  We don't have to be tolerant of racism, but we can (and should) be empathetic towards racists, in the same way we don't have to be tolerant of violence and criminality, but we can be empathetic towards people who grow up in circumstances in which that's all they know.  People are people.

Another thing concerning racism we do that I don't like is we treat it as a binary -- you are either racist (bad) or not racist (good).  When in actuality racism encompasses a huge range.  There is everything from Dylan Roof down to your friend's dad who secretly hates the fact his daughter is dating a black guy and feels guilty about it.  Racism is not an zero-one variable, but that's how we treat it, and this makes it hard to talk about (and thus make any progress on) racism, because pointing out somebody harbors racist views is treated as akin to calling them a KKK Grand Wizard.

Anyway, I don't really have a good solution to any of this, other than to say we all should be more empathetic toward everybody.  Kumbaya, motherfuckers.

Until next time...

Entry 422: We Should All Mansplain Everything to Everybody

The other morning I noticed one of my car tires was running low on air, so I pulled into a gas station to fill it up on my way to work.  The entrance I used put me at a weird angle with the air pump, so I had to straighten up a bit to pull in properly, and just as I did so, another car came around the corner and took my spot at the pump -- pulled right in front of me, as I was just about to nuzzle up to the pump, like the Seinfeld episode when George gets his parking spot stolen.  The driver of the car, however, was not trying to be rude or cut me off or anything like that.  She used a different entrance than I used and couldn't even really see me approaching the pump.  She legitimately got there first -- she beat me to the punch by a few seconds.  I was annoyed, of course, but I had no beef with the driver.



What made things more annoying is that a few other cars pulled into some nearby pumps blocking my only exit from the gas station other than going through the space by the pump, which is currently occupied by the first car.  So, I'm totally stuck.  At this point, I would prefer to just leave.  There is another gas station I can use down the street, and it's super uncomfortable to sit there and watch her while she services her car.  I would hate to have somebody breathing down my neck like that -- and who knows what's wrong with it?  Maybe she has to do more than just quickly put some air in the tires.  But I'm hemmed in, just wait behind her.

She get outs of her car, and immediately I get the sense that she doesn't know what she's doing.  The scenario I've concocted in my head is that the light on her dashboard went on, and she thought Oh, crap, 'low tire pressure', what's this all about? and now she has to figure it out on the fly.  I've concocted this scenario because it's what happened to me a few months ago.  (One of my car tires has a slow leak in it, but still has good tread, so I've been debating whether or not I should replace it, which means replacing all the tires, or just fill it up every so often; thus far I've gone with the short-term cheaper, latter option.)  But also maybe I'm being biased because she's a conventionally attractive woman in her late twenties or early thirties.  You know, because hot chicks obviously don't know anything about cars.

Unfortunately, as she gets out of her car and starts to service it, the probability of my stereotype being accurate increases dramatically.  The air pump is one of those newfangled ones, with a little computer screen, where you set the desired air pressure, and then it beeps when it reaches that pressure.  And it seems likely to me that she doesn't understand how it works.  For one thing, she took a pressure gauge out of her glove box, which she doesn't need because it's built into the pump.  For another thing, she never set her desired PSI, so it's at the default, which is only 25 PSI -- most tires need 35-45 PSI to be fully inflated.  So, she keeps putting the hose on her tire, and it keeps immediately stopping because it's already at 25 PSI.  She can't figure out what's going on; she's using her gauge to measure the pressure, but it's not going up.

By the way, it's not her fault that she doesn't know how to use this machine.  If there are instructions, they aren't prominently located, and it's not like "Air Pump 101" is a high school requirement.  The only reason I know how it works is because I've done it before.  At first I did the exact same thing she's doing now, and then through trial-and-error, I figured it out.  However, I didn't have somebody looking over my shoulder when I was making the errors.  If I did, I might have just gotten into my car and driven away to another gas station -- which is kinda what I wish she would do at this point.  But I also kinda want to help her, because I think she needs help, and I like helping people -- it feels good.

So, I'm not sure how to play it.  I don't want to fluster her by just sitting in my car staring at her, and I also would like to leave, because sitting in a parked car at a gas station is not a particularly enjoyable activity for me.  But I'm hesitant to get out and start "mansplaining" this air pump to her.  What if she actually knows what's going on, and it's my own ignorance -- which is vast when it comes to cars -- that is preventing me from seeing this?  What if she's doing something different from what I think she's doing, and she's doing it right?  It seems unlikely, but it's definitely possible.  So, instead of getting out, I open up a Sporcle quiz on my phone and start trying to name the top-50 home run hitters in Chicago Cubs history -- Sammy Sosa, Ernie Banks, Ryne Sandberg...

After five minutes, I've named 42 of the 50, and time runs out, both on my game and on her pump.  Her tire still is low.  When she goes back into the glove box and gets the manual, I finally figure, Okay, enough is enough; I'm going out; I don't think she knows what she's doing; if I'm wrong and I'm a mansplainer, so be it; at least I will be at work on time.  So, I get out, and, in my least condescending manner possible (which still might be kinda condescending), I tell her how to use the pump.  She thanks me, scans her credit card again, sets the appropriate PSI, fills up her tire in about 30 seconds, and goes on her way.  I then pull up and use the rest of her time to fill up my tires, and that's that.  I saved $1.50!

I was thinking about this, and I realized I don't like calling out guys for mansplaining.  It's not because it hurts my feelings as a man or because it's feminism run amok or any other "men's rights" garbage like that.  It's because it provides a disincentive for explanation, when, in my opinion, we should be doing the exact opposite as a society.  Over-explaining is not that big of a sin, especially given the alternative.  I've been many in situations like the one above, where crucial information doesn't get relayed properly, because somebody assumes somebody else knows already knows something they don't know or doesn't say something because they don't want to be condescending.  It's an annoying social norm.  You hear people say, "So-and-so was treating me like I'm idiot!" and it's always assumed to be a bad thing, but sometimes you need to be treated like an idiot.  I'm often grateful when people treat me like an idiot, because I usually get all the information I need, and I know exactly what to do.  And if I already knew it, so what?  Why is hearing what you already know such a terrible thing?  Why is that so offensive?  I'm not saying I'm pro-condescension, but I'm definitely anti-anti-condescension.

Now, I get that mansplaining is not really about explanation at all.  It's about power.  The purpose is to belittle somebody because they're a woman, not to inform them.  But can't we just call that being a sexist jerk?  Being a sexist jerk is bad; over-explaining something to somebody, of any gender, is not that bad.  In fact, often times it's beneficial.  That's my hot take for the week: We should all mansplain everything to everybody.

Until next time...

Entry 421: Puzzle Published

No time to contribute a post specifically to this blog this week.  However, I had a puzzle published today, and I wrote about it here, so click that link if you would like to read about my puzzle and read me waxing philosophical on the unfairness of human emotion.

Good day.

Entry 420: My Social Media Experiment, Phase I

For the past year or so, I've been active on social media.  I've posted at least one tweet everyday (which automatically posts on FaceBook), and I've been following people, soliciting and accepting friend requests and followers, and checking Twitter and Facebook frequently.  It's Phase I of an experiment I've been running in which I'm the only subject.  I've been questioning the utility of social media for a long time, and I've often wondered if, as a society, we would be better off just not using it at all.  Of course, this is not an original thought -- there have been countless think pieces written over the past decade (at least) about how things would be different (better) without social media.  And of course, there is no way to really test it.  We can't just make everybody stop using social media and see how it goes.  However, I can do that for myself -- so, I'm doing it.  I went "all in" on social media, and now the time has come for me to take a break.  I'm not going to use Twitter or Facebook or any other form of social media for an extended period of time -- at least several months.  I'll see if I notice a difference in quality of life and report back to you.

The timing of this is not totally arbitrary.  I never set a firm stopping date for my social media use when I began this little experiment.  It's been precipitated by a few current events.  One is Mark Zuckerberg's testimony before Congress on the Cambridge Analytica fiasco.  Honestly, the sale of personal data, in and of itself, doesn't bother me that much -- maybe it should, but it doesn't.  What bothers me is Zuckerberg himself -- not in his personally life (about which I obviously know next to nothing), but in his business life.  Zuckerberg qua Facebook CEO is one of the least impressive people in public life.  He's either coldly mendacious or incredibly naive or, most likely, some combination thereof.  He runs a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and so he makes decisions that are in the best interest of this corporation's bottom line, but then he acts as if he's just this nerdy tech guy trying to make the world a better place with his amazing algorithms.  He's just trying to connect people -- how many times does he say that? -- and if it so happens that he amasses more wealth and power than any one person should have while he's connect people, that, I guess, is just an fortunate side effect.

Again, it's unclear to me whether or not Zuckerberg believes his own BS, but it doesn't really matter.  My favorite quote ever is by Upton Sinclair -- "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it" -- and it's particularly apt in this instance.  There are things Zuckerberg could do that would make Facebook better -- better for the user and better for society.  Here are three:

1. Be more upfront about how personal data is being used and what is given to advertisers.  If users want to trade personal data for free use of Facebook's platforms, fine.  But make sure everybody knows what the agreement is.  Don't hide it in user agreements nobody reads or make users adjust a bunch of settings.  Put it out there explicitly: "We are going to manipulate your shit as follows...  Click here to continue."
2. Offer a subscription model so that users can opt out of advertisements and not have their data  be shared.
3. Adopt a set of journalistic standards and vet websites before allowing their articles to be shared on Facebook.  Suspend users' accounts if they are posting a bunch of untrue things.

These are unlikely to happen, of course, because they are not in Facebook's best financial interest.  With 1, this is obvious -- explicit warnings would scare away some users.  With 2, people are generally averse to paying for social media platforms, which, honestly, is more of a problem with us than it is with these products.  It never ceases to amaze me how little people value their time, privacy, and peace of mind (not being bombarded by ads) when it comes to "free" online content and services.  Also, a subscription model might create a tiered system in Facebook -- the haves and the have-nots -- which is contrary to Zuckerberg's stated kumbaya mission of connecting people of all walks of life.  With 3, you would have a total revolt by Trumpists and other trolls -- a nontrivial faction of Facebook's users -- who like the platform explicitly because it allows them to proliferate disinformation.  They can read and share "news" that isn't filtered by the "liberal media" (i.e., that isn't fact checked or authenticated in anyway).  Matt Iglesias of The Weeds podcast once said something to the effect of, "Facebook could do a bunch of things to drastically reduce the spread of fake news, but it would piss off conservatives, so they don't."

In fact, we saw this in action during Zuckerberg's testimony, when he was being questioned by Ted Cruz about liberal bias on the platform.  Cruz went through a laundry list of "conservative" groups that Facebook had shut down, for unstated reasons, and then he pressed Zuckerberg if any "liberal" groups, like Planned Parenthood, had been shut down.  If Zuckerberg wanted to, he really could have stuck it to Cruz here.  He could have said something like, "Congressman, we do not discriminate at Facebook based on political views.  However, we do have an objective standard of conduct for our users groups that includes no bullying, racism, or misogyny.  If conservative groups are being shut down on Facebook, might I suggest the problem is not with Facebook?"  But, of course, he said nothing like that.  He totaled weaseled it, acquiescing to Cruz, admitting mistakes were made, and then vowing to do better -- his standard line.

In my opinion, the fundamental flaw with Zuckerberg is that he doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) that you can't be the head of a zillion-dollar, for-profit corporation and be an altruistic force of good in the world.  That's not how capitalism works.  No matter how much somebody like Zuckerberg personally donates to worthy causes, and no matter how useful their product seems to be to the public, at some point the profit motives of their company are going to come into conflict with the greater good of society, and their profit motives are going to win.  (Perhaps that's why Bill Gates got of the game before going full-fledged humanitarian.)  I think there is some serious cognitive dissonance with Zuckerberg on this point.  It seems as if this is not something he really wants to acknowledge or deal with, which is why, as somebody on a podcast pointed out (I can't remember who or which podcast), he's so quick to hearken back to his early days, when he was just a geeky college kid, doing innocent geeky college things... like publicly rating which sorority girls are the hottest without their knowledge or permission.

This brings me to another one of my favorite quotes: "To me, one of the patterns we see that makes the world go wrong is when somebody acts as if they aren’t powerful when they actually are powerful."  This is a recent quote by Jaron Lanier from this fascinating interview.  And this article is another big reason why I'm choosing to get off social media now.  Lanier makes the anti-social media case better than I can, and I highly recommend you read what he has to say.  Although, I must confess, I don't totally get his final, grand point about social media as a religion.  But I've never really understood religious (or spiritual) arguments in general.  It's probably why I'm not religious (or spiritual).  To me, there is a much more compelling, earthly reason against social media: It's a terrible time suck.  It's something you do, for little satisfaction, that prevents you from doing other more satisfying things.

Over the past year, as I've ramped up my social media use, I've developed many bad habits that are going to be legitimately difficult to break.  I constantly feel the need to check my phone, no matter what else I'm doing -- playing with the kids, check the phone; stopped at a red light, check the phone; can't sleep, check the phone; break at work, check the phone.  It's gotten to the point where I found myself holding in my piss until I could get to my phone, because I wanted to look at it while I was peeing.  Heaven forbid I relieve myself without checking if anybody commented on my post about Nic Cage movies.  And for what?  What do I get out of it?  A fleeting shot of dopamine, triggered by a little thumbs up icon?  A split-second high?  I want a new drug.

Of course, there are things I'm going to miss about social media -- there are good things about it.  (Although, as Lanier lays out, some of things we think are good about it, might not actually be good overall.  His point about positive online political movements causing more powerful, negative backlashes is particularly interesting... and disconcerting.)  Being able to stay connected with old friends, with whom I would otherwise lose touch, and being able to easily see pictures of my friends and family and their kids are things I will miss.  However, "I like to see pics of my friends' kids" is a total lie we tell ourselves to justify using Facebook.  Because if all you cared about is keeping tabs on friends and family and seeing pics of their kids grow up, your total time on Facebook would be about a half an hour a month.  Kids don't grow that fast.  Also, there is the issue that you aren't seeing your friends and family, as they are; you are seeing them as they wish to present themselves on social media.  But that's an entirely different topic.

Anyway, I think I've spilled enough virtually ink on this topic.  I'll keep you posted on my social media-less life.

Until next time...