April Honest Day

Last year my family had a hell of a time trying to decide on a weekend to hold our annual reunion, Schreiberfest. Over the course of two weeks, we sent 48 emails to each other, trying to pin down a weekend when seven overbooked families could find the time to meet. Every time it seemed like we had a date, someone would chime in to veto it, and we'd have to start over again.

After we'd finally nailed down the Labor Day holiday as our S-fest weekend, my sister-in-law sent the following message: "I am so sorry. My cousin is getting married I didn't have it on the calendar and we can't go Labor Day. Back to the drawing board."

But she was lying. There was no cousin's wedding that day, no calendar, no drawing board. You see, it was April First, and according to our culture it's okay to lie to those you love on this day. It's supposed to be amusing to make your loved ones look like a "fool."

I've never understood the appeal of April Fool's Day. Often the lie is just lame, like when my co-worker told me last year about a new state law that would tax dog owners by how much their dog weighed. That sounds weird, I thought, and then went about my day. When she revealed that it was all just an April Fool's joke, I thought, oh, okay...whatever.

Lots of websites and news organizations will run some sort of joke news, and that's kinda fun, but they never do it as well as The Onion does it every week, so why get all excited about it?

The same people who are obsessed with fooling their friends and family are also obsessed with not getting fooled. So they go the other way and don't believe anything you say.

You can never repeat anything interesting or remarkable on this day.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So in response to April Fool's Day, I'm starting a new Timicist holiday. From now on April 5 will be known as April Honest Day. A day for telling the truth, where you can't make up any stupid shit all day long. Where you have to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

You'll probably be telling all this truth to your therapist, to get over all the "fun tricks" your friends and family played on you four days earlier.

C-SPANglish

It's hard to avoid the TV on a Sunday in late March. So you keep switching stations, watching the fierce competition, the tests of endurance, the fouls and trash-talking, the joy of victory and the agony of defeat.


I'm talking, of course, about the health care debate in Congress on C-SPAN.


I don't usually watch C-SPAN, but yesterday I kept flipping over to it because I wanted to see what would happen with the health care vote. Now I know why I don't make a habit of watching C-SPAN. It is torturous. It's like watching cricket-- a sporting event where you don't understand the rules and have no idea if what just happened was a good thing or not.


There were countless motions and declarations and procedures and votes and speeches and I had no idea what was going on.

Person With Gavel (PWG): The speaker recognizes the right honorable wicket from Texas to speak before a procedural vote to authorize swithmuckles in the preceding concession for pre-voting on the proclamation to recognize the national volleyball team. You have two minutes.

Man at Microphone (MaM): I request two minutes and 19 seconds.

PWG: You have two minutes.

MaM: Why won't the speaker allow 2 minutes and 19 seconds? The speaker allowed 2 minutes and 19 seconds for the gentle lady folk from Elbownia.

PWG: You have two minutes.

And so on. There is language like, "motion to suspend rules and agree" (which makes you wonder if the rule is to disagree) and "motion to recommit with instructions."

They did about a hundred votes, each lasting five minutes, that had nothing to do with the health care bill. Some examples (As Dave Barry would say, I swear I'm not making these up):

• Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima (421 ayes, 0 nays)
  
• Commending the members of Agri-business Development teams... (418-3)
• To revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes (372-31)
• On "approving the journal" (229-189)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, anyway, nothing less than the passage of universal health care in this country could get me to endure such nonsense. Actually, not even that momentous event could keep me there, as eventually I got tired of trying to make sense of it all and went to bed. I knew that NPR would give me a summary of important stuff in the morning.

And I have to say, I'm relieved, hopeful, and excited that Congress did the right thing. It's not the plan that many of us hoped for, but it's a step in the right direction. As James Fallows explains much better than I could:

For now, the significance of the vote is moving the United States FROM a system in which people can assume they will have health coverage IF they are old enough (Medicare), poor enough (Medicaid), fortunate enough (working for an employer that offers coverage, or able themselves to bear expenses), or in some other way specially positioned (veterans; elected officials)... TOWARD a system in which people can assume they will have health-care coverage. Period.

Read the rest here. What he says.


Conservatives are, of course, predicting the end of the world, or at least the end of our country. What I don't understand is why so many people think the government is not capable of providing health insurance. First of all, they already do it with Medicare, Medicaid, and in the military; secondly, every other civilized country in the world does it, and they haven't dissolved into a puddle of dust; and thirdly, every great social change in this country, from emancipation to women's suffrage to Social Security to desegregation to the Civil Rights Act to Medicare, has been opposed by conservatives, and went on to become the status quo. Health care for all Americans has been way overdue.

If you want to know what the bill actually does, here's a convenient list of the benefits and when they will take effect:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

That Guy

There's an episode of American Dad where Stan is on trial in heaven.

In a moment of tension, he pulls out a gun and threatens a room full of heaven people. They laugh at him. "Earthly guns have no power here."




Then he steals a "heaven gun" from a guard and waves it around. Everyone recoils in horror. A suit-wearing angel stands up and asks, about heaven guns, "Why do we have those again?"

At the end of the scene the guy/angel stands up again and says:

Seriously, why do we have heaven guns? I don't mean to be that guy, I'm happy here, but why is this not an issue?

I love this scene. And I think the thing I love most about it is how I can identify with the "that guy" angel. I don't know how many times in my life I say, "I hate to be that guy, but..."

Like, the guy who complains that the tennis center is too cold, or who points out typos in published materials, or who suggests to the department secretary how to communicate better.

So, yeah, I'm probably too anal and overanalyze stuff, but I like to think that we That Guys provide a valuable service: we say the things that others are too polite to say.

And in the case of heaven guns, we're damn funny.

The Anal Communicator Strikes Again

The Anal Communicator returns in

"The Invitation"

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Monday morning, 9:12 am. The following exchange takes place entirely over email.

Vice President's Secretary (VPS), to the entire division: Just a friendly reminder about Colors Training tomorrow in [Building Name & Rm #] from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. We will be having [Caterer] for lunch. Hope to see you all there!! :)

Anal Communicator (AC): Was there a notice sent out about this before? This is the first I’ve heard of it.

VPS: Yes, I sent an invitation out. It was called Quatrefoil Invite

AC: Do you know what date it was sent out? I can’t find anything in my inbox about it and it wasn’t on my calendar. There are some other staff members of the library who were also unaware of it. Was it sent to all of [our division]? I just want to make sure that something’s not wrong with my email system. Thanks!

VPS: It was sent out on February 12. I will forward you the invite. I wonder if maybe it went to your junk mail for some reason? And yes, it went to all [our division].

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The entire original message:

From: Vice President Secretary [mailto:delivery@smilebox.com]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 1:44 PM
To: Vice President Secretary
Subject: Quatrefoil Invite



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AC: Sorry, I don’t have this in my inbox, and I don’t remember receiving it, but if I did, I might have thought it was spam because the subject was unclear and I’m not likely to click on a “Play” button in an email if I don’t know what it’s for.

Since I’m not the only person in [our division] who didn’t know about this meeting (I checked with two other library staff), perhaps you could put “Division Mtg.” in the subject line next time? And put the critical information in the body of the email? For example, the reminder you sent out this morning was very helpful.

Thanks, and sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

THE END

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Author's note: The original invite doesn't reveal who the intended recipients are, which is a spam flag. I also have no idea what "quatrafoil" means-- even after attending said meeting. And I'm pretty sure I want to avoid clicking on anything that says "I made a smilebox!"

Messy Hair

My history with hair goes back a long time. About 38 years, give or take.

My hair biography is pretty conservative. As a kid, my mom would take me to the one-size-fits-all barber and I'd get the basic bowl cut.


One time, in about 5th grade, I asked if the barber if he could do something fancy, like give me a part, and he said, "That's styling. We don't do that." So I remained a bowl-cut dork for a few more years.

At some point I started parting it down the middle on my own. In junior high I let it grow out really long. It was not a great look for me, and I remember the popular kid on the school bus yelling at me in front of everyone else to get a haircut. I was just happy that the popular kids noticed me.


In high school, my whole life revolved around wrestling, so I had a really short wrestler's haircut. It made me look tougher in a singlet.


In college I went through a phase where I just brushed my hair straight back. I think I was going for this look:


But I didn't use any gel, so it was much puffier than that. Maybe like this?


That's about the size of the glasses I wore back then, anyway. This brush-backed poofy look was featured in the picture that accompanied my humor column in the college newspaper. Ironically, the first column I wrote for publication was about hair. I wrote about how weird it is that we use dead cells growing out of head-- essentially waste from our bodies-- to attract mates. My anthropology professor liked it so much he read parts of it out loud to the class.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sometime around the mid-90's I settled on a more traditional style. Parted on the side, combed over. I would get it cut really short on the sides and back, with just enough on top to lay down, then just let it grow out for a few months. Repeat cycle. This style has stayed with me through a decade and a half.

In general it was fine, if not spectacular.




But sometimes, when I went too long without a cut, it would do interesting things, like curl or bunch.




Last fall I decided it was time for a change. I don't know why. So I started looking at other guys' heads and trying to decide what kind of style I would like. Or what kind of style I could at least get away with. I noticed that there are a lot of men out there with hairlines similar to mine.

I did a Google images search, and came up with two samples that I liked. Short and simple, with hairlines that approximately resemble mine. Jude Law and Giovanni Ribisi:

I printed out these two images and took them to my $11 barber shop. They've always done a decent job before, and I never have to make appointments, which eases my fear of commitment.

"Make me beautiful!" I told the grizzled barber as I handed him the printout of the pictures. Okay, I didn't say that, but we had an understanding. He did his thing. I knew it would take some getting used to, so I didn't flinch when I saw myself in the mirror at the barber's. I rushed home and examined it more closely in private. My first reaction was, Omygod, what have I done?


I gave it a few days, but I finally had to admit the awful truth: I don't look anything like Giovanni Ribisi! And Jude Law? Fuggedaboudit!

Once it started to grow out, and I got more used to it, it didn't look quite so bad. The biggest adjustment was having the right side of my forehead exposed, since that had always been covered up by my comb-over.

About the same time I got the cut, I let my sideburns grow out, which is kinda fun.


Still, as the hair grew out, I agonized about what to do next. Should I continue with my new cut or try something else? In the meantime, it was winter so I wore hats.


The problem with hats is that eventually you have to take them off, and that can make for some terrible hat head.


I hate how in the winter I often have to choose between comfort or style. Freeze or look decent?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So my new cut has been growing out for several months now and I'm trying to figure out what my next move is. Eventually I'm going to have to get it cut again. The good thing about it is that I never use a comb or a brush on it. I just use my hands to flatten it down after I get out of the shower. It gives me a casual messy hair look, which I kinda like.



I've contemplated doing something daring and unprecedented. Going to an actual styling salon and paying more than $11 for their opinion. Shoving my head in their face and saying, "What can you do with this?"

I'm looking for a style that:

• is low maintenance
• doesn't cost much
  
• looks good-- or at least doesn't embarrass me and my loved ones
  
• can go a long time between cuts
• is resistant to hat head
  

How about it, science?

PENIS LAND

I've written before about how email addresses can get parsed into interesting combinations. (Seth Lutman gets turned into slutman@blah.com, for example.)

Someone sent me jokey email today with the same concept. URLs that do the same thing. To wit:

• Who Represents: http://www.whorepresents.com/
• Experts Exchange: http://www.expertsexchange.com/
• Pen Island: http://www.penisland.net/
• Therapist Finder: http://www.therapistfinder.com/
• PowerGen Italia: http://www.powergenitalia.com/
• Speed of Art: http://www.speedofart.com/

These are all "real" sites, according to the email. And they're very funny, but I have to believe that they're not all coincidences. The Pen Island site, for example, has large text that says, "Your Pen Is/ Our Business." The space between "Pen" and "Is" is very small, and the rest of the motto is on a second line, making it look like "Your PenIs/ Our Business." It's clear what they're trying to do. They claim to sell pens, but I even wonder if it's a real site or just a fun hoax.

My second favorite, powergenitalia, is supposed to be an Italian power company. But the site is under construction, so it may just be a joke. Yes, Virginia, sometimes people put hoax sites on the interwebs!

At any rate, these URLs had me literally LOLing at my desk.

Evolution of Marriage

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.

-- Virginia judge who refused to uphold a D.C. marriage between a white man and a black woman, 1958.

Richard and Mildred Loving, the couple in question, were banished from their home state and risked getting arrested if they ever returned. To, you know, try to see their family.

Eventually the ACLU took up their case, which in 1967 made it to the Supreme Court. The Court struck down the law against interracial marriage, which at the time was still active in sixteen states.

The book where I read about this is Elizabeth Gilbert's Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace With Marriage. Gilbert goes on to explain:

At the time, I must also mention, a poll showed that 70 percent of Americans vehemently opposed this ruling. Let me repeat that: In recent American history, seven out of ten Americans still believed that it should be a criminal offense for people of different races to marry each other. But the courts were morally ahead of the general population on this matter... life went on, and everyone got used to the new reality, and the institution of marriage did not collapse for having had its boundaries adjusted just that tiny bit wider...

You see where I'm heading with this, right?

Or rather, you see where history is heading with this?

Gilbert brings up the issue of same-sex marriage, and quotes some right wing homophobe who brings up the lame argument that supporters of gay marriage want to change the definition of marriage. She responds:

The problem with that argument, though, is that the only thing marriage has ever done, historically and definitionally speaking, is to change. Marriage in the Western world changes with every century, adjusting itself constantly around new social standards and new notions of fairness. The Silly Putty-like malleability of the institution, in fact, is the only reason we still have the thing at all. Very few people... would accept marriage on its thirteenth-century terms. Marriage survives, in other words, precisely because it evolves.

For example, the concept of marrying for love would be completely alien to most humans in history. That one detail has changed the meaning of the institution way more than gay marriage ever possibly could. Gilbert elaborates by talking about her relationship to her fiance:

I do not need this man in almost any of the ways that women have needed men over the centuries. I do not need him to protect me physically, because I live in one of the safest societies on earth. I do not need him to provide for me financially, because I have always been the winner of my own bread. I do not need him to extend my circle of kinship, because I have a rich community of friends and neighbors and family all on my own. I do not need him to give me the critical social status of "married woman," because my culture offers respect to unmarried women. I do not need him to father my children, because I have chosen not to become a mother...

I need him only because I happen to adore him, because his company brings me gladness and comfort, and because, as a friend's grandfather once put it, "Sometimes life is too hard to be alone, and sometimes life is too good to be alone."

Times change. Today's 70 percent becomes tomorrow's fringe views. All the people who currently oppose gay marriage will, in future generations, be looked at the same way that we now look at the general population who were against interracial marriage in the 60's.