Skip to content

Double Spooner

Eileene dropped an honest-to-god spoonerism today: intending to belittle something by describing it as “piddling and wee,” she called it “widdling and pee.” Not only do the spoken but unintentional words have meaning, but a common meaning, although “widdle” is more of a British expression than an American one. Wonderful!

Only in the analytical aftermath does it occur to me that “piddling” and “wee,” in addition to meaning “small,” could also relate to urine. Four words: widdle, wee, piddle, and pee, all on the same subject. I wish Will Shortz could use it for one of his puzzlers, but I suppose it’s too “blue” for Sunday morning radio. Probably inappropriate for GAMES magazine’s Wild Card section, too. Pity.

2010 11 27 mdlake Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Carry On

Another painless passage through the airport on our return trip. A sparsity of passengers has a lot to do with it; you can’t be delayed by a long line if there’s no long line to delay you. But there’s another contributing factor this trip: I think this is the first flight I’ve ever taken without checking in luggage. That means only one line to pass through. Way better. So much better that I’m going to have to try restricting myself to carry-ons from now on.

That’s about four days’ clothing, in colder weather. I could get a whole weeks’ clothing packed for a summer trip. As long as I’ve got access to a washing machine and my hosts don’t mind seeing me wear the same outfit twice, I could handle a week-long stay in winter, too.

A bit tricky for Christmas, when I’m liable to have packages in tow, but still…

2010 11 26 mdlake Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Betrayal of Trust

I took gladly the news of Tom DeLay’s conviction for money laundering in violation of campaign finance laws. A friend points out that he was convicted under Texan law, not federal law, and so is likely to be pardoned by the governor, a product of the same corrupt system. We shall see. But at least some of our courts remain something other than party-political instruments.

Convicted felon Tom DeLay, unsurprisingly, disagrees. He portrays his conviction as a political act and nothing more, a villainous strike by his political enemies.

““This is an abuse of power,” he said. “It’s a miscarriage of justice. I still maintain my innocence. The criminalization of politics undermines our very system.”

Excuse me? Objection to the “criminalization of politics” from the man who equated mere dissent with the gravest crime the Constitution recognizes?

“I think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are getting very very close to treason…For the Majority Leader of the United States Senate in a time of war, with soldiers dying on the ground, announcing that we have lost the war, is very close to treasonous. I looked it up while we were driving over here, the definition of treason, it’s the betrayal of trust.”

Betrayal of trust.

I suppose we should be used to it by now, especially since DeLay is one of the major architects of the culture of corruption. Flimsy accusations that Democrats are committing some misdeed even as Republicans commit that same misdeed on a far grander and more flagrant scale is an important page in the playbook DeLay helped write. So is insisting upon a narrative with no visible connection to reality: DeLay was forced to resign from the Senate while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and he was convicted in a court with a Republican judge. Barefaced lies, even in the face of overwhelming evidence or manifest absurdity, is just business as usual. It’s worked so well since 1980, why stop now?

But maybe DeLay’s complaint isn’t quite a lie. Several wags have pointed out that “criminalizing politics” could have another meaning: that of transforming politics into a criminal enterprise, rather than that of making the opposition’s conduct of politics a crime. That alternate meaning is also going on, and is indeed destroying our country. And now it’s been proven in a court of law that DeLay was part of that process, too.

2010 11 25 mdlake Politics Comments (0) Permalink

Too Far

We had to drop in at the clinic today; Mom had what proved to be an ear infection. I watched television news while waiting in the lobby, and the station—CNN, I believe—reported that, despite bitter complaint over new search procedures and threats of protests, actual resistance in the airports was negligible, and everything was flowing smoothly.

Perhaps this was a product of boycott: if people stayed home to protest with their dollars, airports generally might be as empty as Newark and O’Hare. Or perhaps there was nothing to protest, if lots of airports put off the new searches until after Thanksgiving, as Newark did. CNN said nothing about traffic volume or procedures in place, just that protests were mild or nonexistent, and it business as usual, or even a little better than usual.

Having made the claim, the news played a few “man in the street”—er, concourse—interviews, which weren’t exactly happy about security but were mild in their objections. The one angry voice was the first guy they quoted. I wish I’d had my laptop on hand to get his words exactly, but I distinctly remember his opening line: “Well, I don’t look like bin Laden.” He went on to explain that invasive searches were all right, but that they should be reserved for Muslims and foreign-looking people. Probably ought to throw Mexicans in for good measure.

And that, in a nutshell, is where the storm of protest is coming from. Liberals may be offended at the erosion of civil liberties, but they object in calm, rational voices. Moderates may be irked at the inconvenience, but admit that airport security is important. Everyone may take umbrage at the needless hassle and economic waste of security theater, bu they’d rather not make a scene and miss their flight in order to stand on principle. It takes the heedless sense of entitlement and boundless anger of the right wing to make a protest movement. Protests didn’t register on the news until the right wing began making a stink, and they only began making a stink when they realized that the new police state wouldn’t only be frisking and detaining undesirables, but Real Americans like themselves as well. And suddenly they weren’t okay with the new security procedures AT ALL.

2010 11 24 mdlake Politics Comments (0) Permalink

Bark Butter

I found that Dad has two tubs of a product called “Birdacious Bugberry Bark Butter” in the basement. It’s a substitute for peanut butter as a lure for birdfeeders: smear it on something, cover it in seeds, and watch the birds flock in.

I didn’t ask whether it is more or less expensive than peanut butter, nor do I know which to guess.

On the one hand, it seems like it might be produced cheaper: a substitute not meant for human consumption—although the package doesn’t say so—could be made with cheaper ingredients, and subjected to less stringent quality control, especially health controls. (It’s supposed to contain bugs!) Further, pricing an inferior substitute higher than what it’s supposed to replace isn’t value for money, and at first blush seems a business model for failure.

On the other hand, consumers rarely operate with perfect rationality, and people can be particularly irrational about products for pets, even vicarious pets like wild birds at the feeder. I can easily imagine the dupes willing to accept inflated prices making up for whatever profit is lost to picky buyers checking the price tag. Circumstantial evidence to that effect: the packaging advertises “with calcium!” I mean really: is nutritional content really a reason to select food for wild animals?

2010 11 23 mdlake Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Stay-at-Home Protest

Today’s flight to visit my folks for Thanksgiving was surprisingly easy and comfortable. Rain at O’Hare delayed our take-off from Newark for an hour, but you can’t blame anyone for the weather; factors under human control went just fine. Security delays were minimal, largely because Newark doesn’t yet have the new scanners installed (and thus is not yet performing body searches as an alternative). Airport traffic was lighter than usual for the Monday before Thanksgiving, and our plane was undersubscribed.

More notably, it didn’t even carry as many passengers as had reserved seats a the time we reserved ours. Somebody—several somebodies—had bought tickets and backed out. Why?

Eileene proposed that people canceled their flight plans on waves of protest for the new security measures. Maybe. We really have no idea. But if so, wouldn’t that be fine?

Protesting to TSA workers isn’t going to change anything; they’re powerless to make decisions. Protesting to TSA management isn’t going to change anything; their interests lie in pleasing their political bosses. Protesting to your Congressman or the White House isn’t going to change anything; they’re too far removed from the inconvenience, intrusion, and general offense of the new measures to care, and too tight with private contractors to want to change the rules, anyway. Protesting to the airlines isn’t going to change anything, either, but voting with your wallet might. If the airlines begin losing business to ineffective security theater, they’ll raise holy hell with Congress. Believe it. And the airlines’ lobbyists are far more effective than yours. Airlines might not win out over campaign donors who make their money from selling the scanners, but they have a much better chance than voters.

A massive voter reaction could, I suppose, change something, but only by diverting all that attention and effort from more important national policies, like war and tax structure and campaign finance reform. Big money wins because it can afford to pay attention, and continue to pay attention month after month, year after year, to the issues it finds important. If big money, especially corporate money, then, is running government, as seems to be the case, then the only way to effect change is to make corporations to care. And the only thing corporations care about is money. An angry consumer becomes a more powerful force than an angry voter.

Until angry consumers begin succeeding, of course, and the disinformation campaigns turn from policy to product.

2010 11 22 mdlake Politics Comments (0) Permalink

Now That Ain’t Right

Eileene quoted something, probably a tweet, to me this morning. I don’t remember it verbatim, but this is pretty close: “When right-wing bloggers start complaining about the TSA, you know it’s really gone overboard.”

But, y’know, I don’t think that’s true at all. Not that the TSA isn’t going overboard. It went overboard in the immediate wake of 9/11, and regularly finds new ways to go even further overboard, rather than standing down, as the general public gains perspective on just how little material threat terrorism really presents, how little can be done about the actual threat, and above all how oppressive even ineffective countermeasures are. It will continue to go overboard as long as the people making the decisions stand to profit, whether at the polls or through lucrative government contracts—c.f., former Homeland Security Advisor Michael Chertoff’s interest in promoting security scanners. But conservative bloggers are not the indicator for TSA excesses.

The problem with this natural but inaccurate observation is that the TSA isn’t going any farther than it has. The right-wing blogger’s objection is not to what is being done, but to whom it is being done. For right-wingers, any act of tyranny committed in the name of law and order is acceptable—on the understanding that it only happens to undesirables. Detaining scary dark-skinned people for hours on end is okay, because so many of them want to overthrow the country, and we can hardly tell them apart, anyway. Arresting liberals and intellectuals is okay, because they’re a bunch of know-it-alls who deserve what they get for challenging authority and undermining the war effort and looking down their noses at everyone. Strip-searching fags is okay, because they’ve already sexually debased themselves…hell, they probably enjoy getting groped. But harassing Real Americans? That’s going too far!

(And (gasp)…what if one of the friskers is one o’ them homo-uh-sectials? Oh my god. That ain’t right.)

The problem with denying fundamental rights to some undesirable minority is that the same arguments, and the same methods, eventually swing around to apply to everyone. Well, no, that’s not true: the problem with denying fundamental rights to undesirables is that it’s wrong. Undesirables are entitled to rights; that’s why they’re called “rights” and not “temporary license.” But because principles and morality carry no weight with a certain frame of mind, it’s worth remembering that lesser evil: license to violate rights of one is ultimately, license to violate the rights of all. If the right wing won’t protect civil liberties for the wrong sort of people on principle, perhaps they can be talked into protecting them out of self-interest.

2010 11 19 mdlake Politics Comments (0) Permalink

I Eat Danger For Danger

Dinner tonight is a hoagie, specifically salami, pepperoni, and provolone with lettuce, tomato, onion, and a touch of oil and vinegar. Mmm-boy. I continue to eat them, despite what I shall refer to as “gastric difficulty” in deference to family-friendly concerns. But lately, I’ve begun to ask myself whether they’re worth it. The fragrant wind, definitely, but the more material gastric difficulty? Not so sure.

The list of foods that give me gastric difficulty is growing. For a while, I’d hoped that merely my awareness of troublesome foods is growing, with age and experience. For example, Mexican food has always been an iffy proposition, but I’ve recently worked out that it’s cilantro specifically that gives me trouble. This knowledge has taken the iffiness out of Mexican food: no cilantro, no trouble; lots of cilantro, certain doom. Indian food, too. But no, that hope of merely suffering a keener understanding has been dashed; foods that I continue to make with the same recipe twenty years later now give me trouble where none existed before, and foods that have always been troublesome are moreso. Beans, for example, were once pretty harmless, but now force me to confirm their reputation as the musical fruit.

Dad used to make fun of Grampa Lake and his grousing in old age about not wanting to eat this or that dish at holiday get-togethers because this or that ingredient gave him gas, and the list kept growing. Some years back, I noticed that Dad began to develop his own list of foods to avoid, most of them involving spices, but said nothing out of politeness. Now, it seems, I’m going to end up with my own growing list, most of them involving spices.

At least I hope the list is limited largely to spices. As much as I enjoy spicy foods, it’ll be a lot easier to avoid significant amounts of coriander than it will to avoid, say, milk products, or wheat, or beans. A bitter pill to swallow.

2010 11 18 mdlake Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Exposed

Tomorrow, between class in the morning and the Write Group in the evening, I’ll attend what the school is calling a “job fair,” but is supposed to be rather less mechanized and more network-y. We’ll see. Naturally, I need to attend—I’ll be looking for employment next year. But I have a greater need than that.

I hate, hate, hate selling myself: job interviews, job fairs, networking, cover letters, letters of interest, anything that involves a resume, application, or business cards. Hate it. This was true back when I was a valedictorian going to MIT; it’s harder now that I’m just some guy. Which means I can use the practice, like it or not.

I’m printing my unnervingly thin resume now. Wish me luck.

2010 11 18 mdlake Teaching Comments (0) Permalink

Deficit Calculator

Boy, is this a neat little budget calculator. You can use it to find whether your ideas of how to eliminate the federal deficit would do the job, or even reduce it significantly.

I found I could eliminate the projected 15-year projected shortfall without sacrificing anything I valued, and even generate hundreds of billions’ surplus. (Note: I do not say anything that benefits me. I want to preserve many programs that do me no good beyond promoting the general welfare and preserving human decency—programs like school lunches for the poor. Had I ejected programs I support on principle, and not for personal benefit, I’d generate huge surpluses for both 15- and 30-year projections.) I could not eliminate the 30-year projected shortfall without feeling a pinch to something I value, but I got close.

It was easy. All the big savings were in feeding the military-industrial complex; all the big revenue sources lay in simply returning to pre-Bush tax codes. Eliminate corporate tax loopholes: $136 billion Allow Bush-era tax cuts to expire for the wealthy alone: $54 billion. (Allowing them to expire for incomes below $250k, another $118 billion, but I didn’t check that box.) Iraq and Afghanistan: $51 billion or more. Reinstate the estate tax to pre-Clinton levels: $50 billion. Eliminate corporate subsidies: $23 billion. Farm subsidies: $14 billion.

These figures don’t even consider as an option proper progressive policy or FDR- and Truman-era fiscal policy; it’s just the somewhat-less-than transparently-plutocratic vision of the DLC. For example: asking that capital gains income be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income in a middle-class tax bracket—that is, around 30%, rather than the 15% rate currently enjoyed by Warren Buffet as his housemaid pays 30%, is one of the most left-leaning policies available to choose. A proper progressive tax scale isn’t even an option.

All those entitlements and the social safety net conservatives blame for our fiscal woes? Peanuts. Raise Social Security retirement age to 70: $13 billion. Medical malpractice reform: $8 billion. Even slashing the federal payroll by 10%: $12 billion. Not quite nothing, but such programs are not what’s breaking the budget, and cutting loose what remains of the national safety net isn’t what’s going to save the budget.

Still, odds are we’ll continue to hear a false equivalence between, say, the cost of war in Iraq and the cost of school lunches from politicians eager to preserve big money, and the news media will continue to report such distortions with a serious face.

(A caveat is appropriate here: The NYTimes doesn’t go out of its way to explain how it arrived at these figures. A few online acquaintances squawked at how the figures are skewed to favor the right wing, but these acquaintances are fairly left-leaning, so take that with a grain of salt. No doubt the right wing would find excuses to insist the figures inaccurately favor the left. Given the state of the right-wing noise machine and its unapologetic invention of “facts,” I wouldn’t trust such evaluations farther than I’d trust the Times…)

2010 11 17 mdlake Politics Comments (0) Permalink