Only 37% of all people have a freezer; really?

Is that possible? According to this chart that I borrowed at the every fascinating Bleeding Heart Libertarians, it is:


That just jumped out at me as an odd stat.

The point of the post was that if you look at how the poor have fared since 1984, things aren't really so bad. Almost none of the poor had computers, cell phones, microwaves or clothes dryers and less than half had air conditioning. Not all of those are life changing. But computers almost certainly are. Computers - hand in hand with the internet - open a vast world of education and knowledge to the poor that they would have almost certainly been locked out of in the past.

Microwaves, clothes dryers, and cell phones, while not life changing in the same way, certainly are time savers, allowing the poor to work longer hours, or to have more leisure time while working the same hours. Air conditioning, although largely taken for granted, is a life-saving invention. And I'm not being dramatic. It literally saves lives.

The author of the post also notes that while many "experts" lament how wages have been largely stagnant over the last 20 or 30 years, that isn't the whole picture. As computers and cell phones and microwaves have become cheaper we now live better lives, even if we make the same money, than we did 30 years ago. Not only that, but thanks to microwaves, VCRs, the internet and things like dryers, we have more free time, and more entertainment options available to us.

So it's not really fair to simply lament that wages have largely remained the same over the last 30 or so years, because in the big picture, our lives are vastly easier than they were 30 years ago, and we have access to a much wider array of entertainment and educational options.

"The hardest job kids face..."

Fred Astair lived from May 10, 1899 to June 22, 1987. For the purposes of this post I'd like that 1987 to be a bit earlier (no offense Mr. Astair), but it will do.

At some point during his life, he said the following:

"The hardest job kids face today is learning good manners without seeing any."

It's important to realize that he died in 1987. So at the very latest, he must have been talking about "kids" in 1986 or 1987. Given this, the "kids" he was talking about would now be between 20 and 40 years old (roughly ages 0-20 in 1986). Again, this is assuming the latest possible date he could have made this comment.

Why is this important? Well, next time any one between those ages tries to tell you about the lack of "manners" kids have these days compared to their day, keep in mind that Fred Astair thought the same thing about them way back when they were kids. And any time some one over those ages tries to tell you how parents don't set good examples for their kids... well... guess who was "not setting" a good example for all those kids Astair is talking about.

Just another example of how things really aren't worse today than they were back then. The good old days weren't always good, and (today or tomorrow) ain't as bad as they seem.

SCOTUS (did not) Kill The Video Game Star

The SCOTUS gets it right. Video games, even violent ones, cannot be banned:

"This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. And California’s claim that "interactive" video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome, is unpersuasive."

It was an action no one would be fool-hardy enough to ever try to do with books. Becuase, well, books are old and fancy and respected and stuff. Old people remember when they used to read them, especially the paper kind. Way before anything fancy like "interactivity."

This ruling is the right one and I give hearty "boos" to Justices Thomas and Breyer for their dissent. There is no room, in my opinion, for dissent on this issue. It's cut and dried First Amendment stuff. "Congress shall make no law ..." No law. Not "sometimes might wanna make," or "could make" or "in special cases may make." No law. Period.

These types of cases provide plenty of potential for bad outcomes. A ruling against the video game industry pretty much forever relegates it as a second class citizen. At least until its so accepted as a medium that the point is moot and the court finally reverses path. Thankfully, that didn't happen here. Look, for instance, at TV, where swear words subject networks to fines, but not cable shows. All because networks are "free" to access. As if the First Amendment is phrased "Congress shall make no law limiting speech unless its readily available speech." Meanwhile, society picks away at the restriction bit by bit until its pointless, until "F" bombs are eventually allowed, so long as they don't reference the implied physical act.

But secondly, this is the type of ruling that, if it goes the other way, eventually ends up impacting all manner of things. If interactivity is the turning point, then "choose your own adventure" books eventually looped into the ruling. If not them - a childhood staple of mine, I realize they aren't tremendously popular now, then Dungeons and Dragons games. "The kids can create and commit violent acts against zombies, which in their imaginations look like people! Not to mention skeleton, which potentially WERE people, at one time!"

I'm not entirely against the idea of keeping kids from playing ultra violent video games. But I think the right way to go about it is to have parents police the games, and to a larger (and more important) extent to explain to kids that this is what you do in games, not in real life.

I won't be against my kids knowing or using curse words. I don't find it that corrupting. Most everyone I know is aware of curse words, and I can't find a correlation between the knowledge of them - or even their use - and the idiots I know. So I won't care if my kids use the words - so long as they use them in the right instances. You don't use them to your parents, or your grandparents, or in social settings, or especially in formal settings. But if you hit your thumb with a hammer, you have carte blanche just that one time to let one rip. I hope that level of permissiveness takes away the "shock" value of the word.

Help me, please!

So, after finishing Feed and posting a little about it, I read an article about how Oprah's television spot could be filled, but the real question was who would fill her spiritual leader role.

The article noted some reality chick - Bethany - with whom I'm passingly familiar. It noted that she has a self-help book that counsels that "big changes come from small choices." It's a mantra that I love. To often the really big problems in our lives seem overwhelming, but could be changed by some small change, if we'd only see the chain linking the two. This is especially true before all the consequences of a choice have played out. Does this make sense? So, choice A, while seemingly insignificant, ends up being a very bad outcome B.

A simple thing like complaining about your spouse to a coworker about a "male" behavior, while it seems small, dominoes. Since the conduct is "male," its not changeable, so you don't try. You end up complaining to others instead of working on it with the spouse. This builds resentment both ways, as the complainer hates more and more conduct and the complainee feels henpecked. This results in more unchangeable conduct. Soon, a marriage lays irretrievably damaged and both hate each other.

Anyway, this got me thinking: there are probably more self-help books than one could count. Most, or at least a large number, seem to offer good, if not always helpful, advice (or is it the other way around?). Yet people will tell you we are more dysfunctional, trend addicted, media led, status conscious sheep then ever.

So, are the books not working? Are the books working but only to slight affect, and if so, is that really "working"? Are we actually getting better (whatever that means)? Are we getting better, but not at a rate that compensates for the negatives in the society and culture around us?

Maybe the books are simply wrong about their advice, though I'm disinclined to believe this. I think it probably goes deeper than that.

Maybe I'll try to come up with an answer in a future post.

Almost had me fed

I finished Feed last night.

It's premise is kind of an antithesis to my whole "today is better than yesterday, tomorrow isn't as bad as it seems" philosophy. In fact, I think author MT Anderson was kind of poking fun at me, saying essentially that I was turning a blind eye to the problems. The book features a main characters and his friends who seem to think or believe that all is well in their world, but there are hints that things outside of that small world are not all that well and are actually falling apart.

It really had me thinking.

Then I read a short interview in the back of the book. Anderson talks about how the media doesn't encourage curiosity and is misleading all of us, but especially youth. Putting aside whether the media should do things like this, I think its a fairly ridiculous statement. First, there has always been alternative media. It wasn't mainstream, but then again, that is kind of the point. Had it been mainstream then, well, it would have been mainstream. Second, the internet, which is at the heart of most of the evils in the book, has only added to the plethora of choices as far as media goes. In the past, if you lived in a less populated area you had easy access to say one newspaper, and maybe mail order to others that you would really never find out about, plus magazines. In cities you probably had access to a handful of papers. Now you have access to literally thousands of "newspapers" and other sources of news and curiousities.

Curiousity, if it is indeed lacking, isn't caused by the lack of media or the media' lack of engagement in the process. I have ideas about what might be at the root of any such problem, to the extent that it exists, but that's for a different post, I suppose.

Toward the end of the interview Anderson says that he listened to really obscure music. He says kids listen to music to self-identify into groups and doing that isolated him. This all came in response to how kids who are aware they are being manipulated by the media can handle it.

Anderson said you should try to extend your knowledge into obscure and eccentric things, rather than trying to chase the new thing. But obscure isn't for everyone, and that is probably for the best. And frankly, if everyone went exploring obscure and eccentric, it would not be obscure or eccentric for long. Plus, I think just about everyone has some obscure and eccentric thing they like.

My FB post alone shows a person who loves 1980s rap. Another is a member of a jam band, yet another "friends" small local bands and my sister is into music that is probably accurately described as either obscure or eccentric. I love science shows, especially outer space based, but earth-based as well, and stuff about ancient civilizations.

Maybe I'm not the guy Anderson is talking about. However, I love Def Leppard and radio rock, I know its not the most deep music, but I like it for my own reasons. So what that its not obscure or eccentric. I don't always, or even often, want deep music. If every aspect of life is deep, it's tiresome. You need rest.

This is what always bothers me about these arguments. I often feel that they boil down to "this is what I like and so should you." The fact that you like something outside the mainstream doesn't denigrate the mainstream in any way, but I think those outside of it often think it does. That being outside that stream somehow makes them superior.

Stories like this

Ignore that this guy is getting his novel published. For these purposes, its nice, but not required.

First off, the story itself is nicely crafted. It's the type of writing and story that carries my interest even outside of the marriage and book publishing topics. I sometimes wish this is what I was writing. Or at the very least that I was writing like this.

But the point I really want to ram home is that this guy took four years to write his novel. Four years. I've long since forgotten how long I've been at mine. My guess would be 3 years. Four years is possible.

And his original drafts were, if he is to be believed, dreck as well. Of course, admitting your work was originally dreck is easier once you have published a book and have an agreement for a second. First off, its easier to take criticism when once you've succeeded. Secondly, its much more complimentary to you if you cleaned up this original mess you made into a sellable novel. "I worked slavishly to clean up this mess" is better than "the words pretty much fell onto the page as they are here."

This is all on my mind because The Oven and I were discussing my progress on my novel last night. Or lack thereof, anyway. And so I rededicated myself to editing.

I have a new novel fleshing itself out in my head that I'd like to eventually write. But I'm determined not to start it until the work in progress is finished. Finished finished.

The honest truth is I'd like to finish this damn thing and it be good. Almost to the exclusion of its publication.

Douchebaggery

Money Magazine runs a "write in and have your question answered" segment. They not only get experts, but regular joes and janes from the street to answer, as well. This month's question involves an adult man who is the executor of his parents' estate. The will apparently give each child $X free and clear. The question asker is worried because his brother is, in his opinion, bad with money, and he wonders whether its OK for him to parcel out the out the money slowly, you know, so his brother won't blow it all at once. What do you think is appropriate?

The answers varied widely. The worst, however, were the people who answered that yes, the executor should only give his brother money in drips and drabs. Honestly? So, the people who "owned" the money - the parents - legally give it to their son, and instead of doing what they legally established, people think its OK to meddle in those affairs because of some impression that the brother isn't good with money? This a true test of douchebaggery, if you ask me.

Some picked the correct answer: it is the parents' money, the executor is merely there to make sure the parents' wishes are fulfilled, and the money should be conveyed as they wished. Had the parents wanted it distributed in drips and drabs they could have seen to that. Also OK as an answer: offering to help the brother manage such a windfall.

The worst part of it is that the only evidence of the monetary immaturity of the brother is the writer's impression. Who knows what he takes as being irresonsible with money. Maybe his brother buys expensive cars, or antique guns that the writer thinks are a waste. To suggest that an executor should go against the wishes of an estate simply because of his interpretation of his brother's conduct is truly a sad statement about the internal workings of the individual.

That got followed up by this letter writer to a slate.com advice columnist:

I ride on public transportation to and from work everyday. My problem is that I have a very sensitive nose, and I am easily overwhelmed by smells. I am frequently in the uncomfortable position of sitting next to someone who is either wearing far too much cologne or who reeks of cigarettes and beer. I find it very difficult to breathe and end up unsubtly coughing as I inhale these noxious fumes. My commute is a little less than an hour, so I sit next to these people for quite a while. What is the protocol for asking someone to switch his or her seat? If I'm already sitting and there are other seats available, can I ask the olfactory offender to move? Or is it my obligation to move because I'm the one who can't stand the smell? How do I even approach the topic with fellow commuters?