Four Random Things

A Friday Hodgepodge

This will be my last post for 2024 due to my yearly blogging break. I plan to return on January 6, 2025.

I hope you have a merry Christmas, and a prosperous, happy new year.

***

1. Alison Green's Ask a Manager blog has been very entertaining this month, my favorite post being her top ten reader stories about the holidays at work.

My favorite of those is #7, "The Date," which ends:

The rest of the evening he played my boyfriend to all my coworkers. Charming, witty, everyone was so impressed with him. We lied our tails off about our marvelous fake relationship to everyone.

We walked out to the cars afterwards, I thanked him profusely, and then we never contacted each other again.

I waited until January and then told everyone at the office who asked, "How are things with Ryan?" that we broke up on New Year's Eve.

It was the most romcom movie experience of my life and even now sixteen years later I am shocked it went as smoothly as it did to bring a stranger to my company Christmas Party.

Said date was a Shopko salesman who'd helped her a couple of weeks earlier; she (19 at the time) called him so she could have a plus one at her company party.

2. At The Wall Street Journal is an essay about "The Closely Guarded Secrets of Manhattan Doormen" that sometimes reads like a detective story or a spy thriller:

Then there are the frenzied or farcical requests that no doorman could see coming. Consider the courageous finance bro who, hours after Hurricane Sandy sucker-punched the city in 2012, descended to his 19th Street lobby with two masks and snorkels.

"This guy was obsessed with saving his new custom Surefoot ski boots in the flooded basement storage cage," recounts my cousin, Jay Peterson, who was the president of the building board. "I said, you're nuts. You're not diving down there."

But with the prospect of fresh powder on his brain, the tenant powered ahead. "This guy hands the doorman a mask and snorkel and said with a straight face, 'Man, let's do this!'" And the craziest part? They did. Jay confirms that a monster tip followed.

There's more, in case you don't buy the contention that doormen must "think like engineers, architects, contractors, lawyers, gardeners, plumbers, firefighters, cops and parents."

This classic thread from a Seinfeld episode came to mind as soon as I saw the headline.

3. "The Worst Male Facial Hair, Ranked by a Woman" offers advice I no longer need, but enjoyed reading, anyway.

Here's what Gigi Engle said about my type of beard, which she ranks at 9 of 18. (Contrary to the title, lower numbers are better.)

The "business casual" of beards. This guy is inevitably the fourth-best-looking guy in his group of friends. He enjoys golf but is not particularly good at it, and mostly just likes the beer and the golf carts. His sense of humor is neither great nor terrible. He works in sales. Always sales.

Of course, there are exceptions. Like Idris Elba. But Idris Elba can make anything look cool. Even Dockers. We can't say the same of Kevin from sales. [link omitted]

Me? Sales? (He says, with a half-scoff, half chuckle.)

If I knew someone considering using this list as advice, I'd recommend also consulting with a trusted female friend.

Case in point: I began wearing a beard way back in grad school on the advice of a female friend who saw a picture of me after a beard-growing contest on a submarine deployment.

My wife wouldn't let me get rid of that beard now even if I wanted to.

4. At some point over the holidays, I plan to finish watching a video about "The History of Slipping on Banana Peels," which I believe got made by someone who wondered if that old slapstick cliche was something that ever actually happened.

Beware of banana peels. They are capable of inflicting great physical harm. Even worse, they might own you so badly that you'll need to make a 33-minute documentary about them several years later simply to purge yourself of the abject shame and humiliation.

The author relied on newspaper accounts and, if I recall correctly, went from thinking he'd need to scour the world's archives to needing to restrict himself to the United States.

The video occasionally lists the great harm such falls (or knowledge of them) led to over time by category, with things like loss of limb, fraud schemes, and death included.

Reminder to self: Share this with Mom, who once saw some poor guy in a suit slip on one "just like in the cartoons" when she was a little girl.

-- CAV

Fun? Or Pressure?

Only You Can Decide.

Advice columnist "Someone Else's Mom" -- I love that pen name. -- helps doubting sane people remember that it's okay not to go into debt or waste enormous amounts of time decorating just because the neighbors do.

Someone wrote in:

I did do a little more last year for Christmas, but I'm not willing to go for broke on a bunch of new lights and stuff when I have perfectly good decorations already. Eventually I will invest in LED lights, but I'm not looking to do that at a time when everything is so inflated and with two kids in college and work that needs to be done around the house, especially since I like how our place looks with its old incandescent strings of lights.

My wife told me to stop nickel-and-diming and to get onboard with the spirit of the holidays. She says I'm being cheap, but seriously, Thanksgiving decorations? Doesn't it make more sense to put the money into what we need rather than to compete for a yard sign saying we are the best decorated house on the block? [bold added]

Talk about a low ratio of return to cost! And we haven't even factored in the value of the time that would eat up no matter what.

There is nothing wrong with going all out on seasonal decorations or even entering a contest, if that's something you enjoy or that really does seem like fun to you.

But if all you're doing is trying to impress your neighbors, it's time to check your premises.

The holidays are stressful enough already. The only thing I might have added to the short reply was something like, Use this as your chance to get comfortable telling neighbors things like, 'Thanks, but I'm sitting this one out. Have fun.'

-- CAV

Two Views of Chris Wright

Two contrasting articles on Department of Energy nominee Chris Wright show progress towards a rational discussion of energy policy vis-a-vis whatever the left is calling its package deal of the phenomenon of climate change with its policy response of energy rationing these days.

In the first, we see the typical legacy media hysteria, starting from its panicked headline,"Trump's Pick for Energy Secretary Thinks Climate Change Is Good, Actually."

As you might predict, this heresy is quickly downplayed with a dose of conventional blue state wisdom, followed by a quick Nicene creed (or is it a Gish gallop?) of assertions of impending doom that we're all supposed to take for granted -- or at least find too exhausting to contest:

And contrary to Wright's claim about temperature-related deaths, the Environmental Protection Agency reported this year that "dramatic increases in heat-related deaths are closely associated with the occurrence of hot temperatures and heat waves."

There are plenty more catastrophic scenarios that we know stem from climate change -- circumstances that literally kill people and destroy properties and environments. Indeed, these are big threats to all generations that currently live on earth and any that wish to do so in the future.

Reputable scientists around the world have concluded that over several decades, an average global temperature increase above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees F) could produce "irreversible" changes with "dangerous impacts for humanity." But Wright wants us all to see climate change through rose-colored glasses. [links omitted]

By contrast, consider the tone of a piece in the right-leaning Washington Examiner, titled "Chris Wright Right-Sizes Climate Risk." Within is an admittedly sympathetic look at his views that, while cursory, at least gives the reader a chance to know what they are and whether they have support before beginning to making up his own mind:

Activists target Wright for some of his specific claims, including that climate change makes the planet greener, boosts agricultural productivity, and reduces the number of temperature-related deaths. Unfortunately for the activists, Wright is right on all counts. None of those claims are plausibly controversial. That data are replete on all these points.

With more carbon dioxide (otherwise known as plant food) in the atmosphere, it is easier for plants to grow, and the Earth is getting greener as a result. These new plants do not consume enough carbon in the atmosphere to reverse or stop climate change, but Wright did not say that, only that they have a beneficial and mitigating effect.

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and warmer temperatures in many regions mean farmers in many parts of the world produce more food in longer growing seasons. Warmer temperatures change what crops are most profitable for farmers in some areas, but that is not a crisis that demands a halt to economic growth.

Two things immediately leap out at me:

First, the positive. I thank energy expert Alex Epstein (foremost among others, like Mike Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg) for his tireless work in reframing and improving the debate about fossil fuels. If I recall correctly, he was the first or among the first to remind us that carbon dioxide is plant food en route to making this discussion a weighing of all evidence, pro and con regarding fossil fuels, rather than scare-mongering based on myopic, context-free alarm about carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

Second, the negative: While I am grateful that Donald Trump is listening to rational voices on energy, I am disappointed and alarmed about his promotion of such dishonest catastrophist ignoramuses in other fields as RFK, Jr., whose ideas on vaccines and food safety would severely set back public health and agriculture if put into practice.

The bad policies of an RFK, Jr. could badly offset any improvements to our well-being those of a Chris Wright could bring. Worse, the public could being to associate the nutty conspiracy mongering of the former with the sound reasoning of the latter, scuppering an improved energy policy on top of damaging other sectors of the economy.

Good on Trump for nominating Chris Wright, but he may have already kneecapped him more effectively than the left ever could have on its own.

-- CAV

'Logrolling' the Nonprofits

"Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes. -- "Ellsworth Toohey" in The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand

***

Over at the Foundation for Economic Freedom is an article about an innocuous-sounding proposal called "Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act."

Said proposal unfortunately happens to exemplify a corrupt legislative practice called logrolling, and it's being used to create a situation practically guaranteed to result in a form of soft censorship.

(I will note, but otherwise overlook the unfortunate use of the blurry, conventional meaning of the word selfish in this otherwise informative piece.)

What is logrolling, and, more important, what does it accomplish?

The answer comes quickly when Peter Jacobsen comments on the text of HR 9495:

Image by Texture39, via Wikimedia Commons, license.

Interesting what a pivot we take in the last sentence there. The first part of the bill seems like a great idea. It's shocking that our system doesn't already have a mechanism for waiving late tax payments for people held hostage by terrorists.

But then, we tack on one more thing -- no more tax-exempt status of terrorist-supporting organizations. This part of the bill has earned it a nickname: the "nonprofit killer."

This seems like two totally different things attached by a staple. This is likely intentional and is a classic strategy in modern American politics. By lumping these two things together, representatives can use the hostage income tax abatement part of the bill to explain why they voted for it.

One way to think about this is that supporters of the second part of the bill are getting politicians who are on the bubble to vote for the bill by giving them something they like in return (the hostage tax abatement). Economists call this logrolling. [link omitted]

As Jacobsen elaborates further, this measure would make the tax system more easily abused to punish nonprofits the powers-that-be dislike.

Are there not enough legislators to pass the tax relief part of this on its own? Are there not already laws against aiding and abetting our military enemies? Is de facto censorship of nonprofits popular enough with our representatives that they figure they need just a few more votes from the gullible or the easily-bribed to pass this?

We face these questions today because so few dare challenge the propriety of taxation overall or even in particular all the stupid complexity of the tax code. That complexity enables everyone to pretend that getting less of their own money stolen every year is some kind of sweetheart deal. In fact, it really provides numerous opportunities to ensure that almost any productive individual is, legally, a criminal if you look hard enough.

Economists also say, Controls breed controls, but the phenomenon bleeds over into areas most don't think of as economics. We see this here in spades, and it is the consequence of too many people taking freedom for granted or lacking the moral conviction to speak up for it consistently.

In failing to speak up for tax freedom yesterday, we stumble today a little bit closer to a time when we won't be able to speak up for anything at all.

-- CAV

Antiabortionists Attack Telemedicine

The state of Texas has sued a doctor in New York for prescribing the drugs required for a medical abortion.

The lawsuit accuses New York Dr. Maggie Carpenter of violating Texas law by providing the drugs to a Texas patient and seeks up to $250,000. No criminal charges are involved.

Texas bars abortion at all stages of pregnancy and has been one of the most aggressive states at pushing back against abortion rights. It began enforcing a state law in 2021 -- even before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans -- that barred nearly all abortions by allowing citizens to sue anyone who provides an abortion or assists someone in obtaining one. [links omitted]

New York is among the states that have anticipated this problem by passing shield laws to protect doctors from such lawsuits, and the case is expected to lead to a legal test of same.

Cropped from image by unknown photographer, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

The New York shield law includes a provision that allows a prescriber who is sued to countersue the plaintiff to recover damages.

That makes the Texas lawsuit thorny.

Even if Paxton prevails in Texas court, Ziegler said, it's unclear how that could be enforced. "Is he going to go to New York to enforce it?" she asked.

Still, anti-abortion groups cheered the filing and abortion rights supporters derided it.

On top of the fact that abortion is a right, it is remarkably short-sighted on the part of antiabortionists to support such laws, given that California soon aped the Texas law in the name of gun control.

These laws aim to use the threat of lawsuits to infringe upon the liberty of people doing things that are perfectly legal within their own jurisdictions, and should be found unconstitutional, or neutered in some other way.

I am not an attorney, but I hope that this legal mess ends up eliminating this misuse of the law from the toolboxes of those who would weaponize meddlers for their own anti-liberty ends.

-- CAV

Four Wins From the Past Year

A Friday Hodgepodge

Per blog tradition, his alias shall henceforth be Seymour. (Image by the author. Copying permitted.)

1. It's great having cats again.

I mentioned on Labor Day that we welcomed a kitten into our home. We've wanted pets for over a year, but waited until things were more settled after our move to Louisiana.

But you said 'pets,' plural, Gus...

Yes, I did.

We'd ordered two kittens from the breeder, but we ended up having to wait on another litter for our second cat.

He finally arrived a couple of weeks ago. There he is in the picture.

Since we're traveling during the holiday period and the cats are so different in size, we're probably letting a sitter watch Lucinda (who can get wild quickly when she's playing) and taking Seymour along with us.

2. Good bye, bald spot!

I've been thinning for a long time, but about a year ago, was shocked at the bald spot I was developing near my crown.

That got me off the fence I'd been sitting on and prompted me to experiment with minoxidil, which I was surprised to learn is available over the counter, at least for the topical variety.

A big drawback to minoxidil is that it is toxic to cats, even in small amounts.

I use a disposable glove to apply it in the morning and evening, and, while we were waiting for the cats, I established the habit of wearing a night cap any time I sleep or rest. (Good thing I did, too!)

This treatment is a marathon, not a sprint, so I had my barber take a shot of my crown over the first four months of treatment. At the time, I wasn't sure it was doing any good, but the difference between the first day and the 100th day was quite impressive.

3. Our new neighborhood is great for walking.

Back in our Florida days, I found a good way to incorporate daily walks back into my routine despite the heat and blaring sunlight. (I've elaborated on this strategy since then, and, for example, sometimes walk at dawn to simplify the rest of the day.)

That was in a new development, and while I liked the several nature trails I could use, I missed the urban settings of places I'd lived before, like Boston (where I rarely even needed a car) or St. Louis, where we lived close to a nice commercial district.

I missed being able to change my route easily, or incorporate errands into my walks.

Where we are now combines the best of Florida and Boston. Practically living in a swamp makes separate nature areas unnecessary, so I get to see plenty of birds and reptiles during the warm part of the year. And, while it's not as walkable as Boston, here are a few things I've been able to incorporate into walks: getting vaccinated, going to the barber, picking up groceries, working on my laptop at a coffee shop, and eating out.

4. I've taken my Arsenal fandom up a notch.

I've gone to games at pubs with local Arsenal supporters' groups ever since our Boston days, but watching the beginning of the Arteta Revolution up close on Amazon caused me to realize that I have a once-in a lifetime chance to possibly witness the rise of a sporting dynasty.

So I attend matches at the pub more frequently and have found a great podcast to follow. The Arsenal Opinion Podcast generally runs before and immediately after games, which is a good way to enjoy the forty-five minute drive I have to make to see the games this way. I've also enjoyed becoming familiar with some of the other fans, as a result of attending frequently.

-- CAV

Revisiting a Good Soccer Book

During the height of the pandemic, I was in Florida and getting ready to be the assistant coach of my son's soccer team. I'd played before, but never coached, and they needed a volunteer who knew something about the game.

Naturally, days after I volunteered, I learned I'd essentially be the coach for the first two months of the season since the head coach would be on a military deployment.

Wanting to prepare myself, one of the things I did was to read Travis Norsen's excellent Play With Your Brain: A Guide to Smarter Soccer for Players, Coaches, and Parents, having heard about it fairly recently. I found it very helpful, although it was geared towards kids older than my son, who was seven at the time.

That said, I was still glad when the other guy arrived: You need to be bigger and, more important, a lot louder than I am to get and keep the attention of kids that age.

I was able to retire from coaching after that season and we let my son, who wasn't that interested in playing, do other things after another year.

Since our move to Louisiana, though, he's become interested in playing soccer (and now seems to have a good eye for the goal), thanks to playing it at recess a lot at school, and he'll be on a team again this spring.

I'm not volunteering myself as a possible coach this time, but I will read the book again so I can give him decent advice, if he wants it or a good opportunity arises to volunteer some advice. (The ideal long shot would be to get him to go through the book with me, but we'll see how this unfolds.)

And, of course, if his interest is as great as it seems this time and he does end up needing a coach, I want to be ready to do that, too in the future.

--CAV

P.S. This post was prompted in part by an interview with the author that I encountered.

The following was particularly interesting, given that the circumstances around the pandemic kept him from seeing how well he could implement his approach:

The other thing your question made me think of was the fact that some of the kids that I've seen improve the most, from reading the book, have been of this somewhat shy, less flamboyant, personality category. I mean the sort of kids who are described by the slogan "still waters run deep" -- kids who are super-smart but quiet and perhaps not the fastest or most aggressive on the field. For kids like that, the book seems to have been incredibly valuable. They just needed somebody to explain clearly what they should be trying to do, and why, and they're immediately able to start contributing positively instead of disappearing into the background. And needless to say, this can really help the team in addition to being great for these individual kids. I mean, what coach wouldn't want to convert a quiet background role-player into a little mini Sergio Busquets?

Two thoughts come to my mind: (1) I wish there had been a book like this when I was a kid, and (2) I don't know if future Sergio Busquets in the cards for my boy, but I can dream.

-- CAV