It’s okay to make fun of fat people, but only if they are really, really fat.

Sarah Palin stated that although she is against bullying, it's understandable people comment on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's weight because it's "been extreme."

Apparently there a designated threshold on mocking people who are overweight, and Chris Christie exceeds it.

I’m not sure what that threshold is, but thankfully Sarah Palin does. Maybe she’ll share that magic number with us sometime soon.

Palin has a new book out entitled Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas.

image

It’s not often that I advise people to not buy a book, but based upon her comments about Christie’s weight, she may not be qualified (as has been the case with most things that Sarah Palin does) to comment on the spirit of Christmas and the notion of good tidings.

It’s okay to make fun of fat people, but only if they are really, really fat.

Sarah Palin stated that although she is against bullying, it's understandable people comment on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's weight because it's "been extreme."

Apparently there a designated threshold on mocking people who are overweight, and Chris Christie exceeds it.

I’m not sure what that threshold is, but thankfully Sarah Palin does. 

Palin has a new book out entitled Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas.

image

It’s not often that I advise people to not buy a book, but based upon her comments about Christie’s weight, she may not be qualified (as has been the case with most things that Sarah Palin does) to comment on the spirit of Christmas and the notion of good tidings.

Crying at work

The Telegraph asks: Is it ever OK to cry at work?

Sheryl Sandberg says yes. Nigella Lawson says no.

I agree with Nigella. I have no idea who she is, but I agree with her anyway.

Other than tears of sadness upon saying goodbye to graduating students or retiring colleagues, I have cried at work exactly once in my life. It happened while managing the opening shift at a McDonald’s restaurant in Hartford, Connecticut about 18 years ago.

At the time, I was attending Trinity College and St. Joseph's University more than fulltime while working more than fulltime at McDonald’s and part-time in Trinity’s Writing Center in order to make ends meet.

A busy time in my life to say the least.

And it was exam week.

When I arrived at work at 4:30 in the morning for my opening shift, I hadn’t slept in more than 48 hours because of the mountains of end-of-semester work that I was attempting to complete. While handing food out the drive-thru window, I started to cry. I wasn’t feeling sad or even overwhelmed. I was simply exhausted. One of my employees turned to me and said, “What’s the matter?”

Between sobs, I said, “Nothing. I’m just really tired.”

My tears were a physical reaction to a lack of sleep.

image

Other than that moment, I have not cried in the more than 25 years in the workforce. The reason I have not cried is simple:

I have yet to face a workplace situation that might cause me to cry. Regardless of the pressure, conflict or stress of a situation, work has never been so overwhelming to bring me to tears.

Unfairly so, perhaps, I tend to see people who cry at work as lacking perspective or significant life experience. Between their sobs, I find myself wanting to remind them that their job does not constitute a life or death situation and that there are far worse things in the world than a tough day on the job. We didn’t just lose a patient in open heart surgery. We didn’t just cause two planes to crash in midair. We didn’t cost 10,000 people their jobs because of a stupid financial decision.

Perhaps if I were in one of these positions, I would cry more often.

I’m not.

As a teacher, I have an enormous responsibility to the children who are in m classroom and the families who depend upon me to educate their kids. But a poorly delivered lesson, a less than glowing evaluation from an administrator or a meeting with a disgruntled parent will not make or break my school year, and it will not permanently damage the future of my students.

On most jobs, no single moment  on the job will cause irreparable damage to anyone. 

The same goes for every job that I have ever had. In fact, the highest pressure job that I’ve ever held is probably wedding DJ, where a faulty piece of equipment or the accidental press of a button can ruin a moment that a bride has been dreaming about for years.

As a wedding DJ, I have five or six hour to ensure perfection, and if I don’t, a day that has been planned for months or years can be ruined.

Still, I’ve never cried, perhaps because I’ve never ruined someone’s wedding day, but even if I did, tears would not help me in that situation. I would be too busy repairing, recovering and attempting to salvage the day as best as I could to spend a moment consumed with my own emotions.

I realize that it’s almost always wrong to base my opinion of this or any other subject on my own personal reaction. The way that I handle a situation is not automatically the correct way to handle a situation. It’s at the very least stupid and self-centered to think, “I don’t cry at work, and therefore it’s wrong and no one else should, either.”

But I’m stupid and self-centered, so I’m saying it anyway.

Save your tears for home. No one wants to see you sobbing at the workplace. It’s awkward. It makes people uncomfortable. Unless something legitimately terrible has actually happened (and it almost certainly hasn’t), crying only serves to undermine your credibility and demonstrate your lack of perspective.

Save your tears for something that really matters.

And if you must cry, take a walk or go to the restroom.

Seriously. No one wants to see it.

When was the last time you were bored?

Slate’s Gemma Malley makes the argument that extending a human beings lifespan would result in inexorable boredom.

Do we really want to extend the human lifespan indefinitely? Would it really make us happy?

To which I believe the answer is no, and no.

What we forget when we focus on extending our lifespan as long as possible is that things make us happy because they are rare, finite, and therefore valuable and precious. Diamonds. Newborns. Laughter. Great first dates. Great third dates. Sunshine. (I live in London. Trust me, sunshine is very rare and very finite.) Make these things available to everyone all the time, and they would lose their glow, become mundane.

Two thoughts:

1. Nonsense. This may be true for some, who seem perpetually bored even in their twenties, but certainly not for all.

image

2. Other than the times when I am forced to sit through a meeting, I can’t remember the last time that I was bored. I gave a talk to a Happiness Club last week, and the central theme of my talk was to say yes to everything that life has to offer, regardless of how busy you already are. 

“Be so busy that you wish you had more time for television.”

This is what I have done with my life. It occurs to me that my wife and I have not watched a single minute of television since last Thursday night.

More than a week ago.  

Don’t get me wrong. We want to watch TV. We enjoy watching TV. There are even shows on the DVR that we would like to see. We just don’t have the time to sit down on the couch for an hour.

Boredom has become an impossible-to-imagine concept in my life, and I’m willing to bet on my continued ability to fill my life to the brim regardless of how long I live.

So I’m willing to risk the inherent perils of eternal life. Bring it on.

Ending the engagement is sometimes the only correct choice

A question recently asked of Slate’s Dear Prudence:

Q. Always Take the Wife's Side?: I'm about to get married and am caught in an argument between my fiancée and my parents. This will be the first time in over five years that our whole family will be together. My parents want to take a picture of just them, me, and my siblings, and a family photo obviously means a lot to them. My fiancée heard this and became immediately offended. She says it's rude to exclude her on the day she "joins the family" and any family photo should therefore include her in it. We're not talking about taking an hour for a separate family photo shoot; my parents simply want one photograph of themselves and their children. I don't understand why my fiancée is so annoyed and now she's even more angry because I'm not supporting "her side." Should I back up my fiancée on principle, even if I disagree with her?

Prudence describes this as “one of those silly little fights every couple has” and suggests that the groom calmly discuss the issue with his future wife and help her to understand that this is but a single moment in the grand scheme of the wedding and important to his parents.

I hate this advice.

First off, he’s already done this. He’s said as much in his question. And “talk to her” is not exactly what I would call advice in almost any circumstance.  

More importantly, I don’t see this as “one of those silly little fights every couple has.”

No reasonable, unselfish, decent human being would ever be offended by the idea of this photograph taking place. As a wedding DJ for seventeen years, I can assure you that these kinds of photos happen all the time.

image

As unrealistic as this advice may seem, I would advise the man to strongly consider calling off the wedding altogether. If he were my friend, the last thing I would want to see is him marry a person as despicable as this, and as his friend, I would say as much.

I’ve said as much to friends in the past, and though these words are often received poorly, I am also often in the position to say “I told you so” later on (as was the case just recently).

I actually think that breaking off the engagement is the only choice here. Try to imagine the level of selfishness, self-centeredness and narcissism required to reject a request as simple and innocent as this from your future in-laws.

It’s astounding. Don’t you think?

Some might attribute the bride’s actions as the result of the stress involved with planning a wedding, but in my experience, if you act like a jerk during the planning and execution of your wedding, it’s likely that you will act a jerk in the future when life becomes complex, challenging and stressful.

Planning your wedding is not an excuse to act like an animal.

A bridezilla often becomes a wifezilla after the wedding.

If you’re critical of the National Football League, I understand completely. If you’re smug while doing so, you deserve to be kicked through a goal post.

Journalist Fuzz Hogan has decided to stop watching football this season. He cites head injuries, the the use of performance enhancing drugs and the way in which the NFL contributes to corruption in college football as his reasons for forgoing the game.

image

I have no problem with someone deciding that football is too violent to continue watching. The data on head injuries alone makes the danger clear, and if a football fan decides to stop supporting that violence, I understand completely.

I also have no problem with anyone who decides to stop watching football because of the use of performance enhancing drugs. When the integrity of the game is questioned, then its appeal is understandably diminished.

I’m not sure if the corruption in college football would end if the NFL did not exist as Hogan suggests, but I have no problem with this reason, either. If this is what Hogan believes, his decision to stop watching professional football is admirable.

While I don’t plan to stop watching the National Football League anytime soon, I am more than willing to acknowledge that my continued interest contributes to a variety of serious health problems for the players, and that a boycott of the game would be a noble thing to do.

I just love the game too much to stop.

My dispute with Hogan is based solely in the astounding level of smugness that he exhibits when describing his football free Sundays.

He writes:  

News flash: Watching football is a time-suck. Studies have shown there’s 11 minutes of action in a game that takes three hours. So even though I’ve tried to convince myself that I can be productive during the game—checking e-mails, folding laundry, even working out—that’s still a lot of wasted time trying to not waste time.

This is not a news flash. Football fans have known this forever. Many sports, including baseball and golf, are no different. But the game’s appeal does not lie in the eleven minutes of real time play alone. It’s the moments of critical decision making, the euphoric celebrations, the instant replay, the analysis of each play, the gamesmanship, the strategy and the conversation and camaraderie that fans enjoy between the plays. While Hogan is correct about the eleven minutes of play, his use of the phrase “New flash” and the underlying implication that he is dispensing new information on football fans make him sound like a smug jackass.  

Hogan then goes on to describe his football-free Sunday: 

So instead, on the NFL’s opening Sunday afternoon I cooked dinner—a real dinner, with different dishes and a complicated recipe. I helped the kids with homework, with the attention span to actually help. I found out how the other third lives … the third that doesn’t watch the NFL. It was enjoyable.

What a smug jackass. A real dinner? My wife made grilled cheese sandwiches with apples and bacon last night. We actually picked the apples last week just prior to the Patriots-Saints game. It is one of my favorite dinners, and the whole family loved it. It took her about 15 minutes to make.

Was this not a real enough dinner for you, Mr. Hogan?

Was the lack of complicated recipes disappointing to you?

And what if we decide to order pizza for dinner on Sunday while I watch the Patriots play the Jets? Should I feel like a bad parent or an ineffective human being? 

Is that how you will think of me?

Knowing that you are making a real dinner, from a complicated recipe, while we eat pizza from a box, should I assume that the way that you are spending your time is better than mine?

And what if I choose to help my children with homework after the game? Is this not also acceptable? Is there some premium placed on homework completion during an NFL game?

Hogan then says that his football-free Sundays have allowed him to discover how the people who don’t watch the NFL live.

Has he been watching the NFL while stuffed inside a cardboard box? Did he retire to the basement and lock the door in order to watch the game? Does some moratorium exist that prevented him from asking his friends and family what they were doing while he was watching the game?    

What a stupid, ridiculous, self-serving, smug thing to say. 

I have no problem with the criticism that the National Football League receives. I have no problem with the decision to boycott the game or stop watching forever. I even have no problem with criticism directed at me for supporting this violent game.

But smugness? That’s the worse.

Rules on how to be a man, which should not include anything related to physical appearance or handcrafted firearms.

A list of more than 75 ways to be a man in today’s world recently gained some traction on social media last week (as lists are wont to do), and I found it to be simultaneously excellent and exceptionally disappointing.

There are some real gems on the list that I adore, but unfortunately, the list is also populated by rules enforcing image conformity and complete nonsense like these:

  • Buy expensive sunglasses. Superficial? Yes, but so are the women judging you. And it tells these women you appreciate nice things and are responsible enough not to lose them.
  • Your clothes do not match. They go together.
  • It’s better if old men cut your hair. Ask for Sammy at the Mandarin Oriental Barbershop in Hong Kong. He can share his experiences of the Japanese occupation, or just give you a copy of Playboy.
  • Own a handcrafted shotgun. It’s a beautiful thing.

Still, there are some items of brilliance on this list. Here are the ones I like the best:

  • You don’t have to like baseball, but you should understand the concept of what a pitcher’s ERA means. Approach life similarly.
  • Stop talking about where you went to college.
  • You will regret your tattoos.
  • When in doubt, always kiss the girl.
  • There’s always another level. Just be content knowing that you are still better off than most who have ever lived.
  • You may only request one song from the DJ.
  • Measure yourself only against your previous self.
  • Place-dropping is worse than-name dropping.
  • Revenge can be a good way of getting over anger.
  • No-one cares if you are offended, so stop it.
  • Read more. It allows you to borrow someone else’s brain, and will make you more interesting at a dinner party – provided that you don’t initiate conversation with, “So, who are you reading…”

The Today Show has cornered the market on young, white, blond, female kidnapping victims. You should stop watching.

The Today Show did a segment yesterday entitled Hannah’s Story.

As soon as I heard the promo for the segment at the opening of the show, I knew that the kidnapping victim would be young, white and probably blond.

Not surprising, I was right.

image

My wife heard me shout at the television in protest, and she argued that this was a national news story worthy of coverage. Even though I had yet to hear about Hannah and her presumably tragic kidnapping through my usual news sources, I believed her.

I’m sure that the mainstream media outlets covered this story closely, and perhaps justifiably so. I’m sure that The Today Show garnered millions of viewers for the segment.  

But I also don’t care. I refused to listen to a single word of Hannah’s Story.

This may come as a surprise to you, especially if you get your news primarily through sources like The Today Show and network news in general, but people are kidnapped in America every day, and some of them are not young.

Some of them are not female.

Some of them are not white.

Some of them are not blond.

Even though you can probably name half a dozen young, white, probably blond girls who have been kidnapped and murdered over the last decade,  there are African-American, Latino and Asian girls kidnapped and murdered all the time. Boys, too. And older people. Unattractive people, even. It happens every day. And in even greater numbers than young, white, blond girls.

But can you name even one?

Can you name a single African-American kidnapping victim from any point in American history?

For every Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, Taylor Behl, Elizabeth Smart or Jaycee Dugard (names that even I know despite my purposeful refusal to pay attention to these stories), can you name even one non-white kidnapping victim?

Or one male kidnapping victim?

Or a kidnapping victim over the age of 30?

I don’t know how other mainstream news sources cover kidnappings, but The Today Show has been specializing in young, white, oftentimes blond kidnapping victims for years, and they suck.

It’s a disgrace. I refuse to watch. You should, too.

If Bobby Riggs intentionally lost to Billie Jean King in The Battle of the Sexes, it matters. The truth always matters.

ESPN recently ran a feature story about the allegation that Bobby Riggs intentionally lost the famous 1973 Battle of the Sexes match against Billie Jean.

I’ve read the piece and then listened to the writer discuss it on a podcast.

Am I convinced that it’s true?

No. But I think there’s a possibility that it’s true.

image

Amanda Marcotte of Slate responded to the piece with one of her own entitled Did Bobby Riggs Throw His Match Against Billie Jean King? It Doesn’t Matter.

I can’t imagine a more ridiculous title or a worse premise.

Of course it matters. The truth always matters. Even when the truth may damage your cause or harm your narrative, it should always be sought.

In this case, however, the discovery that Riggs threw the match would not change the course or the perception of feminism in any way. In fact, I would argue that Marcotte’s piece does far more damage to feminism than the revelation that Bobby Riggs may have intentionally lost to Billie Jean King. It lends credence and weight to something that is no longer relevant. It implies that the feminist narrative is still dependent on King’s defeat of Riggs, even while she claims that the truth about the match “doesn’t matter.”  

Marcotte’s initial argument is that even if it were true that Riggs threw the match, it wouldn’t matter. Just because male athletes can jump higher and run faster than female athletes doesn’t mean that women should be paid less for the same work that men do or be any less entitled to affordable daycare.

Of course this is true. We all know this to be true. Even the most ardent, angry sexist would be hard pressed to argue that women should be paid less than men because they can’t jump as high. At no time in the history of the universe has this claim been made by even the most idiotic sexist. 

You don’t earn points for stating the obvious.

But it’s Marcotte’s ridiculous knee-jerk reaction to these allegations about an event that took place 40 years ago that risks lending credibility to something that should have absolutely to bearing on feminism at all. 

Is the feminist narrative really so dependent upon a 55 year-old retired professional tennis player losing a match to a 30 year-old female professional at the top of her game?

I hope not.

And has it been forgotten that this same 55 year-old retiree had already defeated 28 year-old Margaret Court, the #1 ranked women’s tennis player in the world at the time, just four months earlier?

In truth, The Battle of the Sexes was was hardly a feminist victory. At best it was a tie, and if you factor in age, it’s hard to argue that Riggs’ loss was a boost for feminism at all.  

Marcotte goes on to predict that after reading this ESPN story:

Every single embittered, sexist man in the country—every Fox viewer, every Limbaugh fan, every visitor to Ask Men—is going to eagerly forward this story to every guy he knows, chortling triumphantly that this finally proves that women are in fact the weaker sex.

Does she really believe that there are hordes of embittered, sexist men in this country still stinging over a tennis match that was played more than forty years ago?

Even if there were men still looking for vindication as Marcotte seems to believe, don’t you think they would’ve already found solace in the age disparity between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs? Riggs was more than a quarter-century older than his female opponents, and he defeated one of them (and according to the tennis rankings at the time, the better one) easily.

Marcotte is crazy if she thinks this potential revelation would even be a blip on the sexist radar.  

I realize that Marcotte’s intention was to say that this tennis match has no bearing on feminism today, and she is right. It doesn’t.

But to assume that sexist men are still angry about this match is ridiculous.

To state that the truth behind the Battle of the Sexes doesn’t matter is equally silly. 

Apparently a lack of intelligence and decency will not prevent you from getting into college

LSU frat Delta Kappa Epsilon hung a banner for Saturday's LSU-Kent State game that said, "Getting massacred is nothing new to Kent State," referencing the 1970 Kent State shootings.

image

If the majority of the fraternity was aware of this banner (and it’s hard to imagine that they were not given its placement, the LSU chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon should be immediately disbanded and be forced to vacate their house.

It just goes to show you that even with the rigorous admissions standards of today’s colleges, idiots are still more than capable of gaining admission to college.

There is nothing wrong with wearing a hat at the table, regardless of what your grandmother taught you. Here’s why.

In response to yesterday’s post about the perfection of my wife and my annoyance with being asked to remove my hat in a restaurant, many readers argued that removing one’s hat at the table is polite and expected, and they sided with the restaurateur. That really wasn’t the point of the piece (it was more about my wife than table etiquette), but my rebuttal to their argument is as follows:

Every expert on manner, including Emily Post, says that hats should be removed at the dinner table. Post and others go on to say that hats should be removed whenever you are in someone’s home, at work, in public buildings such as libraries or town halls and in movie theaters.

Leaving the insanity of the movie theater and town hall behind, it turns out (and I know this is fairly obvious but is also seemingly forgotten) that none of these so-called etiquette experts are my boss. None of them have any authority over me or anyone else. None of them are credentialed in any way. Experts like Emily Post declare themselves experts (or take over the job from their mothers in some bizarre yet completely accepted form of etiquette nepotism), prescribe rules and customs to the masses, and watch as people who are inexplicably invested in these rules point to them (and their grandmothers) as sources of wisdom and authority.

I would like to offer an opposing hypothesis:

I believe that it’s far more polite (and perhaps more moral) to accept a person for who she or he is, appearance included, as long as that appearance does not infringe on the experience or safety of another.

My baseball cap did not infringe on the experience of my fellow diners in any way. It made no difference to anyone save a snobbish restaurateur.

I would argue that imposing your own arcane set of beliefs upon your guests for no useful purpose is far ruder than any man who chooses to wear a hat at the dinner table.

image

And this hat-at-the-dinner-table restriction is arcane. It originated in the late nineteenth century when cities were dirty from all of the industries that burned coal for power. Men wore hats to keep the coal-burning debris out of their hair and off of their faces. As a result, these hats became dirty. When men sat down at the table, they removed their hats because they did not want to spill any dirt or soot on the table or in the food.

At the time, removing one’s hat at the dinner table served a purpose and was considered polite because it was polite. Spilling soot onto the mashed potatoes would be considered rude by anyone’s measure.

But the soot that once filled the air is gone today. There is no danger of my baseball cap contaminating the food or the table cloth. The reason behind the rule is gone, yet the expectation remains.

Therefore, I reject the expectation. In my microscopic way, I am attempting to force change. I am bucking the system.

Changes in etiquette happen all the time.

There was a time, not so long ago, when men were expected to dress in suits when flying on an airplane. Air travel was considered glamorous, and as such, people dressed for the occasion. To see a man boarding an airplane in a tee shirt and jeans would’ve been unheard of fifty years ago, but today, it’s commonplace, and this change took place long before the increased screening procedures in airports.

We simply agreed that dressing up for travel was unnecessary and probably a waste of time. And it probably began with a few ne’re-do-wells like me who dared to violate the custom and dress down for their plane ride.

Was society harmed by the relaxing of the airline dress code? Of course not.

It was once required that the bride’s parents pay for the entire wedding. Today this expense is often shared by both sets of parents and the couple themselves.

Has society been damaged by the change in economic etiquette?

Of course not. Nor would we be harmed if men wore hats at the dinner table. Until the air is filled with soot again and there is a genuine need to remove a hat at the table in order to protect the sanctity of the potatoes, it is far ruder and incredibly arrogant to impose your arbitrary and meaningless standards of etiquette on your guests.

Better to allow your guests the freedom of self expression than the shackles of your pointless expectation.

The restaurant made me remove my hat, which angered me beyond measure. But it also reminded me of how perfect my wife is. Also, I have already plotted my revenge.

My daughter is a lot like me. She possesses a distinct and often divergent point of view, and she cares little for what others may think of it. When everyone is sitting, she stands. When everyone is singing, she is silent. She does things her own way, in her own time. Conformity is not her concern.

She owns a shirt with the image of a dog on the front, but she wears it backwards because she doesn’t “want to have to look at that dog all day."

Thankfully, she also possesses an uncommon level of sweetness that allows her to be compliant to authority figures when necessary.

I’m hoping that this will always be the case, but if my genes win out, it won’t.

Speaking from experience, it will be critical for my daughter to find the right spouse someday. Some people are harder to be married to than others. I’m not always the easiest, and I think my daughter will be the same way.

Case in point:

On Friday night Elysha and I went to dinner at Peppercorn’s Grill in Hartford before I was to take the stage at the Mark Twain House to tell a story.

As the hostess seated us, she leaned in close to me and whispered, “I’m going to have to ask you to remove your hat.”

I was dressed as I normally am for a storytelling event: jeans, a shirt, a good pair of shoes and a baseball cap. The lighting at many of these events is pointed almost directly into the storyteller’s eyes, so a cap with a brim helps to diffuse the glare and allows me see my audience better.

Needless to say, I was angered by the request. While it’s entirely within the restaurant’s rights to impose a dress code, I found the arbitrary nature of the request insulting and ridiculous.

I also become unreasonably annoyed and petulant when anyone tells me what to wear. It’s #10 on my list of shortcomings and flaws.

Did my hat somehow detract from the experience of my fellow diners?

Did it harm the reputation or image of the establishment?

Did it threaten profits?

Snobbery and pretention. That is why I was asked to remove my hat. Management had deemed hat-wearing patrons unworthy of their establishment’s fine reputation. I was being asked to conform to their snobbish standards.

I despise snobbery. I abhor pretention. But I hate conformity most of all. 

My first reaction was to turn around and leave, but we only had about an hour before the show, and we were using a Groupon. If we didn’t use it, we would lose it.

My second thought was to refuse to remove the hat and see what happened. Again, the limited amount of time I had to eat, coupled with the potential  loss of the Groupon, prevented me from taking this course of action, though I seriously considered it for a moment.

Elysha also loves this restaurant. We celebrated our anniversary at this restaurant back in July. The food is great. The parking is free. The wait staff is extraordinary. Even though she was almost as annoyed about the request as me, I wasn’t going to spoil her evening.

This represents significant growth, by the way. Ten years ago, I would’ve spoiled the evening. I’m a much better person today.

But I couldn’t let it go, either. I couldn’t allow this ridiculous request to remain unchallenged in some way. After we ordered dinner, I proposed a plan:

We would return to this restaurant in the near future. In lieu of a hat, I would wear my oldest, most ill-fitting concert tee-shirt from the 1980s. Motley Crüe, perhaps. Better yet, Skid Row.

image

Add to this a pair of ripped jeans and my rattiest pair of sneakers.

If the restaurant is so concerned about their image, they’ll have no choice but to turn me away. If a simple baseball cap is unacceptable, a man dressed in the ancient, torn, ill-fitting clothing of a heavy metal fan from 25 years ago can’t be deemed acceptable.

Right?

Or was it simply an aversion to hats that the restaurateur suffers, and if so, what if a woman wore a hat to dinner? Would she be asked to remove it as well? 

What if I had been an 80 year-old man wearing a fedora? Would I have received the same treatment?

What if I had wrapped a bandana around my head? Would I be asked to remove my bandana as well?

What if I had been one of the many film or television stars who make their home in Connecticut? Kevin Bacon? Paul Giamatti? Michael J. Fox? Paul Newman? Would I still have been asked to remove my hat?

Elysha and I spoke about all of this as we waited for our meal, but here’s the thing. The most important thing:

Elysha supports the plan. She agreed without hesitation. She would never do such a thing (even though she thinks their hat policy is rude and arbitrary as well), but she has no qualms about me being me. She’s willing to go along to see what happens. I think she may even be looking forward to it.

Perhaps a majority of spouses would feel the same way, but I don’t think so. I suspect that many would veto the plan entirely or at least attempt to talk their spouse out of it. Others might tell their spouse to execute the plan without them.

I don’t think there are many who would’ve instantly, happily agreed as Elysha did.

And it’s not because Elysha thinks this is a great idea. In a perfect world, I think she would prefer that I simply avoid wearing a hat whenever we dine at Peppercorn’s Grill, but she also knows that as silly as this may seem, it’s important to me.

Above all else, my wife wants me to be me, and she wants this without reservation, hesitation or uncertainty.

It is why I feel like the luckiest spouse on the face of the Earth. How rare it is to find someone who not only accepts but embraces you for being you.

This is what I hope my daughter can find someday, too. If my suspicions are correct, she, too, will not be the easiest person to marry. She will likely possess certain ideas and beliefs that run counter to the thoughts and actions of the majority. She will do things her own way, in her own time, regardless of what others may think. She will need to find someone who can accept and embrace this about her, as Elysha has done for me.

Not someone simply willing to accept the Skid Row tee-shirt, but someone willing to support it without reservation.  

I just hope there are more people like Elysha in the world, because based upon what I see and hear, she seems like a very precious commodity.

This photograph is a freakin’ horror show

Mental Floss ‘s 11 Fashions the Kids Were Wearing Back in 1993 is full of amusing and nostalgic images of fashion from 20 years ago, but one imagine in particular is unbelievable.

The cast of the hit television show 90210 in mom jeans.

image

I understand that every generation looks back and wonders what the hell the previous generation was thinking in terms of fashion, but mom jeans hold a unique and particularly horrifying position in the fashion.

High-waisted, astoundingly bunchy in the front, tight in the back and unflattering in every way possible, there is simply no explanation for the existence of this garment. And there is especially no explanation for why young, fit, good looking people would want to year a pair of jeans with enough additional material in front to hide a small baby or several cans of dog food.

In fact, the actors in this photo seem specifically posed in order to accentuate the horrifying nature of the jeans, with hands stuffed in pockets, hands resting on the jeans of fellow cast members, and the arms of two men wrapped nearly around their partner’s chests because of the high-waisted nature of the jeans.

Perhaps I’m generationally biased, except that I’m not. My Spuds Mackenzie tee-shirt and boat shoes without socks looked stupid, but mom jeans take fashion stupidity to a whole new level.

No one is talking about the real problem with John McCain playing poker during his briefing on the possible use of force in Syria.

Senator John McCain was caught playing poker on his IPhone during a U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing where Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey testified concerning the use of force in Syria.

There was a small uproar over the idea that one of our lawmakers was playing a game while discussing our potential involvement in Syria, and rightfully so.

McCain attempted to excuse his behavior by attributing it to the length of the meeting, which was reportedly three hours long. Obviously, this is shameful, particularly in light of the topic being discussed.

image

But here is the real problem with McCain’s decision to play this game (and I’m completely serious):

Playing online poker for real money was banned in the United States in 2011. This means that McCain was playing poker with pretend money, and there is nothing more inane and ridiculous as playing poker without any real stakes.

Without actual money involved, the game ceases to be poker. Instead, it’s a game of “Look what I found!” You’re dealt some cards, and when they make a full house or a flush, you push all your pretend chips to the middle in hopes of winning. The game does not require any of the mental faculties that the real game demands.

And if you don’t get the full house or the flush, you probably push your chips to the middle anyway, since it’s not real and you can start over at any time.

It’s a stupid game. It’s so stupid. It’s so incredibly, awfully, frighteningly stupid. It’s the adult version of War, except it’s only suitable for brainless adults. I can’t imagine a bigger waste of time. I can’t imagine a more ridiculous game. Go Fish requires more strategy than pretend poker. Candy Land offers higher stakes than pretend poker.  Twiddling your thumbs demands more skill than pretend poker.

I know that John McCain is a skilled and thoughtful man, but I have a hard time respecting the intelligence or wisdom of anyone who is willing to invest even a second in a game that makes so little sense.

I will judge you. You should judge me.

I would not support Anthony Weiner for dog catcher in a town without dogs.

However, I have no problem with his decision to involve himself in this heated exchange with a voter at a Brooklyn deli on Wednesday. In addition to questioning Weiner’s character, the voter makes a racially charged statement about his wife, which makes the mayoral candidate’s decision to turn and engage the voter understandable and justified in my mind. 

It’s what Weiner says annoys the hell out of me.

Weiner’s response to the man’s comments is to question the his right to judge him in the first place?

“You're my judge? You're my judge? What rabbi taught you that? What rabbi taught you that you're my judge?”

“You have no right to judge me.”

“That’s not for you to judge? You’re perfect? You’re going to judge me? You’re a superior man to me? Where do you get the morality to judge me? You have shown no signs of being superior to me and you are not my God so you have no authority to judge me.”

The assertion that a person has no right to judge another is illogical, idiotic and naïve. The idea that one must be superior to another or perfect in order to judge another is even more stupid.

The idea that a voter is not permitted to judge a candidate who is running for political office is the most stupid of all.

But even is Weiner was not a public or political figure, the idea that one person has no right to judge another is simply ridiculous. It’s an assertion often made by people guilty of the transgression to which they are being judged and by idiots.

Human beings judge one another constantly. It’s our way of determining who we can trust, who we can depend upon, who we should befriend, who we should avoid and who can rely upon when in need. It’s the way we form our tribes. It’s why certain people are invited into our circles of association while others are not.  

Judging people is the reason that most of us don’t stop and chat with  prostitutes on street corners. It’s the reason we tend to gravitate toward effective and genial people at work while avoid others. It’s the reason we nudge our children away from the kids on the playground who seem unruly, disrespectful or unsupervised. It’s the reason we rightfully question the intelligence of a person displaying a Confederate flag from the rear window of their pickup truck. It’s the reason our friends tend to share many of our same values and beliefs.

We judge people all the time, and we do not need to believe that we are superior to a person in order to do so.

I see a muscle-bound behemoth in designer clothing and an expensive  watch park his Humvee on the curb at the gym even though there is an empty parking spot at the end of the lot, and I know that he and I are probably not friendship material.

Could my judgment be wrong? Possibly. But there is nothing wrong with making an initial assumption. There is nothing wrong with casting judgment upon another person based upon his or her words and deeds.

To imply otherwise is asinine.

It is not unreasonable for me to think that Anthony Weiner and would not be friendship material based upon his marital transgressions. It is not unreasonable for me to question his moral fortitude and decision-making skills based upon his recent actions. It’s not wrong of me to doubt his ability to lead based upon his history with Twitter and his penis.

I am judging you, Anthony Weiner, and I have no qualms about you judging me. It’s what we do as human beings. It’s expected. It’s recommended.

The guy who confronted you in the deli was a jerk (I’m judging him, too), but hiding behind the idea that people have no right to judge you, especially while you are running for mayor, is almost as stupid as sending photographs of your penis to strange women via Twitter.

Step 4: Do anything but “ENJOY!”

I can’t stand it when the final step in a series of instructions is something like “Enjoy” or “Have fun!”

It belittles the rest of the list.

It undermines the importance of the previous instructions.

It implies that the reader of the list is incapable of the most basic form of deductive reasoning.

It wastes time, energy and precious natural resources.

It represents a level of cheeriness and exultation of spirit that I simply cannot abide by.

It must be stopped.

Here is my proposal:

Every time you see a sign that advises you to “Enjoy!” or “Have fun!” or something similar, cross out that final step in an act of protest. Draw a line through this nonsense in hopes that it will send a clear message to future list makers and direction writers.

This kind of thing will no longer be tolerated.

This is my plan. Are you with me?

If you're still upset about a forgotten wedding gift, the blame my lie in your genetic code.

From a New York Times piece entitled When You Can’t Forget the Gifts You Didn’t Get:

In the hierarchy of social transgressions, the wedding-gift omission, for some, is a sin of the highest order, the cause of relationship breakdowns and unwavering resentment.

“You could talk to a 98-year-old woman and she won’t be able to tell you what song she danced to at her wedding, but she can tell you who didn’t give her a gift,” said Jodi R. R. Smith, an etiquette expert in Marblehead, Mass., and consultant for the wedding industry.

The piece goes on to describe a handful of women who are angry and continue to hold grudges about wedding gift omissions, some from decades ago.

I have theory on these women and people similar to them:

Scientists have discovered that as a result of interbreeding hundreds of thousands of years ago, most of us have a little bit of Neanderthal DNA inside us. In fact, you can purchase a genetic test to determine exactly how much.

I’d like to go out on a limb and predict that someday scientists will also discover that human beings who fixate on a wedding gift omission have at least a little bit of pond scum DNA inside them as well.

Anyone who would allow the lack of a wedding gift to impact a relationship or even linger in the memory years after the big day has to be one of the basest, most materialistic, most petty persons on the planet. Can a person be so bereft of meaning in their life that something like a wedding gift omission is the thing they choose to remember long term?

Add to this the tunnel vision required to allow your name to be used in a piece like this. It takes a fairly pathetic person to harbor these feelings of anger about the lack of a wedding gift, but it requires a whole new level of stupidity to announce these vile and self-loathing thoughts to the world and a New York Times reporter.

If you can fly, fly.

I’m not complaining about having to stop for these geese, who were crossing from one side of the road to the other. It took less than a minute to allow them to pass, and frankly, it was kind of cute to watch.

But have these stupid birds forgotten that they are capable of flight?

Perhaps if there had been some baby geese included in the flock, I would better understand their decision to walk, but these were all full grown geese.

Fly, damn it.

image image

Creating a list of things that you should never do after 50 is asinine. So are most of the items on this list.

I read a blog post today by author Jacquelyn Mitchard entitled 22 Things You Should Never Do Again After 50.

I hate it so much.

It is the anti-Dylan Thomas post. It is an example of embracing the dying of the light. Ironically, Mitchard lists 21 things to quit after the age of 50 and then ends her list by recommending that you never give up. 

“Never,” she says, except for the preceding 21 items, apparently.

Here’s her list, along with some commentary of my own.

1. Parkour: I’m eight years away from 50 and feel like parkour is still well within reach if I so desired.

2. Jell-O shots: I haven’t done them in a decade, but why eliminate this perfect alcohol delivery system as an option because of age?

3. Karaoke after midnight: Nothing wrong with this at all (unless you’re in bed by 9:00 every night).

4. Karaoke after Jell-O shots: This should be the recommended way of singing karaoke.

5. Trying to break a plank with your head: See parkour.

6. Mud wrestling (intentional): It’s sad when adults forget some of the pure joys of childhood. Why eliminate this possibility from your life?

7. Crowd surfing to the mosh pit: Mick Jagger is 70. I could certainly handle it at 50.

8. Joining the circus. Joining the ashram: This is a truly sad  suggestion. Imagine saying no to the circus? And yes, I had to look up ashram, too.

9. Drinking champagne from your son's girlfriend's shoe: This was not a good idea at any age.

10. Drinking champagne from your daughter's boyfriend's shoe: See above.

11. Drinking champagne from your own shoe: Does anyone even engage in these bizarre champagne-footwear combinations, and if so, why?

12. Xtreme bingo cruises: While this would never appeal to me, it sounds like something specifically suited to senior citizens.

13. Collecting owls made of shells, frogs made of ceramic or lawn gnomes made of anything — really, really anything: I’m not crafty, so I’ll refrain from expressing an opinion on this incredibly stupid hobby.

14. Playing basketball in high heels: A failed attempt at humor. This should not be done at any age.

15. Throwing a wet T-shirt contest. Throwing a wet nightshirt contest: Sex does not end at 50. Nor should wet T-shirt contests.

16. Getting publicly and verbally excited about the number of stamps in your passport, zeroes in your paycheck, capital letters before or after your name (unless they're H.R.H.), number of names on your phone-favorites list, number of people you could have married, the size of your acreage … or the size of your anything else: This was never a good idea at any age.

17. Explaining your personal role in the fact that your kids "never really got into any of that stuff …":  I believe in taking credit for as much as possible, including lucky bounces, unplanned windfalls and the success of your children despite your inattentiveness. Most importantly, reaching five decades of life should not impact this decision in any way.

18. Explaining your personal role in the fact that your kids got into an Ivy League college: See above, and c’mon. You had to do something right if your kid is going to Harvard.

19. Explaining your personal role in starting the rumor that Paul was dead: I don’t get this.

20. Single-spacing your Christmas letter: I submit all my manuscripts in single space. It annoys my agent and editor, but I like it. However, Christmas letters should have ended in childhood.

21. The Dougie: Dance until you’re dead, any damn way you please.

22. Giving up — ever.

Perhaps I despise this list because it amount to a series of endings, and I despise endings. Pile up enough endings and you’re dead.

I avoid endings at all costs.

Wigs for bald, baby girls are a thing now. Stupid parents have been around forever.

There are wigs for babies now.

Designed for parents (mothers) who are tired of listening to strangers refer to their bald, baby girls with masculine pronouns, Baby Bangs seeks to make baby girls look more like baby girls.

image

… the website reads, undoubtedly capturing the frustration and outrage of bald baby girls everywhere. 

image

Even as a novelist who tends to write character-driven stories, it’s difficult for me to imagine the level of self-centeredness, image obsession and lack of self worth required to strap a wig onto your baby girl so people on the street would no longer mistake her for a boy.

I ask myself:

What kind of mother or father would be feel hurt, threatened, disappointed, upset or even outraged by some wobbly old lady or store clerk mistaking their baby girl for a baby boy?

The horrifying kind. The wretched kind. The disgusting kind.

The kind that only dresses their child in designer clothing. The kind that believes that their child's outward appearance has some bearing on how others perceive them. The kind that thinks of their baby daughter as an accessory akin to a handbag.

I’m sure that the purchasers of Baby Bangs would argue that this is not the case and to mount a strong defense on their behalf, but this defense would be coming from someone who just strapped a wig to their baby’s head, so any credibility they may have enjoyed has already been destroyed.

As Baby Bang should be as well.