John Lennon’s “Imagine” is not a good song. I think you’ll agree.

I don’t like the song “Imagine.”

image

I know. For many of you, this is blasphemy. For years, I loved the song. Sang it whenever it came on.

Then I was driving in the car last week when “Imagine” came on Pandora. As I sang along, I thought about the lyrics in a way I never have before.

I thought critically.

When it was finished, I kind of hated the song, and justifiably so.

I think you’ll agree, unless you’re one of those annoying, “Yeah, I know the song ‘Gold Digger’ is demeaning to women, but I like the beat, so I want it played at my wedding anyway” people.  

The lyrics, with my commentary:
________________________

Imagine there is no heaven
It's easy if you try (a fairly presumptuous statement at best)
No hell below us
Above us only sky (again, he’s assuming a lot)

Imagine all the people
Living for today (a nice thought until it’s tomorrow and everyone is hungry and cold)

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do (borderline rude for those who find this hard)
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one (the fact that others suffer from similar delusions is not a valid argument)
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will be as one (does this whole stanza strike anyone else as drifting into Jim Jones territory?)

Imagine no possessions (communist)
I wonder if you can (now you wonder? after telling me how easy it is to imagine no heaven, no hell, no countries, and no religion, you wonder about my ability to imagine this?) 
No need for greed or hunger (there has never been a need for hunger)
A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You, you may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will live as one

The amazing, astounding Abercrombie adults

There are people standing inside Abercrombie & Fitch stores throughout America at this very moment.

They have found their way into its chilled, cologne infused, overly sonorous interior because they want to be there.

They choose to be there.

image

I’m not talking about teenage girl fingering a pile of stretchy jeans or the teenage boy standing beside a rack of long sleeve tee-shirts, imagining what the teenage girl would look like without her stretchy jeans.

I’m talking adults. Hard boiled men and women who pay their own phone bills and know how to cook a steak. 

These men and woman are wandering the interior of Abercrombie & Fitch stores at this very moment because they appreciate and desire the wares that the purveyor of the store has to offer.

They have come seeking tee shirts with corporate labels emblazoned across  chests that will simultaneously endorse a corporation that produces the clothing in sweatshops around the world while also pronouncing something of import about the wearer: 

“I purchase clothing at Abercrombie & Fitch because I like it. Know this.”

image

Perhaps they didn’t hear the CEO of this company declare his sole allegiance to attractive customers by stating that “a lot of people don’t belong in our clothes, and they can’t belong. In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids.”

Maybe they missed the lawsuit won by a woman with the prosthetic limb who was required to work in the stockroom because she “did not fit the brand’s All-American image.”

It’s possible that they didn’t notice that the teenage models featured in their clothing ads aren’t actually wearing any clothing. 

With blinders firmly affixed, they exchange money earned from hours spent in crammed in cubicles and broiling over short-order grills for the opportunity to broadcast to the world that they willingly spent a portion of their precious Sunday afternoon and a portion of their even more precious paycheck in an Abercrombie & Fitch store.

The world never ceases to amaze me.

The ad has good intentions, but it doesn’t depict reality, and that could be more damaging to girls than no ad at all.

This new Verizon-sponsored ad, which was made in conjunction with Makers to show how parents unintentionally steer their daughters away from science and math, is receiving a lot of praise for the way it doesn’t focus solely on female body and beauty issues, as well as its willingness to shine the light on the role that parents play in the problem. 

Amanda Marcotte of Slate calls it a “blast of refreshing cool air.”

I understand why critics like the ad so much, but here’s my problem with it:

Are there really parents in the world as sexist and stupid as the ones depicted in the commercial?

I’m not sure. If there are parents like this, they are hardly in the majority. 

There are four incidents depicted in the commercial during which the girl is supposedly steered away from science.

First, while hiking up a mountain and through a stream while wearing rubber boots, her mother says, “Sammy, don’t get your dress dirty.”

On a hike? Up a mountain? In a stream? Is there some fine dining establishment at the summit with a strict dress code? Is this rocky, mountain trail also the path to Sammy’s kindergarten graduation?

Next, a slightly older Sammy is standing in a tidal pool, holding a starfish. Dad says, “You don’t want to mess with that. Why don’t you put it down.”

A starfish? Not an angry crab. Not a potentially poisonous sea urchin. Perhaps the most defenseless creature on the entire planet: A starfish.

Next, Sammy is hanging spheres decorated as planets over her bed. Her mother pokes her head into her bedroom and says, “This project has gotten out of control.”

Perhaps it’s the use of glitter, which should be banned from the Earth, that has gotten her mother’s knickers in a bunch. I could understand this concern. I’d even be willing to support the mother’s discontent. But other than the possible overuse of glitter, what exactly has “gotten out of control?” Was Sammy’s mother thinking that her solar system would consist of just eight planets, but Sammy foolishly made thirteen?

The last example is the worst. Teenage Sammy is drilling a screw into a model rocket while her older brother looks on. Dad shouts, “Whoa. Be careful with that (drill). Why don’t you hand it to your brother.”

Not a table saw. Not a weaponized laser beam. Not a nail gun. A drill.

I’m not saying that girls can’t use table saws, weaponized laser beams, or nail guns, but as a parent, I can understand the concern for any teenager (or me) using these tools. But a drill is one step removed from an egg beater. It’s one of the most benign of all the power tools. What damage could Sammy possibly do with a drill?

I believe that parents play a role in a girl’s decisions to turn away from science and math. I just don’t believe that it’s typically (or ever) done in such ham-handed, overtly sexist ways as depicted in this commercial. 

Most important, unrealistic and exaggerated ads like this make it too easy for parents to watch them and think, “I’d never do anything like that,” while ignoring the more subtle signals that we send to our girls everyday.

When we show parents the worst examples of parenting, we offer them the opportunity to feel good about themselves and their own parenting, when in truth, they may be just as guilty of the same kinds of behavior that this ad depicts, only in more subtle and realistic forms.  

image

I am a legitimate fashion icon. A trendsetter. The New York Times says so.

When it comes to clothing, my life is fairly simple.

I don’t wear ties.

I own two suits that I almost never wear.

I own one belt.

Though I own winter coats of various degrees of warmth for prolonged stays outdoors, I wear a hooded sweatshirt throughout most of the winter.

Most days I can be found in a pair of jeans and a tee-shirt. At work, you’ll find me in pants and a polo shirt.

In the summer, I wear shorts. 

With the exception of golf shoes, which I wear on the golf course, and basketball sneakers, which I wear on the court, and boots, which I wear in the winter while shoveling snow, I have two pairs of everyday shoes.

One of them is a pair of black sneakers that I wear 95 percent of the time.

image

These sneakers are the only item of clothing that contains an outward label. I’ve attempted to wear sneakers without any discernible branding, but they fall apart within a month or two.

So I wear Nike sneakers. Black in order to minimize the branding. Because purchasing clothing or accessories that highlight the brand name will someday be recognized for what it really is:

Elitist, snobbish, and dumb.   

My students would tell you (because they notice everything and told me) that I wore this same pair of sneakers to school every single day this year.

This isn’t entirely true. I replace my sneakers every 4-6 months, but I buy the identical pair, so unless you’re paying attention to wear and tear, you’d never notice the difference.

But it’s true. I wear the same pair of sneakers almost every day of my life, simply because they are the most comfortable and versatile pair of shoes that I own.

Admittedly, this does not make me the most fashion forward man. It may also be hurting my sex life, at least according to TIME, which reported that one in six of their wives prefer footwear to sex. But for me, comfort and functionality have always been my primary concern when it comes to fashion. 

But wait. Maybe I’m actually too fashion forward.

A piece in the New York Times recently declared that sneakers have come of age and are now acceptable in almost all situations, formal or otherwise.

The once ungentlemanly sneaker, it seems, has undergone a fashion baptism. The distinction between dress and athletic shoes is on the verge of collapse for fashion-forward men, as the humble gym shoe has outgrown its youth-culture/streetwear origins to become a fashion accessory, as well as a staple on runways, red carpets and in the workplace, where it is no longer considered the height of quirk to wear them with a suit.

“The fact that such a large percentage of men have made a determined effort to make sneakers their primary footwear, or even their only footwear choice is really comparable to men giving up hats in the ’60s,” Ms. Steele said.

Did you read that second paragraph carefully?

“….a large percentage of men have made a determined effort to make sneakers their primary footwear, or even their only footwear choice”

I am one of those men! I’ve been making that determined effort for almost my entire life. Ever since I was able to make fashion decisions for myself, I have been choosing to wear sneakers.

The world just finally caught up to me.

Since March, I have been attempting to live my life free of criticism, both mental and verbal, of any person for what they choose to wear, mostly because criticizing someone for what they wear is an infantile and awful thing to do, but here’s one more reason to do so:

The woman or man wearing that awful thing may simply be dictating a future fashion landscape. He or she may be ahead of the curve, a trendsetter, a visionary.

Like me and my sneakers.

It’s about time the world caught up to me. 

What is Peter Segal thinking? You don’t replace an 80 year-old man with a 74 year-old man.

Fans of NPR’s Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me! will know that official judge and scorekeeper Carl Kasell has retired from the show after sixteen years.

Kasell is 80 years-old.

image

While I understand Kasell’s desire to relax in his golden years, it’s hard to replace a seemingly permanent fixture in my weekly entertainment schedule. As a result, I was slightly annoyed by his decision.

The man has been speaking inside my head for more than a decade. He has no right to leave now.

I was even more annoyed by the decision to replace him with “legendary anchorman” Bill Kurtis. While I have no issues with Kurtis or his performance as scorekeeper and judge, the man is going to be 74 year-old this year.

image

I’m probably going to have to deal with another retirement in a few years.

The producers of the show couldn’t replace Kasell with someone in their forties or fifties? Someone who will be around for a long time?

These changes are hard on me. I don’t like it when routines are disrupted. I don’t like it when beats and cadences change. I don’t like it when the people who talk inside my head every week go away.

No offense, Mr. Kurtis, but you probably only have a few years before you announce your retirement, so I refuse to invest an ounce of emotional energy in our relationship.

You’re already dead to me, Bill Kurtis. You’re a robot who has been programmed to keep score and make amusing comments. Don’t even think of worming your way into my heart. 

There will be no love from me.

Losing Carl Kasell was hard enough.

Just eliminate gift registries entirely. Also, divorce registries are disgusting.

A recent New York Times piece tracks the rising popularity of gift registries for occasions other than weddings.

While it’s hard to count how many exist, registries for not just weddings and showers but birthdays and other events such as housewarmings, holidays and even divorces seem increasingly common, perhaps because of the expansion in digital registry services like wish lists, smartphone scanners and universal gift aggregators.

Registries might decrease stress and save time for both giver and recipient, but they are also etiquette minefields.

image

Part of my wants to love this idea. It’s economical. It’s logical. It’s sensible. Best of all, it’s almost certain to offend traditionalist, who seem to garner a sense of self-worth through their understanding and practicing of etiquette as well as the criticizing and judging of others.

Miss Manners, who continues to find readers despite her condescending, highly predictable, completely conformist column, expressed distaste for expanding gift registries last holiday season.

I love it.

I so enjoy offending these narrow-minded, sheep-like people who are incapable of cultural subversion or free thought.

But alas, I don’t think I can support the expansion of gift registries. As logical and sensible as they are, I fear that they perpetuate the fetishization of gift giving in our culture.

While I am not opposed to the giving or receiving of gifts, the amount of time and energy spent in the process of choosing and giving the gift, as well as the subsequent process of returning gifts that weren’t just right, and the inevitable and horrific gossiping about family and friends who failed to give a gift or failed to meet some predetermined, arbitrary monetary threshold often makes the act of gift giving distasteful and awful.

The expansion of gift registries, while uncouth to many, would only serve to support this system of misplaced priorities, greed, intolerance, and gossip-mongering.

Also, for the record, anyone who creates a gift registry in celebration of their divorce has to be one of the most vile people on the planet and worthy of being alone for the rest of their lives.

Right?

image

Incompetent customer service saves Amtrak and Boston Market a total of $33.03 and costs them customers and reputation as a result.

Last week we dealt with two incredible acts of customer service stupidity by two large companies. As a person who has worked in the customer service industry as an employee, a manager and an owner of a business, I understand how little it takes to impress a customer and win him or her for life. 

When the DJ client who I met with yesterday requested a change in meeting time twice in a 24 hour period, I immediately obliged, assuring them that it wasn’t a problem.

When they entered my home for the meeting, the first thing the bride did was thank me for my flexibility and tell me how much it meant to her.

It doesn’t take much to please a customer.  

I also understand how little it takes to disappoint, anger and ultimately lose a customer, and how quickly and easily this negative experience can be passed onto others.

This is why these two acts of customer service stupidity astound me so much. Both could have been so easily avoided.

First, Elysha took our children, ages 5 and 2, on an Amtrak ride from Windsor to Hartford so the kids could ride the train. It was an activity recommended to her by another mother, and the kids loved it. My son loves trains, and my daughter is always up for a new adventure. It should’ve been an inexpensive way to spend an afternoon.

image 

When they arrived in Hartford, however, Elysha was told that the returning train was delayed by more than two hours. It wasn’t going to be possible for her to wait at the Hartford train station for more than two hours with two small children, so after exhausting all other alternatives, she took a $33 cab ride back to Windsor. It was a stressful trip since she had no car seat for our son or daughter and was forced to hold Charlie in her arms.

Amtrak refunded the cost of the return ticket, but when she called customer service last week to request a refund on the cab ride, she was refused.

When she asked for a $33 credit for a future train ride, she was refused.

At one point, the customer service representative told her that because she had already accepted the refund on the return tickets at the station, it was impossible for him to compensate her in any other way.

Company policy.

Once compensation has been made, no other compensation is allowed.

I know. Ridiculous.

During their train ride, Elysha sent me photos from the train, and I tweeted one of the photos with a comment about how much fun my family was having on their short trip. Amtrak immediately tweeted back, pleased to hear that my kids were enjoying themselves.

When I tweeted a little later that things had not worked out like Elysha had hoped and that my family was stranded in Hartford, I heard nothing from Amtrak.

When we were refused a $33 refund or credit, I tweeted at Amtrak again, questioning their decision. Amtrak tweeted back at me almost immediately, recommending that I call customer service and providing the phone number. When I tweeted back that we had just spoken to customer service and refused compensation, Amtrak did not respond.

For a $33 credit, this company could’ve wiped away a frustrating and stressful afternoon from my wife and won a customer for life. My wife knows hundreds, if not thousands of people (not an exaggeration), and frequently champions the businesses that treat her well. When her credit card would not work at Whole Foods last year because of possible suspicious activity on the account and she was already late picking up our daughter at preschool, Whole Foods gave her more than $100 of groceries free of charge.

Just handed her the bags and told her not to worry about it. 

image

Elysha told this story to everyone she knew for months and is a lifelong Whole Foods customer now, even if I sometimes wish she wasn’t.

Even I have given Whole Foods credit for their outstanding customer service.

Now she will be telling a different story. It will be a story about how a train company would not refund her $33 that she was forced to spend on a cab ride when their train was delayed by more than two hours.

Such a stupid way to do business.

On Thursday night, we were heading home from a speaking gig in Massachusetts when we stopped at a rest area on the Mass Pike for drinks. I ordered a soda at Boston Market and asked for cups for water for my kids. The employee gave me two small cups, but I discovered that there were no lids for the cups.

image

I went back to the counter and asked for cups with lids because we would be back on the road and I didn’t want my children to spill on themselves or the car.

I was informed that I could not be given cups with lids without paying for them.

I understand the company’s concern that I may use these cups for a beverage other than water, but this was a stupid decision. I clearly had two small children with me. They were standing beside me. Give me the damn cups and hope for the best.

Instead, I will not be doing business with that particular Boston Market, and perhaps all other Boston Markets, ever again. Moreover, I’ve already told this story to half a dozen people, and with this blog post and the subsequent Facebook posts and tweets, thousands more.

For the cost of two small, plastic cups, Boston Market has lost a customer.

What are these companies thinking?

Here are 11 of the best customer service stories ever.

Not surprising, Amtrak and Boston Market did not make the list.

Chipotle and education: Upside-down organizations where the best people are removed from the most important positions

This piece on how Chipotle develops their management team is fascinating. Essentially, the company builds from within, plucking cashier, cooks and other highly effective, downstream employees and rapidly elevating them through training and incentives to management positions.

Last year, nearly 86% of Chipotle's salaried managers and 96% of hourly managers were the result of internal promotions. 

Fundamental to this transformation is something Chipotle calls the restaurateur program, which allows hourly crew members to become managers earning well over $100,000 a year.

image

I became a McDonald’s manager through a similar, albeit less profitable, path. I started working for the company when I was 16 years old. By the time I was 17, I had been promoted to an hourly manager, and less than two years later, I was a salaried manager.

Promoting from within is an admirable and profitable means of identifying and training future managers, but despite this democratic, pluralistic approach, Chipotle, like McDonald’s, is an upside-down organization.

At Chipotle and McDonald’s, the greater your level of advancement, the farther away you step from the customer. In order to climb the corporate ladder at Chipotle, McDonald’s and many other businesses, you must distance yourself more and more from the point of sale. But it’s the point of sale that is the most critical position in the organization in terms of profitability for a consumer-facing company.

It’s where your best people should be.

Time and time again, I would watch highly effective restaurant managers leave their  stores for corporate positions, leaving behind a less effective, less profitable managers in their place. These corporate positions generated no profit for the company. Employees in these positions did not interact with customers or drive sales. In McDonald’s and Chipotle and many other businesses, these promotions often remove the most skilled and effective people in the organization from the most critical positions in the company.

I’ve never thought it made much sense.

Sadly, education also operates with an upside-down model. In many ways, the bottom rung of the ladder in education is the teacher. In order to improve your pay beyond a teacher’s salary and climb the career ladder, a person must leave the classroom and become a principal, curriculum specialist, administrator, coach or something similar that removes these people from the most critical position in all of teaching:

The classroom.

If a highly effective teacher wants to increase his or her salary significantly, he or she must step away from students and do work that has a considerably reduced impact on the actual instruction and future of children.

In business terms, these people are stepping away from the point of sale.

People in these positions may try to tell you otherwise. They may say that their work as a principal or administrator or coach helps teachers to be more effective by ensuring adequate training or support or by fostering a climate where both teachers and students can thrive. They often argue that they are indirectly helping more students through their work than a single classroom teacher.

This, of course, is bunk.

If you want to make the greatest difference in the lives of students, become a teacher. The best principal I have ever known would tell you the same.

Sadly, in today’s world, the classroom is viewed by many as a place that must be escaped by many teachers. The list of responsibilities of a classroom teacher is impossibly long and grows longer each year. The number of people, both students and adults, who the classroom teacher must interact with is immense. It is often acknowledged that the classroom teacher has the most difficult position in all of education.

The classroom is not for the faint of heart.

image

That’s why the position of classroom teacher should be viewed as the most prestigious in all of education. People should not be promoted from the classroom. If anything, people should be promoted into the classroom.

Classroom teachers should be paid the most.

In countries like Finland, which boast the most successful education systems in the world, they are.

In education, if you have an office, you probably need a pay cut. A portion of your salary should probably go to a teacher who works directly with students throughout the day.

If you are not standing in front of students on a minute-by-minute basis during your work day, you probably need a pay cut. A portion of your salary should probably go to a teacher who in the classroom all day long.

Send those dollars where they belong: Into the pockets of teachers.

The people who should be paid the most money in education are the classroom teachers. Rather than having teachers fight like dogs for a scant few administrative positions, our most effective people should be fighting for classroom positions, where they can significantly impact the lives of 20-25 children each year.     

Education, like Chipotle and McDonald’s and so many others, is upside down. The goal should be to remain as close to the customer as possible.

Not escape them. 

Pay and prestige should be trickling down in these organizations to the people who make the biggest difference in terms organizational success.

Not up.

The possible closing of a school is hard enough already. Compassion and sensitivity should be the order of the day.

For the last four years, my daughter has been a student at Noah’s Ark, Temple Beth Israel’s daycare and nursery school. In that time, our family has come to respect and adore the teachers who have taken such great care of our child and taught her so much. Noah’s Ark was the place where my daughter first spread her wings, made new friends without the help of her parents and learned to stand on her own two feet.

She loves her school with all her heart.

image

I have attended holiday services at the synagogue with my family. My daughter participates in Shabbat every Friday with the rabbis, who our family have also grown to love and respect.

In June, our daughter will leave Noah’s Ark to begin kindergarten. Even so, news that the school may close doesn’t upset us any less. Over the past four years, we have grown to care deeply about the teachers, administrators and children who spend their days in a place that has become a second home to my child.

In the end, finances may doom the school that we have grown to love. While I don’t pretend to understand the budgetary issues, I understand that businesses cannot be run at a loss forever. Perhaps something can be done. I hope so.

But here’s the thing:

Knowing that the possible closing of a school can be a difficult and painful process, involving children, parents, alumni and teachers, means that extraordinary sensitivity and compassion should be exercised at all times. But what Noah’s Ark task force member April Haskell said last Thursday night while addressing parents who gathered in hopes of saving their school was anything but compassionate.

Hartford Courant reporter Julie Stagis reported that Haskell told parents that “losing child care is something that ‘happens in life’ and that she didn't ‘stamp her feet’ when babysitters unexpectedly quit when her son was young.”

To compare trained and skilled educators with years (and in some cases decades) of experience to babysitters is wrong.

To compare the efforts of parents who want to save a school to stamping their feet is wrong.

To suggest that the loss of childcare is something that happens in life, akin to flat tires and spoiled fruit, demonstrates a lack of empathy and understanding.

These remarks come on the heels of President Claire Feldman’s letter to Noah’s Ark parents informing them that the synagogue could no longer afford to subsidize the school. Feldman explained that a task force had been formed, initially absent any parent, teacher or school administrator, that would decide the fate of the school in two weeks.

There are families who have sent their children to Noah’s Ark for ten years. There are children like my daughter who have spent most of their lives as students of the school. There are teachers who have spent 25 years teaching in Noah’s Ark classrooms.

The task force plans on spending all of 15 days deciding their fate.

This does not strike me as a sincere attempt to save the school.

Closing the school midyear also means that parents have missed preschool application deadlines and will struggle to find a new place for their children. It means that teachers will have a considerably more difficult time finding other teaching positions.

Had this task force been formed six months ago, perhaps warning could have been given and real solutions could have been explored.

Honestly, how many real solutions can be explored in two weeks? 

Moving forward, the leaders of Temple Beth Israel would be wise to demonstrate greater compassion and respect for the parents and teachers who have devoted years, and in some cases, decades, to this institution. Public relations matter. 

If Noah’s Ark must close, and I sincerely hope it does not, there is no reason to besmirch the reputation of this vibrant synagogue with thoughtless comments and a process that seems less than genuine.

Sheryl Sandberg made me feel like a misfit

I’ve watched Sheryl Sandberg’s TED Talk which inspired her book, Lean In, but I have yet to read the actual book, so it would be foolish of me to criticize any of the arguments that she makes therein.

image

I suspect that I will agree with a lot of what she argues in the book (which I have on audio and will listen to soon) but not all. I have some very specific thoughts on the behavior of men and women in the workplace that I suspect will clash with Sandberg’s ideas, but that is for a different day.  

However, in watching this follow-up to her initial TED talk and the book, I found myself annoyed by two of her statements.

Sandberg claims that less than 5% of men are accused of being too aggressive at work. She also says that she has never met a man who has been asked the question, ‘How do you do it all?"

I have been accused of being too aggressive at work many, many times, and I am asked, “How do you do it all?” almost daily.

If this is an exaggeration, it is of the slightest variety.

Is it true that women are accused of being too aggressive at work more often than men?

Maybe.

Is it true that women are asked how they manage to do it all more often than men?

Probably.

But the same kinds of generalizations and assumptions that harm women in the workplace should be avoided in regards to men, too, and I think Sandberg should know better.

My wife claims that I am an anomaly in both of these respects. She believes that my perceived aggression is the result of a workplace that is more than 90% female (which, if true, raises many other gender-specific questions), and she argues that the constant barrage of “How do you do it all?” is unique to me. 

While I doubt that it is unique to me, it is probably uncommon, but why alienate me and others like me with the implication that no man has ever been asked that question?

Also, I would like to ask Sandberg that if I am truly rare in both of these respects, what does this say about me?

Should I be leaning in more often, too? Am I, too, being marginalized in the workplace? If these are truly signs of a problem, how am I being negatively impacted as a man who experiences conditions similar to women, at least in these regards?

The needless shortening of words is cray tradge. It must stop

I’m going on the record as vehemently opposing the needless shortening of words.

This weekend I heard someone shorten champagne to champers. On the radio, no less.

image

Not only does this sound stupid, but it’s impossible to spell champers without confusing people.

Champers also has the same number of syllables as champagne, thereby nullifying any purpose of the reduction  and making me think that champers is probably a word used most often by douchebags.

Just say it aloud a few times:

“On New Year’s Eve, I think I’ll have a little champers.”

I feel stupider each time that I say it.

Even the dog thinks I’m an idiot.  

Other acts of word shortening stupidity include cray, cray-cray, hundo, tradge, whatevs, gorg, hilar, redonk, nevs, brill, bestie, and perhaps the worst of them all, totes.

No. Jelly is the worst. No, totes. No, jelly

There’s also the shortening of the phrase "the usual" minus the "ual," but I can’t begin to imagine how to spell that.

There are more. Many more. I’m sure you know lots of them. Hopefully you hate them as much as me. I’ll refrain from listing any more in fear of offending too many champers-drinking readers.

Then again, perhaps I am a hard-lined word completeist.

(I made that word up and am undecided about the final e. Thoughts?)

Maybe I need to be a little more flexible about the language. I understand that the English language is a living, breathing entity constantly undergoing change, but this does not mean that every change is good and needs to be accepted. For a short and terrifying moment in American history, tubular was a word that people were using to express the greatness of something, but except in small pockets of stupidity, that died quickly.

Perhaps this trend in needless word shortening will die a similar death.

Still, I am admittedly a hardliner. I’m not even comfortable using the word photo. I much prefer photograph, though I acknowledge that this is an extreme position to take.

But in general, the needless shortening of words needs to stop. You sound like an idiot. You sound ridiculous.

No redonk.

Microsoft can even ruin the bra.

When it comes to my computer, I’m not an Apple guy.

I don’t like to engage in long, heartfelt conversations about my laptop, which seems necessary if I were to purchase a Mac.

I lack the required smugness.

And despite all attempts, I have yet to achieve an orgasm over a reduction in buttons and the sleek design of brushed, anodized aluminum.

image

Bu Microsoft’s smart bra, which alerts women to their stress levels, so that they might avoid “emotional overeating” might finally force me to purchase a Mac.

Sometimes a company is so stupid and so offensive that I am incapable of supporting them any longer.

I hate Paul Mitchell, and I think you should, too. Please join me in my burning hatred for this company. It is deserved and necessary.

I had my hair cut yesterday. As I entered the salon, I saw this product on the shelf by the door. Row after row of it.

image

The contents inside these containers may make your hair lustrous and shiny, but that is irrelevant.

This is a terrible product. The message on this product is disgusting. I honestly can’t believe that it exists, and I can’t believe that women allow it to exist by continuing to purchase it.

The implications of the branding are clear:

Skinny is beautiful. “Skinny” is a compliment. You should feel good if someone tells you that you look skinny. You should be skinny or trying to be skinny.

I hate this so much.

There were so many other words that Paul Mitchell could’ve chosen for this product.

You look beautiful today.
You look pretty today.
You look strong today.
You look confident today.
You look amazing today.
You look perfect today.

Instead, the advertisers at Paul Mitchell went with skinny.

I hate this company so much for this decision. I hope you will choose to hate them with me.

I never, ever want my daughter to see this product. No little girl should ever see this product. No woman should see a message like this on the shelf. 

There are many, many ways to be beautiful in this world, and it occurs to me that skinny isn’t anywhere near the top of the list.

Paul Mitchell would seem to disagree, and I hate them for it. 

Please stop purchasing product. Please ask your friends and relatives to stop purchasing this product. If given this product as a gift this holiday season, return it immediately.

If you want to make your opinion heard, contact Paul Mitchell’s customer service line at 800.793.8790. Their hours are Monday through Friday from 11:00-7:00.

I will be calling tomorrow. Join me.

I’m not the only critic of the “Shoes off” policy. There are many other people out there just as judgmental and jerky as me.

I’ve taken some abuse for my position about removing shoes prior to entering a home. Criticism. Castigation. Metaphorical crucifixion, even.

If you’re not familiar, my position is this:

I readily remove my shoes without complaint when asked by the owner of a home, but I think the rule is stupid and rude. I would never say as much unless asked directly. When asked my opinion, however, I will always answer honestly. 

image

In contrast to my angry detractors, I’ve also received quite a bit of support for my position, by at least a three to one margin.

Most people who responded to my post on the subject agree with me, but those messages of support tend to be shorter and less emotionally charged than those who disagree.

This is unfortunately the nature of the world.

Recently, two people forwarded me similar pieces on the subject.

The Quick and Dirty Network’s podcast host, Mr. Manners, essentially feels the same way I do about the request to remove one’s shoes. While he doesn’t find the practice as annoying as I do and believes that guests should adhere to the host’s request, he adds:

“If you are going to have people over at your house, and you plan on requesting that people remove their shoes when entering, you have to first understand it will make some people uncomfortable.”

Exactly. I’ll comply with your request and will smile while doing so, but inside, I will be annoyed. Others will feel the same. Simply acknowledge this. Accept the fact that your request, when made in the United States, is not common or expected.

There’s nothing wrong with being different, as long as you don’t try to pretend that you’re not.  

In a post on Rage Against the Minivan, writer Jessica Gotlieb is quoted as saying:

“I’m disgusted when people want me to take my shoes off in their home. OK, I get it for upstairs areas or bedrooms or even if you're Japanese. But if you're my American friend who just wants a clean floor, forget about it. It's a power play and no, you don't get to undress me. My shoes are there to keep me comfortable, cute and free of your foot fungus."

The writer of the post expresses a similar sentiment:

I get that some people have germ issues, but it’s still rattling when requested of me as I walk into someone else’s house. Honestly? I have dry, old-lady feet and cracked heels. Sometimes I’ve chosen random socks to go under my boots because I didn’t think they’ve been seen. Sometimes I’m between pedicures. Sometimes my heels are dirty from chasing a kid around the block in my bare feet. My feet aren’t always “show-ready.” While other people find it to me more clean, I think walking around someone’s house in my bare feet is kinda gross.

I cite these articles as a means of demonstrating that I’m not the intolerant, angry lunatic that some people believed me to be when I expressed similar feelings.

At least I’m not the only intolerant, angry lunatic.

I’m more than willing to remove my shoes when requested. I’m more than willing to keep my opinions to myself. Just because I think your rule is rude and stupid doesn’t mean that I think you are rude and stupid.

It’s okay. We simply disagree on a footwear issue. It’s not the end of the world.

What annoys me most, however, is the person who thinks that asking guests to remove their shoes is normal, commonplace and even expected.

It’s none of these things.

Accept your outlier status. Embrace it. I’m forced to do so all the time. 

image

The preferred Thanksgiving Day meal time

I enjoyed a lovely and perfect Thanksgiving yesterday.

In the company of some of our best friends, we shared food, conversation and football. We chatted about our work and our children. We laughed at stories told from a year gone by. There was great debate over whether or not I am a hipster (I’m not).

In addition to the food and conversation, my son, Charlie, took more steps yesterday than he has at any other time in his life.

My daughter, Clara, who only eats fruits, breads, cheeses, yogurt, bacon (she doesn’t realize that it’s meat) and some vegetables, enjoyed a dinner slightly different than the rest of us and was understandably hungry when we arrived home that night,, but this was to be expected.

image image

It was truly a perfect day.

This post is not meant to impugn the perfection of the day in any way, but the only thing that could’ve made the day better was a change in start time. I believe that noon is the ideal time for the Thanksgiving Day meal. I have hosted Thanksgiving many times in my past, and whenever I did, food was on the table as close to 12:00 as possible.

A noontime meal provides these key benefits:

1. The meal does not interfere in any way with football. The first game of the day kicks off just as you finish eating.

2. The fabled late day turkey sandwich is now a possibility and a necessity. When I hosted Thanksgivings in the past, I made sure to have the best breads and cheeses for these late day sandwiches, which were oftentimes better than the meal itself.

3. Desserts can be eaten much later in the day, after the meal has been better digested. There’s nothing better than eating pie two hours after the meal the first football game enters halftime.

4. It eliminates the need for the awkward pre-Thanksgiving Day meal. Rather than eating a lunch that doesn’t consist of turkey or ham or skipping lunch entirely in order to save room, make the Thanksgiving meal the breakfast, lunch and dinner of the day.

5. It affords a drinker who’s had one too many glasses of wine during the meal the time needed to sober up.

6. Best of all, it transforms Thanksgiving into a all day affair, which is what it should be. 

I realize that the noontime meal is a rarity. Other than the ones that I have hosted the holiday, I have never experienced one myself, but I would argue that the closer to noon, the better.

J. Bryan Lowder of Slate suggests that the perfect time for a Thanksgiving dinner is 8:00 PM, claiming that:

“the harsh winter light streaming violently through the windows casts an unappealing pall across (the meal). Candles cannot hope to compete with the sun, so everyone looks and feels washed out and, as a result, prone to petty palpitations and the flaring up of old resentments.”

Apparently Lowder dines in some horrible, post-apocalyptic world, so if this is the case for you and the appearance of the food and your guests is critical to the success of the holiday, perhaps an 8:00 PM meal is a good idea.

But for those like me who live in a world where winter light doesn’t violently stream, candles burn with a fairly consistent flame and my friends look good in almost any light, the noontime meal might be something to consider.

Yesterday’s hosts admitted that there was definite appeal to the noontime meal save one:

The need to rise at some ungodly hour to begin preparations.

While it is true that you may need to begin cooking the turkey as early as 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning, once the bird is in the oven, you can return to bed for a few hours and awaken to  house that already smells of Thanksgiving.

Not bad. Right?

I don’t know J. Bryan Lowder at all, and I’ve never read any of his work, but I don’t think I’d like to spend an evening dining with him anyway. The claim that “everyone knows that dinner—especially a dinner party—is served at the hallowed hour of 8:00 PM” is enough to make me think he’s at least a  pretentious snob and possibly worse.

This may not be a fair assessment at all, but all I have to judge is about 700 words.

Lowder’s only concession to his 8:00 start time is the admission that it’s inconvenient for anyone who has traveled from more than two hours away. But he also asserts that these people should probably be staying the night anyway.

Knowing nothing about this guy, I have to assume that he’s about 25 years-old, lives in Brooklyn, enjoys Thanksgiving with six other hipster friends in an apartment somewhere in Williamsburg, and may actually live on the set of HBO’s Girls. Lowder has no idea what “staying the night” might mean for a family of three or four with small children or a host whose home isn’t blessed with a guest room or even an elderly grandparent.

I know it’s hard to think beyond a two foot radius at times, but c’mon.

Unless your Thanksgiving excludes children, anyone over 55 and anyone traveling more than 30 minutes from their home, an 8:00 mealtime is simply insane.

I don’t even think a regular dinner party should begin at 8:00. But the again, I’ve never been very interested in what “everyone knows.”

This piece in Slate by Allison Benedikt is ridiculous link bait. It’s also offensive to my children.

I love Slate. I probably read Slate more than anything else on the Internet. But occasionally Slate publishes pieces that amount to nothing more than link bait, and Allison Benedikt’s piece entitled No Thanksgivukkah: The portmanteau holiday is bad for Jews and bad for America, is clearly one of them.

image

Bad for America? The hyperbole in the subtitle alone is ridiculous, and it’s an argument that she fails to address at any point in the piece.

Not once is her perceived threat to America discussed.

Pure, unadulterated link bait. I should stop right there. This alone should be indictment enough. But I’ll proceed, because I was so annoyed by this piece.  

As you may know, Thanksgiving and Hanukkah overlap this year for the first time in 125 years this year. This won’t happen for another 70,000 years, so even the need for making an argument like this is questionable at best.

Get over it, Benedikt. It’s one year.

But the rationale behind Benedikt’s objections are just as ridiculous, probably because link bait is hard to write. If it’s not hyperbolic nonsense, readers won’t click. But hyperbolic nonsense is difficult to pass off as rational. 

Benedikt has three objections to Thanksgivukkah. Here they are in the order that she presents them:

I don’t want my kids to think Thanksgiving is a “present holiday.”

And while Thanksgivukkah is a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, I guarantee that every little Jewish boy and girl who gets a gift on Thursday will, going forward, expect gifts on the fourth Thursday of November—forever.

Ridiculous. Jewish children will receive presents immediately after the lighting of the candles as a part of Hanukkah,, as it has been done every year before. The traditional will remain the same, except that it will be buffered by turkey and stuffing. Unless you wrap the child’s gift in the turkey carcass, it will be crystal clear that these presents have nothing to do with the Pilgrims, cranberry sauce or football.

Even if there are children who are stupid or monstrous enough to expect gifts the following year, they will not receive them, thus ending all future expectations.

As parents, we say no and move on.

And let’s be realistic. This isn’t going happen. Perhaps the most demonic and materialistic children might expect gifts for one additional year, but these monsters are few and far between, and their expectations will only last one year. For children of such ill repute, this kind of  disappointment is probably needed and deserved.

I also find it  fairly offensive to assume that my children will expect gifts on Thanksgiving next year, which Benedikt does when she “guarantees” that “every little Jewish boy and girl… will expect gifts on the fourth Thursday of November—forever.”

Hyperbole? Probably. But don’t lump my children into your exaggeration. I am confident that many, many little Jewish girls and boys are smart enough to understand the difference between the two holidays, even when they overlap, including my own. Leave my kids out of your link bait. You insult them and all their sensible brethren when you do so. 

Sweet and sour braised brisket with cranberry sauce is an abomination.

The argument here is that Jewish food and Thanksgiving Day food does not mix well.

I realize how important food is to the Jewish tradition, but the need to bifurcate these food items lest they be ruined is obviously stupid.

Because my favorite thing about Thanksgiving is that it’s secular.

Allison Benedikt is a Jewish woman married to an atheist man who celebrates the traditions of Christmas. This describes our family as well. My wife is Jewish, and I am a reluctant atheist who loves Santa, Christmas trees and holiday music.

Benedikt struggles with the issues surrounding these religious differences, as did her parents for a time. She expresses as much on a recent podcast, and it’s also hinted at in her piece.

But this sounds like much more of a personal problem for Benedikt than one that impacts a large number of people. It’s really not hard to differentiate between the two holidays, even when they fall on the same day.

It’s really not hard at all.

Besides, in my experience, Hanukkah is celebrated in most Jewish homes for about 15 minutes every night.

Maybe longer if dinner is part of the celebration.

Light some candles, say a prayer, open a gift, and perhaps eat a traditional Jewish meal on one or more of the nights. In fact, I have been told on many occasions (sometimes with great vehemence) that Hanukkah is actually a minor Jewish holiday that has only gained notoriety because of its proximity to Christmas and the desire for retail establishments to capture the Jewish consumer as well.

The overlap between the two holidays is hardly daylong. 

Benedikt suspects that she is not alone in her desire for the secular and the religious to remain separate, and I agree. But I also think that she’s in a minority, and it’s a minority that has yet to work through their religious differences with themselves and their spouses. When it’s “a relief it is to have this one major holiday that isn’t in some part about what I am and my husband is not (Jewish), or what he is and I’m not (Christmas-celebrating),” you haven’t exactly embraced the religious diversity in your home.

Instead of worrying about explaining to your kids why mom believes this and dad believes that, why not just embrace a multi-religious view in which all religious views are treated equally, absent any pressure for anyone to conform?

If that seems too radical, remember that this threat to Jews and America will not happen again for another 70,000 years.

Grin and bear it for 24 hours.

The Pope and an old lady in parking lot

On Saturday morning an older woman spotted me wearing gym shorts in a parking lot and said, “Put some pants on! Who do you think you are?”

As with all rhetorically rude questions, I answered as specifically as possible. “I’m Matthew Dicks. Kind of a strange question, but would you like to see my driver’s license.”

To her credit, she smiled.

In my defense, I wear whatever the hell I want and often dress for where I will be and not the brief interludes between my car and my destination place.

Also, I was going to the gym after my shopping was done. I was dressed for exercise.

It turns out that she wasn’t the only older person complaining about the clothing choices of strangers last week.  

On Sunday the Pope was overheard shouting, “It's cold! Are you nuts?” at  someone wearing short sleeves in winter.

Old people can be so annoying when it comes staying warm. Just because your body is old and can’t keep you warm anymore doesn’t mean you should impose your clothing expectations on others.

image

Juicing is dumb. But I didn’t say it.

This may come as a surprise, but every so often, I don’t write something in fear that it may offend readers. I know. Based upon some of the things that I’ve written in the past, can you imagine how awful these things must be in order for me to avoid saying them?

Here’s an example:

Last week I wanted to write a piece about juicing. Specifically, I noticed that so many of the juicers who I know are juicing or have juiced are lost souls who lack sufficient self esteem, self confidence or direction in life. They tend to be people who latch onto every latest fad, dietary or otherwise, in a desperate attempt to find the missing piece of a puzzle that’s missing more pieces than they know or are willing to admit.

Juicers often talk about the mental awaking and spiritual enlightenment that comes with juicing. Juicing programs have names like Renovation, Excavation, Glow, Clean, and LOVE Deep. While the idea that juicing can do any of these things is nonsense, it explains why everyone who juices secretly despises their lives:

Happy, confident people don’t need to glow. They don’t require any spiritual awakening. They are not seeking renovation, excavation or love at the bottom of a bottle.

No one juices because they like juice. They juice to become better people.

This, of course, is absurd.

While the idea that all juicers feel like this admittedly an exaggeration, it’s a slight one at best.

But I opted not to write this piece, in fear that I might offend juicers everywhere. Perhaps there are some truly self-actualized juicers who don’t think the world is treating them unfairly. There may be juicers in the world who don’t feel undervalued, ignored, underutilized and under confident.

Perhaps there are some happy juicers out there after all.

But I chose not to write the piece, feeling like doing so would only annoy a large segment of people.

Less than a week later, Katy Waldman of Slate wrote the damn thing for me. Her piece, entitled Stop Juicing: It’s not healthy, it’s not virtuous and it makes you seem like a jerk, attacks juicing on a number of levels, and while she doesn’t spend as much time on the psyche of the juicer as I might have, she feels essentially the same about juicing that I do:

It’s stupid. And if you’re doing it, shut up about it. No one cares.

I just wish that I had said it first.

image

The greatness of Guess the Animal and the stupidity of Freeze Tag.

After running around the house ten thousand times playing tag with my daughter and exhausting myself, it’s always good to know that I can stop all the chasing with a suggestion that we play a game called Guess the Animal.

Whoever taught my daughter this simple game was a genius. I’d give you a hug if I knew who you were.

I’d like to do something decidedly different to the person who taught my daughter to play the two person version of Freeze Tag.

Freeze Tag was always a stupid game. The two person version is downright idiotic, and yet it’s my daughter’s favorite game at the moment.