Monday, July 16, 2012

Wallack Family 2012 Summer Vacation: My Twitter Travelogue

In the summer of 2010, our family took a vacation to Hilton Head Island. What started as a series of occasional tweets about our vacation turned into a sort of full-fledged comedic travelogue. We took that vacation with my in-laws and they became the subjects and inspiration for much of what the travelogue contained. Unfortunately (fortunately?) in 2011, my in-laws didn’t join us; thus, both the inspiration and means for the travelogue weren’t there. But this year my in-laws were, once again, a part of our summer vacation and boy did they give me things to tweet about!

So before getting into the travelogue, let me set the scene. For those who don’t know, we live in a suburb of Indianapolis. The drive from our home to Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, should, according to Mapquest, take approximately 12¾ hours (oddly, Google Maps thinks the drive should be about a half-hour longer). We have a minivan (Honda Odyssey, if you must known). Here’s the somewhat odd part: My mother-in-law drives. She seems to prefer to drive (and she’s a terrible back seat driver). My father-in-law sits in the front passenger seat beside her. He is 90 (turns 91 in a few weeks) and suffers from dementia. Some days are good; same days … not so good. And no, my mother-in-law is not 90; she is 20 years younger than my father-in-law. Our kids (12-year-old twins) sit in the middle seats (usually watching movies on DVD players, thankfully with headphones on, though sometimes reading and every-so-often taking a brief nap). My wife and I sit in the very back of the minivan, endeavor to tune out everything else in the car and read our books. Or, in my case, work on my Twitter travelogue. Our plan was to make the drive to Hilton Head in two days, the second day hopefully being much shorter. We don’t drive straight through because my father-in-law has a difficult time. On the way home, though, the plan is to try to push through in one day, subject to how my father-in-law is feeling.

I have decided not to edit my tweets. Typos are as they were (hey, you try getting it all correct in the back of a moving car on an iPhone or when the sun is so bright you can barely seen the screen). I have, however, omitted (most of) my political tweets and most tangential conversations with others not directly related to my travelogue (though I’ve kept one or two that I thought were funny and in the same sort of snarky tone as much of the rest of the travelogue). My tweets were automatically posted to my Facebook account too, and several amusing conversations started on that platform, but I haven’t taken the time to try to include those here.

For those unfamiliar with Twitter, a user’s address (like an email address) is called a “handle” and begins with an @. My Twitter handle is @MSWallack. When you see a Twitter handle at the beginning of a message, it means that tweet was sent directly to the person identified by the handle. Throughout this travelogue, there are “conversations” between me and other people. For the most part, I haven’t tried to link up the tweets to which a later response related; the linkage should, largely, be self-evident. And oddly, a handful of tweets that I recall typing and posting didn’t show up when I went back to compile this travelogue. Maybe the Library of Congress has them.

When I interpose some clarifying material that was not part of the original travelogue, it will be in red. As for abbreviations, “MiL” means mother-in-law and “FiL” means “father-in-law”. If it isn’t obvious, “McD’s” is McDonald’s. I had to abbreviate because Twitter limits a tweet to 140 characters. I checked in frequently via Foursquare, but I’ve only included a few of those check-ins as a part of this travelogue.

If you have a question about the events that prompted a particular tweet, feel free to ask in a comment. I’ll do my best to provide some context.

Finally, an important caveat. I tried to be funny. That was the goal. I wasn’t trying to hurt anyone’s feelings (well, not really). As much as anything, the point of the travelogue was largely to keep me sane (or sane-ish). But as you’ll see, on several occasions, the tone becomes a bit darker due to my father-in-law’s condition. Part of me thought that perhaps I shouldn’t say anything or try to be funny when it came to issues related to his dementia. But then I decided that it was a better course to at least try to find humor in an otherwise depressing situation. We could cry about what dementia has done to him or we can laugh as a sort of ward against the depression. I opted for that latter course. I don’t know if I succeeded or if it worked, other than to say that my kids and, most importantly, my wife, were laughing along with me. I’d like to think that we weren’t so much laughing at my father-in-law as we were laughing at the absurdity of some of the conversations, statements, and situations brought about by the dementia.

Wednesday June 27

1:51pm

For those who've been eagerly anticipating it, the 2012 Wallack summer vacation travelogue starts Friday morning right here on Twitter.

1:52pm

For those who weren't following back in 2010, here's a recap and example of what I may have to offer:http://blog.wallack.us/2010/07/wallac ….

Friday June 29

1:13am

Our 7:00am departure time has (not surprisingly) already been pushed back to 8am. The real question: Will we be on the road by 10:00? Bets?

6:32am

Finish packing, load the car, and vacation begins (well, after a 13-hour drive, that is). (@ Wallack House) http://4sq.com/N1sP72

8:40am

I'm a good person. Instead of throwing away a perfectly good watermelon or letting it rot while we're gone, I gave it our new neighbors.

8:45am

Picking up the inlaws. We're only 45 minutes behind the adjusted schedule. Not too bad. (@ Schiller House) http://4sq.com/N2I3L0

9:08am

So it only took 20 minutes to load my inlaws into the car. We loaded their luggage last night. All we had to load was my inlaws themselves.

9:09am (from @DougMasson) [Doug Masson, a Twitter and Facebook friend; lawyer from Lafayette, Indiana]

@MSWallack Road trip?! I *love* Wallack in-law road trip Tweeting!

9:12am

Still in the neighborhood. Kids waited plenty long before they started arguing. Issue de jour? Who uses which headphones.

9:13am

Oh, and my father-in-law has just now decided he's too old to make the drive (90) and won't make it. Wants to stay here. But not alone.

9:15am

Point of clarification: The dotted white line is supposed to be centered under the car, right?

9:16am

And now my mother-in-law (she drives while my wife and I sit in the back and read) has announced that she doesn't want to wear her glasses.

9:29am

This is the 4th or 5th trip with my mother-in-law and a GPS. She still has no clue how the GPS works. She keeps yelling back to us for help.

9:36am (from @bmk) [Brian K, a Twitter friend]

@DougMasson @mswallack I look forward to it every year ;)

9:46am

Wife's dilemma: How to tell her Facebook friends to follow my Twitter travelogue given that my mother-in-law is one of her Facebook friends.

9:50am

Reading list for vacation includes @BrettBattles (Project Eden series) & @jeremyduns (Paul Dark series). You should read these authors.

9:53am

MiL: What highway do we take after Cincinnati? Me: GPS will tell you; it shows directions on the screen. MiL: It does? I didn't know that.

9:54am (from @BrettBattles) [Novelist Brett Battles]

Thanks, @MSWallack!

10:08am (from @jeremyduns) [Novelist Jeremy Duns (who lives in Sweden)]

@MSWallack @BrettBattles Thanks, Michael. Hope you enjoy it. :)

10:13am

Are we there yet? Just askin'…

10:30am

Just learned that, along with her special laundry detergent and favorite toilet paper, my wife actually packed ice cream cones. Seriously.

10:24am

Mother-in-law just announced that she packed a sponge. And she wants to know if we should stop at Walmart before we get to the island. No!!!

10:34am (from @erked) [Eric Kaun, one of my college roommates, and a true snark master]

@MSWallack Sitting in the driveway waiting to depart is just about the optimum time for such decisions, I think.

10:37am

@erked No. He waited until just as we were pulling onto the highway

10:38am

My mother-in-law's Cracker Barrel obsession just kicked in. Perhaps she owns stock in their bathroom department?

10:40am

My mother-in-law changed lanes. My father-in-law is not pleased. She wants to take the right road. He seems to object to this strategy.

10:23am (from @Lilyian) [My wife]

@MSWallack Oh darn I forgot to bring the plates, cups, and silverware, too….

10:42am

The argument over the correct lane choice continues. Note: Only about 20 miles to the interchange.

10:59am

Just passed the Creation Museum. Always tempted to stop … and laugh at the people going to learn about humans & dinosaurs living together.

11:12am

Bathroom break 1. My son and I drew straws to see who would go into the bathroom to check on grandpa. I lost.

11:17am

My father-in-law is upset we didn't listen to him & stop at McD's instead of Burger King. Never mind that there isn't a McD's at this exit.

11:19am

They are still arguing about why we didn't stop at the nonexistent McD's. He's not processing "there isn't one here" very well.

11:25am

My mother-in-law is taking glee in driving right up onto other cars' bumpers … and then breaking really hard. Lots of fun in the backseat.

11:27am

Wife tells MiL not to change lanes. MiL tries anyway, nearly hits someone, & swerves back. Then MiL yells at wife & wife yells at MiL. Joy!

11:30am

I have been advised that I misspelled braking as breaking. That presumes I meant that MiL was slowing down, not destroying things.

12:01pm

Now MiL is trying to explain to FiL what a Tic Tac is. He is insisting that they are some kind of pill; he wants to know what they're for.

12:04pm

MiL just announced stop 2 is in 20 minutes because, you know, we've only gone 50 minutes since the last stop.

12:04pm

MiL also asked if anyone wants some of the sushi she brought with her. Wait, what?

12:08pm

Grandpa wants a milkshake. Wife wants a bathroom (again). Daughter echoes my thoughts: "Nooooo!!!!!"

12:12pm

Stop 2. We found a McD's! (FourSquare isn't working apparently.)

12:13pm (from @davemcnelis) [David McNelis, a member of my very extended family]

@MSWallack How long is this trip, in miles?

12:13pm (from @keithclock) [Keith Clock, Democratic Party Chair for Hamilton County, Indiana]

Love it when @MSWallack goes on a family road trip. I feel like I'm right there complaining with him.

12:23pm

@davemcnelis 17,219 +/- 6.

12:29pm

MiL has dropped the keys between the seats and can't get them out.

12:30pm

MiL is now busy offering people her Combos. We're trying to tactfully suggest that instead of playing with her food … we want to go!

12:31pm (from @KielEWyote) [Kiel Kinnaman, a Twitter friend, also from Carmel]

@MSWallack Who's doing the driving?

12:33pm

@KielEWyote That's the good news & bad news. MiL likes to drive. FiL sits in front with her. Kids in middle. Wife & I in back with books.

12:36pm

@keithclock No milkshakes for you, young whippersnapper. And stay off my lawn.

12:34 (from @KielEWyote)

@MSWallack Ha ha! I can now see why you’re tweeting, kills the boredom a little bit. :-)

1:00pm

I keep hearing people talk about this Magic Mike movie. They made a movie about me and nobody mentioned it? How rude.

1:01pm

MiL needs to know where FiL pit his sunglasses. He hid them where nobody would think to look: On his face, covering his eyes.

1:02pm

And now MiL and FiL are discussing when we should stop again.

1:15pm

Wife: "Mom, why are you swerving all over the road?" MiL: "Because your car is very sensitive." Driving straight hurts the car's feelings?

1:18pm

For those who've asked, here is the link to the book I'm reading: "Exit 9 (Project Eden #2)" by @BrettBattles.http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B006NU …

1:30pm

I just told my daughter that Tom Cruise & Katie Holmes are divorcing, meaning he'll be single and on the market again. Big smile. Very big.

1:49pm

The car says we can only go 204 more miles before we need gas. So MiL wants to stop soon to fill up.

1:51pm

And I just learned that, in addition to sushi, she also brought hard boiled eggs. Can you guess what the car smells like now? Yum.

2:08pm

Now on an extended detour to avoid a big rockslide. The lady who lives in our GPS is not pleased with us. Nor is my father-in-law.

2:26pm

Stop 3. Dairy Queen. Near Corbin, Kentucky. I think. And this detour is giving my father-in-law major conniptions.

2:38pm

Father-in-law eschews traditional method of eating a sandwich. Seems to prefer pulling ingredients out one by one & eating them separately.

2:42pm

We got to DQ. MiL orders a chix sandwich for FiL. Gives it to him but tells him not to eat until we're back in the car. After kids use …

2:46pm

… bathroom, I order lunch for them. Then MiL decides to go to bathroom. There's a line. So I tell the kids (and me) to eat. She finally

2:46pm

… finishes and sees us eating. So then she decides to order food, too.

3:26pm

Excessive snark is exhausting. Unfortunately, it doesn't burn many calories.

3:31 (from @SusanNell3) [Susan Nell, good friend who now lives in North Carolina]

@MSWallack you can burn lots of calories walking on the beach!

4:10pm

Father-in-law's door was open. Mother-in-law gets out to close his door. As soon as she does, he opens it again. Then refuses to close it.

4:15pm (from @barkway) [a Twitter follower]

@MSWallack aren't in-laws fun?

4:39pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack You could also encourage her to rest her eyes, one at a time, to save wear and tear from the road.

4:42pm

@barkway In particular, inlaws with dementia. Fun, fun, fun.

4:43pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack Where else can she get backup sponges? And what about extra ice cream cones?

4:44pm

Father-in-law is apparently surprised to discover there are other people in the car with him.

4:47pm

Father-in-law is now either humming or snoring Mozart.

4:47pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack Speaking of which, you should watch Breaking Bad with MiL. Another friend live-blogs as he watches movies with his mom. Much fun.

4:48pm

We took a long detour, apparently to avoid the traffic jam we're now stuck in. Excellent demonstration of navigational prowess.

4:50pm

My wife says, "It's obviously rush hour." Seriously? Rush hour in the middle of the Great Smoky Mountains? Who knew?

4:52pm

The kids are now doing slow motion head banging to grandpa's snoring rendition of Mozart.

4:53 (from @erked)

@MSWallack Not as bad as it'll smell if people start dipping into those eggs.

4:54

@erked They did. It did.

4:58pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack You mean there are 2 cars on the road instead of 1? Crazy congestion.

4:58pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack Where is your son in all this? Staying quiet? Keeping his head down?

4:59pm

@erked Actual dead stop for a few minutes… Sigh.

5:18pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack Well, you're stopped, you may as well pull over at the next McDonald's. Is FiL's door open or closed?

5:28pm

@erked Closed, but no McD's in the mountains. Just trees. Of the right height. I think.

5:29pm

@erked Sometimes yes. And then he'll chime in with a snide remark, as if it's his goal to get in trouble.

5:39pm (from @erked)

All I want is a nap and a video game. Or to play a video game about trying to nap while babies torment you. [@erked has a 6-month old baby]

5:45pm

We're driving through the mountains. My father-in-law has announced "he's finished with it" (no, I don't know what "it" is). We should stop.

5:46pm

So my mother-in-law offered to stop and leave him by the side of the road. Hmm. An interesting choice is thus presented.

5:48pm

@erked Sounds like most games on the Wii.

5:55pm

Hmm. It seems that my father-in-law has just discovered that we're on the way to Hilton Head and is mad at us for bringing him.

5:59pm

My father-in-law has now convinced himself that he is 101 instead of 90.

6:11pm

I'm now holding the door to FiL's toilet stall closed because he can't seem to work the lock. How soon is this "vacation" over?

6:12pm (from @KielEWyote)

@MSWallack More important question, why are you letting him drive? Ha ha!

6:15pm

@KielEWyote Thankfully we took his keys away a few years ago. Not an easy thing to accomplish as it means loss of freedom.

6:36pm

I … forgot … how … slow … people … move … in … North … Car … o … lina.

6:36pm (from @DougMasson)

I'd like Facebook more if only there were more pictures with pithy quotes.

6:39pm

@DougMasson Me, I'd Facebook better if it, you know, worked.

6:52pm

So much for that hotel. Room smelled like perfume. It would have sent my wife into anaphylactic shock. [My wife has idiopathic anaphylaxis, a rare illness that causes her to go into anaphylactic shock; strong odors are one of her triggers.]

6:53pm

Of course in the time it took to check in and check back out we could have driven another 738 miles. Give or take.

7:02pm

@DougMasson Let me try that again. I'd like Facebook better if it worked better. Yeah, that.

7:03pm

My FiL wants us to drive to Atlanta so he can see his daughter who is meeting us in Hilton Head tomorrow.

7:07pm

Sorry for the darkness in tone this afternoon. I've tried to keep it light, but things have taken a turn for the unhappy.

7:12pm

I am now the driver.

8:21pm

Actually a very nice hotel. (@ Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites)http://4sq.com/MYfPAI

8:28pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack Our first hotel away from the hospital, with Alex, was a Holiday Inn Express in Philly. Clean, spacious, great view, great memory.

8:29pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack Was he aging with the temperature?

8:30pm

@erked Perhaps.

8:41pm

How many restaurants can we go to for dinner? (@ McDonald's)http://4sq.com/MYhXZ7

8:50pm

I'm at Wendy's (Spartanburg, SC) http://4sq.com/LKz6Ik

8:54pm

Almost got to go to a 3rd restaurant after all. My son forget to give us his order for Wendy's. But the disaster was averted.

9:32pm

A special guest in our bed. pic.twitter.com/cRrGCbX7

9:38pm (from @SusanNell3]

@MSWallack does he have friends?

9:43pm (from @amymasson) [Doug Masson’s wife]

@MSWallack ew

10:11pm

Donna Summer was having a smoke in front of the hotel. Well, maybe not. But she was wearing Donna's outfit (circa 1978) and had her hair.

Saturday June 30

8:30am

I walk back into our room after breakfast to find a disco.pic.twitter.com/pfXoKUZ9

8:49am

Going to be a good day I can tell. We've already had one fight (son wouldn't stop when we asked him to) and we're not even in the car yet.

8:58am

Last night my daughter had a toothbrush malfunction. Note the schmear of toothpaste on her nose. Such grace & elegance.pic.twitter.com/9TbZ9WQF

9:00am

My daughter has just read my tweet about her toothbrush malfunction. "But Daddy, you're mocking me," she says. "Why yes I am, me dear."

9:02am

So noting that my follow-up tweet contained further mocking, she asks, "Am I just easy to mock?" I responded with evil super villain laugh.

9:05am

Daughter now tells me that I'm a "tweetaholic". I resemble that remark. So where does Tweetaholics (not so) Anonymous meet?

9:21am

Time to pile back into the car and go. We left my mother-in-laws hard boiled eggs in the hotel.

9:24am

We're sitting in the car (engine running) but not actually, you know, driving. MiL is rearranging the glove compartment.

9:51am

Calm and quiet. Calm and quiet.

10:10am

Wife telling MiL about storms at home and forecast for Hilton Head. Somehow MiL thinks storms at home are the forecast for Hilton Head.

10:23am

Now reading "Pale Horse (Project Eden #3) by @BrettBattles. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008C1 …

10:47am

MiL to FiL: "Here, this water is for you." FiL to MiL: "For you?" MiL: "No, for you." FiL: "You?" Abbott & Costello are driving with us.

11:02am

Car behind honking. MiL oblivious. Wife wants her to move. MiL refuses. Wife wants to get away from crazies. "Get out of the car," I say.

11:03am

Ooh, this is exciting! Father-in-law has decided to entertain us by reading road signs, especially those really fascinating mile markers!

11:56am

A palm tree has been spotted. Much rejoicing ensues. Well, much rejoicing from MiL. Cries of "drive" from other passengers.

12:07pm

Did you know that in a traffic jam, protocol calls for rapid acceleration followed by hard braking? Repeatedly. Over & over. While arguing?

12:21pm

I think my mother-in-law changes lanes every 92 seconds or so (occasional hard braking thrown in) just to be sure none of us are too comfy.

1:19pm

MiL is trying to get FiL to write her grocery list. He's having trouble opening glove compartment to find paper. Or something. She's mad.

1:19pm (from @kiptew) [Kip Tew, an attorney in Indianapolis]

@MSWallack why don't you take the wheel?

1:20pm

Does anyone actually put gloves in a glove compartment? Why not call it a watermelon compartment or lost kitten compartment?

1:21pm

@kiptew Because it's way too difficult to post these sorts of snarky tweets while driving. And MiL likes to drive; is a bad backseat driver.

1:24pm (from @kiptew)

@MSWallack your tweets the last few days could have been an episode from Seinfeld..seems like u r traveling with George Costanza's parents.

1:26pm (from @amymasson)

@MSWallack I remember @DougMasson telling me about these family vacation tweets. And now I know why!

1:28pm

@kiptew I guess I think of this more in the Clark Griswald mode, but I'm still waiting for the girl in the red Ferrari.

1:40pm

In a traffic jam a few miles from the island (and our resort) and MiL wants to stop at a McD's. There may be a violent revolution.

1:42pm

MiL just suggested we "point out all the palm trees to the kids." Um, OK. "There's one. And another one. Look there, another one." Silence.

1:47pm

Seriously. Just a few miles from the resort. (@ McDonald's)http://4sq.com/Loe2mn

1:50pm

Son claims to be carsick. The car isn't moving.

1:52pm

MiL has asked the McD's employee if her sandwich has tomato at least 4 times. A repeat performance by Abbot & Costello…

1:54pm

MiL is convinced the McD's order won't be right. Gee, ya think? The McD's employee is probably so confused she can't recall her name.

1:55pm

Now McD's employee has asked MiL to confirm her order. MiL says she can't remember.

1:57pm

McD's wants us to pull forward while they get the food. MiL refuses. Claims McD's won't bring us our food.

2:04pm

McD's did forget MiL's straw. So she stopped and went in. FiL wanted to go in with her. We said no. So he locked her out.

2:05pm

And it was nice of McD's to give me a bit of burger in my ketchup sandwich. So now I'm wearing ketchup colored shorts. Lucky me.

2:08pm

Asked my wife for a French fry. "Soggy or not?" she replied. Um…

2:14pm

We're almost there. Really, really close. I'm just waiting for MiL to suggest a quick Walmart stop.

2:15pm

She did just point out a Barnes & Noble. I don't know why. I suspect the answer would scare me.

2:18pm

MiL announced she's proud of her special request that the resort give us a room overlooking the pool. All of the rooms overlook the pool.

2:27pm

I'm at Marriott Barony Beach Resort (Hilton Head Island, SC)http://4sq.com/N1fDNy

2:29pm

We're here! We're here! Now where are the margaritas?

2:46pm

Room won't be ready until 4. Me: "Let's explore and see the new stuff they've added." I'm met with silence.

2:56pm

Kids are playing Ping. No real Pong action going on.

3:08pm

I hope who ever designed these is a millionaire by now.pic.twitter.com/uConAFkL

3:11pm (from @AUeligitone) [a Twitter follower]

@MSWallack ….or flask compartment, only to use when done driving of course:-)

3:32pm

Note the "feels like" temperature of 108. How relaxing.pic.twitter.com/U6zrYX6m

3:59pm

Left the kids at the pool. Told 'em not to drown. Said it might ruin my vacation.

4:40pm

It's so hot that moving into the room literally set off the fire alarm. Happening repeatedly, we're told.

4:42pm

View from the balcony on which I plan to spend evenings with a nice cold Sauvignon Blanc. Or nine. pic.twitter.com/QGaB5bL4

5:17pm

Daughter's hair flip! pic.twitter.com/S6CvLk2k

5:19pm

And another try. pic.twitter.com/dE9SG7hs

5:20pm

The kids are going to the hot tub. I guess this "feels like 108" reminds them of an Indiana winter. That or they're crazy.

5:29pm

Wife went to get some cold drinks. Not back yet. I'm worried she melted.

7:31pm

Mother-in-law left for the grocery over 2 hours ago. I'm beginning to wonder if she went to the grocery or if she's making her escape.

7:44pm

Once the sun goes behind the trees and the temperature drops into the double digits … it's still fucking hot! But better.

9:06pm

So the new grill that's open until 9pm actually closes at 7:30. Nothing like making dinner plans on the basis of bad information.

10:15pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack Is there still MiL sushi available?

10:30pm (from @erked) [in reference to my Abbott & Costello tweet]

@MSWallack Third base!

Sunday July 1

10:16am

MiL wants us all to use a marker to mark our plastic cups. She is quite militant about this. A revolt is already brewing.

10:19am

MiL is now upset that I don't know where my wife put the baggies. Very upset. Hmm. Has she considered looking in the kitchen drawers?

10:47am

MiL observes that kitchen trash can is full; she pulls it out from under the sink and puts it in the middle of the kitchen. Is this a hint?

11:22am

Now reading "Free Country a/k/a Song of Treason (Paul Dark #2)" by Paul Dark. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00778 … [Oops. The book is by @jeremyduns]

11:24am

Daughter needs her hair to look just right … before she jumps into the pool and gets it wet. Father logic not working here.

11:26am

"Ding." MiL thinks it's the doorbell. Wife says, "It's my phone." MiL gets up to check the door anyway. She's surprised nobody is there.

11:26am

If you're a fan of Adam Hall's Quiller novels, do yourself a favor & read the Paul Dark novels by @jeremyduns

11:36am (from @jeremyduns)

@MSWallack Many thanks for that!

11:55am

@jeremyduns My pleasure. You do a great job and I'd love for your books to get the readership they/you deserve.

11:58am

@jeremyduns Plus I was feeling magnanimous because Paul Dark kept me company late last night while the family bickered inside.

12:01pm (from @jeremyduns)

@MSWallack :) Thanks - and glad he offered some escape!

12:03pm

@jeremyduns I was sort of wondering how Dark would handle my mother-in-law and dementia-suffering father-in-law. Knives, guns, or fists?

12:04pm (from @jeremyduns)

@MSWallack I can’t possibly answer that! But have been vicariously enjoying your tweets on the topic.

12:05pm

My wife once literally, though accidentally, threw her camera into the ocean. I tactfully suggested she not do that with her new SLR.

2:06pm

Sand dollars carpeting the sea floor. (@ Atlantic ocean)http://4sq.com/KMlrdR

2:09pm

Daughter has a bloody nose. Suggested she go into the ocean to test whether sharks are really attracted to blood. She gives me dirty looks.

5:11pm

One of our usual haunts. (@ Crazy Crab) http://4sq.com/N5CqMb

5:19pm

Not quite sure how to describe one of the problems we had getting ready to go to dinner. Let's just say …um… it was messy. And it wasn't me.

5:22pm

I'm wondering if for the seafood boil the chefs just put the food in a pot and set it outside? No? Too hot?

5:27pm

After reading tweet about sand dollars carpeting the seafloor, wife asks if there was supposed to be a photo. Took my iPhone underwater?

5:31pm

Son: "I recommend swordfish." Sis-in-law: "No! Don't eat swordfish. It's endangered!" Son: "It's already dead." Irrefutable logic.

6:44pm

My daughter has just observed that she talks a lot. Really? I don't think any of us ever noticed.

7:46pm

My sister-in-law's phone. I believe she also still uses a quill pen, wood burning stove, and horse-drawn buggy. pic.twitter.com/h3MfcTJX

7:52pm

Daughter is losing high-stakes shuffleboard game. She declares, "I call losing winning!" Game-based statement or metaphysical observation? [In response to this tweet I picked up several new followers that all appeared to have keyed in on the word “metaphysical”, though it looks like they didn’t stick around for long, once they realized that metaphysics wasn’t the core of my Twitter feed.]

7:55pm

Team of sister-in-law and daughter and daughter losing 44-7. So they've stopped to talk strategy. Um. How 'bout "try to score"?

7:56pm

Wife just had to try to dodge moving shuffleboard pucks. The word "graceful" … well, let's look for another word.

8:06pm

Not sure which was worse: The heavy lady with parts hanging out where they shouldn't…or her tiny bikini bottom riding up where it shouldn't.

8:09pm

And a serious photo (boys, please do not look at the right side of this photo). pic.twitter.com/KCz5LpLK

8:20pm

Just noticed prior post seemed to imply I have two daughters. I do not. I couldn't handle it.

Monday July 2

11:12am

Daughter is having repeated bloody noses. This seems to be diminishing somewhat the fun that she is having.

12:21pm

So relaxing, sitting by the pool, reading my book, with the lovely sound of an extremely loud leaf blower just feet from my ears. Heaven?

12:22pm

My so got out of the pool 37 seconds ago. His hair is already dry.

12:28pm

Grr. I do not have a "so". I have a son. Son. He is so-so.

2:04pm

I learned that it is easier to inflate a beach ball if you seal the valve on the pump. Might have been good info before pumping & pumping.

2:57pm

Interesting full-contact pool volleyball game going on here. Wondering if 1st casualty will be a little kid or Social Security recipient.

3:34pm

Wait! You mean if I don't have sunscreen on like all of me then the sun can like make my skin hurt? This too would have been good to know.

5:14pm

I have (mostly) avoided talking politics during this Twitter travelogue. That has caused me grief, hardship, and pain.

5:14pm

So regular political snark will resume post-vacation (unless I just can't help myself in the meantime).

6:58pm (from @whocares40)

@MSWallack keep up the travelogue tweets, hilarious! All husbands/fathers can relate. How's the couch?

7:24pm

3 books done and several days to go. Now reading "The Moscow Option (Paul Dark #3)" by Jeremy Duns.http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00778 …

7:25pm

@whoecares40 Couch? My wife loves my tweets!

7:49pm

Wife: "What time does the grill close?" Me: "7:30. Why?" Wife: "It's 7:35." Chorus: "Damn." (Well, actually one of us used a harsher word…)

7:57pm

Kids tested the water canons we bought. Sister-in-law is proof they work. Well. Really well.

8:08pm

Kids: "Complain, complain, complain." Wife: "Can we at least see what they don't have before you start complaining?"

8:22pm

Daughter playing gin with sis-in-law (they call it butterbeer instead). Daughter can't fan her cards, so she plays open face. Don't look!

8:27pm

Sitting at the pool bar. Wife can't eat bar food. So she brought a can of chicken. How fancy! pic.twitter.com/yvyN5xmx

9:18pm (from @whoecares40)

@MSWallack hahahaha, you have a good wife!

Tuesday July 3

10:00am

Will whoever is kicking my forehead - from the inside - please stop. Thank you.

10:04am

Mother-in-law always looking for activities for us to do. Seems to miss that what we really want to do is … nothing.

10:35am

Daughter has a zit. I'll admit it's a big zit. She's understandably upset. But in her mind it's so big it's visible from the Space Station.

10:37am (from @barkway)

@MSWallack at least it’s not yearbook photo day!

12:27pm

How cool is this? Ear totally plugged giving me a nasty headache with bonus dizziness! Woohoo!

12:35pm

Just where I want to be on vacation! (@ CVS/Pharmacy)http://4sq.com/N8zzSs

1:06pm

Elderly couple standing in roadway arguing, completely oblivious (or not caring) that they were completely blocking both lanes of traffic.

1:08pm

Just heard a CNBC analyst say "all of these banking scandals aren't installing confidence in retail investors." Gee, ya think not?

1:45pm

Outdoor air conditioning still not working right. Even the cloud cover generator appears to be on the fritz today.

1:46pm

After water weight loss, will the sun and heat burn off fat too, you know, like bacon? If so this may be a great vacation!

1:53pm

I'm watching what must be at least a pound of water weight drop down my chest right now.

1:56pm

Oh, no! The water weight I was trying to sweat off just pooled in my belly button. How will this impact the weight loss strategy?

3:00pm

Group of teen boys wearing their swim trunks low so we can see their underwear. Very urban. Um, guys, why underwear with swim trunks?

3:01pm

Told the ass't food & beverage manager they made a mistake with a particular change. She just smiled and said "OK". I heard "tough shit". [The “marketplace” at the resort sells a big mug with unlimited refills during your stay. In previous years, the mugs were bigger and had an attached straw. The new mugs don’t have straws and the regular straws that the marketplace has are too short for the mugs. This is what I explained to the assistant food & beverage manager.]

3:52pm

My @Klout Score has climbed from 47 to 48!http://klout.com/user/MSWallack …

4:32pm

Mother-in-law keeps turning the AC up to 76 or even hotter. If it's too cold in here, just step outside. Don't punish the rest of us!

5:02pm

I'm at Black Marlin Bayside Grill (Hilton Head Island, SC)http://4sq.com/LPVaLt

6:27pm

Even if swordfish weren't already endangered, they would be the way my son eats them. He could render them extinct all by himself. Quickly.

7:23pm

Serious question: Why does the restroom have yellow rain ponchos hanging on hooks just inside the doorway? (@ Publix) http://4sq.com/NjriJG

8:18pm (from @RainPonchos1984)

@MSWallack To catch urine!?

8:19pm (from @amymasson)

Cake made. Broccoli salad made. Margaritas made. Planning ahead makes to tomorrow much better.

8:24pm

For those who thought I was joking about yellow rain ponchos in the bathroom at the grocery. pic.twitter.com/tkzjCVXB

9:03pm

Sitting on balcony, book in hand, glass of Sauvignon Blanc beside me, fan blowing, citronella burning. Wife needs to bring my cheese plate…

9:09pm

My cheese plate has not yet been delivered. Grumble.

9:14pm

@amymasson Margaritas on 4th of July? What are you, an America-hating Mexico-loving Commie. What's that? They taste good? Oh. Never mind.

9:18pm (from @amymasson)

@MSWallack Yes.

9:20pm

@RainPonchos1984 Sorry. Too gross to even contemplate. Shudder. [And who knew that there was a Twitter account devoted to rain ponchos?]

9:46pm

Cheese plate is not coming. Wife fell asleep in dereliction of marital cheese-plate preparation duties. (See paragraph 17c of our ketubah.)

11:59pm

@jeremyduns So now that I have finished the excellent Paul Dark series (we're gonna have to have a wee talk about that ending), I need to …

Wednesday July 4

12:00am

@jeremyduns … know when your next novel will be coming out. I'm hoping you haven't totally shifted gears to non-fiction & plagiarism! [Duns has ferreted out and written extensively about several examples of massive plagiarism.]

4:08am (from @jeremyduns)

@MSWallack :) Hope you liked it. As soon as I'm finished with my current book I'm starting work on a Paul Dark novel.

9:43am

@jeremyduns Glad to hear it. The character and his story are definitely worth continuing. And yes, I liked the books very much.

9:44am

@jeremyduns I'll post reviews on LibraryThing when I get back from vacation/gulag with the inlaws.

9:51am

Happy birthday to we Happy birthday to we Happy birthday America Happy birthday to we.

10:14am

Now reading "Alpha" by @ruckawriter. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B005UK … 4 books read, 5 days to go!

10:54am (from @jeremyduns)

@MSWallack Thanks very much – enjoy the rest of the gulag! :)

11:49am

Just finished a family pool volleyball game. Children have decided it's more fun to play like seals & hit the ball with their noses. Arf.

1:02pm

My parents have just returned to 100 degree Indianapolis after a cruise to Iceland and Scandinavia. Ha ha ha ha!

1:12pm

In a few minutes South Carolina National Guard F-16s will do a flyover. Kids don't want to see. Big bad Daddy is gonna make 'em!

2:44pm

If this is what global warming feels like, I'm moving to Alaska.

2:55pm

Is this what a shrimp feels like when you toss him on the barbie? Or a lobster in the pot? Or an opossum on a blacktop highway?

3:31pm (from @kiptew)

On our most excellent summer vacation. Yellowstone here we come..okay in a few days. I won't be as prolific as @MSWallack.

3:46pm

@kiptew Travel with a mother-in-law. That will give you plenty of material.

5:11pm

A bee and a wasp have invaded our oven. Wife (a/k/a Madame Insect Destroyer) is arming for battle.

5:29pm

BREAKING NEWS: Father-in-law is staging an escape. Plan appears to involve extrication via an ocean or beach route. More as story develops.

5:34pm

BREAKING NEWS: Special Ops forces (disguised as mother-in-law and wife) have apprehended the fugitive. All facilities now report as secure.

5:36pm

Hey, give me a break! After reading all these books by @BrettBattles, @jeremyduns, & @ruckawriter, I can't help but see things via SpecOps.

5:57pm

Family with 2-year-old. They walk fast. She is slow & goes the wrong way. Then they tease her. She cries. Family values!

6:00pm

MiL researching cost to rent a car & drive home early with FiL. Mixed feelings about this development. Snarky tweets harder without them.

6:07pm

I appear to have a few bright red patches of global warming on my shoulders, knee, and foot. Damn you, Al Gore!

6:13pm (from @kiptew)

Going thru West Branch Iowa, birthplace of Herbert Hoover, I will leave the snark alone for now

6:27pm

Wife has just informed family that anyone who wakes Father-in-Law will be executed. She sounded serious about this threat.

6:59pm

Whole family trapped in bedroom in order not to wake FiL (now code named SALMON). Permeating odor of broccoli helping calm SALMON's nerves.

7:02pm

Wallack family engaged in joint operations in furtherance of MISSION SANDMAN (keeping quiet for SALMON to sleep).pic.twitter.com/Ll0YCdpD

7:34pm

I have escaped MISSION SANDMAN. Re-tasked to OPERATION COOK THE DAMN STEAKS. Mission proceeding as planned.

7:36pm

@kiptew A snark-free vacation is no fun. Go for it. Let the snark fly. Give it some 4th of July independence!

8:06pm (from @marybschneider) [Mary Beth Schneider, reporter for The Indianapolis Star]

@MSWallack @kiptew totally love your vacation tweets. They make me feel like a normal person from a normal family. More or less. Sort of.

8:56pm

@marybschneider Thanks. I think. My wife has suggested I find a way to put the tweets into book format. Maybe I could write for a newspaper?

8:58pm

Decision time: Down to the beach for fireworks or stay in the room with this really yummy Pinot Noir rosé. Hmm.

9:02pm

Fireworks wins. Wine is chilling for when I get back… Late night with my book & wine? Sounds OK. And if wifey will make that cheese plate…

9:29pm

This has become a favorite family tradition: Sitting on the beach watching amateur fireworks. Lots of fun with just a wee bit of danger.

9:34pm

Hoping SALMON doesn't think the sound of these fireworks is really enemy artillery coming in.

10:04pm

For the curious, the reason we've dubbed my father-in-law "SALMON" is because he eats salmon for dinner every night. Every single night.

10:04pm

Group of teens on beach. 2 pretty girls, 2 good looking guys, & a 3rd girl who isn't so pretty. Clearly trying to pair off & ditch girl 3.

10:04pm

Has Mars swapped orbits with the moon? http://yfrog.com/o07rplzj

7rplz.jpg

11:27pm

Gave up on wife making a cheese plate. Did it myself. Next time Miss "Afraid of Worms" sees a worm & wants help, I'll be slicing cheese.

11:49pm

Wife (who once threw a camera into the ocean) has a new SLR. Seems to have a problem remembering to put lens cap on. This won't end well.

Thursday July 5

12:48am (from @KielEWyote)

@MSWallack So? If she throws this one into the ocean, a lens cap isn't gonna save it. :-)

9:35am

@KielEWyote I was thinking more in terms of saving it from flying broccoli spittle, grubby fingers. & other domestic attacks.

11:04am

Wife is yelling at FiL. Apparently he is using a knife to add a new hole to his belt. The problem is that he's currently wearing the belt.

11:58am (from @DavidWarshauer)

@MSWallack Your vacation makes me grateful to only have the problems of mine.

12:08pm (from @WineLibrary)

Did you open up any wine or beer yesterday that was great? Share a photo or regular @ reply with us!

12:17pm

@DavidWarshauer Thanks?

12:38pm

@WineLibrary Belle Glos Pinot Noir Blanc Sonoma Coast Oeil de Perdrix Brugioni Vineyard 2011. Really interesting. Berry and tart. Yummy.

12:49pm

Progress? Yesterday, daughter said my pool shoes were gross. Today she wants to wear them because they're squeaky.

12:49pm (from @WineLibrary)

@MSWallack Very interesting indeed. By the way, a lot of people here at the office reading your tweets. You're on fire this last week. :)

12:51pm

@WineLibrary My travelogue is an (almost) annual tradition. And it helps me keep my sanity. Almost.

12:56pm

@WineLibrary Oh, and if you like what I'm doing I'm always willing to accept liquid compensation for my hard (dry) work!

1:07pm (from @WineLibrary)

@MSWallack Unfortunately our great state doesn't allow us to ship free wine, but we would if we could. (=

1:09pm

@WineLibrary A guy can always try…

1:13pm

After FiL's adventure with knives this morning, wife has apparently hidden all knives. Gonna be tough to cut leftover steak with spoons.

1:19pm

Apparent knives are now kept in our bedroom closet.

1:55pm

I to bock ant road me twoots ant im annored at aff teh tupos.

2:09pm

Wife demanded a translation for my last tweet. Ok. Here it is.

אני חוזר וקורא tweets שלי, אני כועס על כל שגיאות הקלדה על

2:12pm

How was I supposed to know she wanted the translation into English?

I go back and read my tweets and I'm annoyed at all the typos.

2:26pm

Daughter trying to decide whether to stay at pool or go up to watch today's episode of the Grandpa Comedy & Variety Hour.

2:46pm

Came back to the room and found grandpa's sweater in our bedroom. Hmm. Wait! Has he been searching … for the knives?!

2:48pm

Just learned that my Mazda RX-8 will be getting yet another new engine (under warranty) plus lots of other non-warranty repairs. Goody?

3:02pm

Tonight we make our annual, legally mandated pilgrimage to Salty Dog. Must. Buy. T-shirts. Must. Buy. T-shirts. Must. Buy. T-shirts. Must.

3:31pm (from @kiptew)

On our most excellent summer vacation. Yellowstone here we come..okay in a few days. I won’t be as prolific as @MSWallack.

3:43pm

@ruckawriter Just finished "Alpha". Fun story. I'll post a review on LibraryThing next week. A few questions: Why the decision to shift…

3:44pm

@ruckawriter … tenses within the storytelling? Also, loved the idea of Athena. What was the inspiration for a deaf character and how did…

3:46pm

@ruckawriter … you capture her thoughts about being deaf so well? Makes me want a YA spinoff about Athena for my daughter (no, not deaf).

4:03pm

Now reading "Satori" by @donwinslow. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0047Y … Prequel to Trevanian's "Shibumi", one of my all-time favorite books.

4:49pm

Daughter spilled red nail polish on the carpet. However, it unfortunately looks like my father-in-law found the knives and made a real mess.

5:07pm

Father-in-law sounds very depressed that we're going home on Saturday. He wants us to leave tomorrow. Or now.

5:46pm

Wife and mother-in-law now arguing about how the car's AC works. This seems important to argue about, especially while driving in traffic.

5:49pm

Wife talking to a friend on the phone. I keep expecting to hear a whispered plea for a rescue.

6:19pm

Wait at Salty Dog was 1½ - 2 hours. Not interested.

6:46pm

Father-in-law, who almost only eats salmon, is now acting the gourmand and telling us where we can and can't have dinner.

6:48pm

So far he's picked out a hotel, an insurance company, an empty building, and a few places that would send my wife to the hospital.

6:51pm

Wife is now being as (or more) particular than father-in-law. And not on the basis of what she can't eat.

7:09pm

Father-in-law's comedic lines are coming so fast and furious, I can't keep up with the tweeting.

7:12pm

Did I mention that he's not trying to be funny?

7:22pm

Father-in-law has just proclaimed Wendy's chicken sandwich better than McD's. "A lot of salad in here," he says, as he picks lettuce off

7:25pm

The Earl of Sandwich would not be happy with my father-in-law who has rejected the idea of eating food between pieces of bread.

7:27pm

It's fun posting tweets that make my wife laugh, but she can't laugh out loud or else my mother-in-law might ask "what's so funny?"

7:32pm

Wife and I now have the possibility to escape. How far can we get on foot?

7:36pm (from @ruckawriter)

@MSWallack Went with present for two reasons - 1, wanted to break voice from past style; 2, added immediacy that seemed to serve it well.

7:37pm (from @ruckawriter)

@MSWallack That was ALL research, man. Just having very smart, very knowledgable people who were willing and able to help and guide me.

7:42pm

@ruckawriter I thought as much. To me it both worked & didn't. I appreciated the immediacy, but the switches were a bit of a jolt.

7:44pm

@ruckawriter It's cool to see how well detailed research can pay off when a talented writer puts it to good use.

7:46pm

Father-in-law now sitting by the screen door wearing his sweater. Note "feels like" temperature of 96•. http://yfrog.com/ocdptnyj

dptny.jpg

7:48pm

I've learned that authors on Twitter are usually quick to respond to queries from readers & like to discuss their writing process. Fun.

8:48pm

Wife and mother-in-law still trying to clean the blood - oops, nail polish - out of the carpet. Me? I'm making myself a cheese plate.

8:58pm

Wife: "I'm thinking that scrubbing carpets isn't a vacation activity." maybe not. But making a cheese plate is.

9:33pm

"Are we there yet?"

"No."

"Are we there yet?"

"No."

"How much longer."

"A while. Read your book."

Oh, sorry. Practicing for the drive home.

10:09pm

Father-in-law has locked mother-in-law out of their bedroom so he can sleep. I'm not sure which side to take in this particular squabble.

10:11pm

Kids ran a quick SpecOps mission, sneaking into in-laws' bedroom to unlock the patio door so MiL can sneak in after FiL locks her out again.

10:18pm

In addition to typos, it appears that my rapid fire tweeting has some unfortunate grammatical errors, too. This depresses me greatly.

10:22pm (from @AngryBlackLady)

Paper shouldn't beat rock.

10:38pm

Kids have written a country ditty. Neither Miranda Lambert nor Blake Shelton (they're country stars, right?) need worry about competition.

10:41pm

@AngryBlackLady When my son was 5, we were playing RPS waiting for our airplane to take off. Right as the wheels lifted, instead of …

10:43pm

@AngryBlackLady … throwing rock, paper, or scissors, he throws a fist with his thumb pointing up. "What's that?" I asked. "Bomb!" he yells.

10:47pm (from @AngryBlackLady)

@MSWallack Hahahaha. That’s really cute!

10:50pm

I'm trying to think of a good reason why my wife & daughter keep their flatiron (curling iron?) on the nightstand. Midnight hair repair?

10:51pm

Oh, oh! Perhaps sleeping in close proximity to a flatiron reduces the severity of bedhead. Yeah, that must be it. But it's not working.

11:10pm

@AngryBlackLady Cute? You try explaining that to a flight attendant just a few years after 9/11!

11:11pm (from @AngryBlackLady)

@MSWallack hahahahaha

11:27pm (from @SusanNell3)

@MSWallack you need to take a vacation to NC”, says friend.

Friday July 6

9:36am

Last day. But we feel like we need a vacation to recover from this "vacation". (@ Marriott Barony Beach Resort) http://4sq.com/OdF3ch

9:55am

We're going to try frying some eggs on the sidewalk today. Worried it will be too hot and we'll just burn the eggs.

9:57am

Also, plan is to dump some coffee beans into the pool and see what enormous bulk instant coffee tastes like.

10:19am

I bought a battery powered table fan. Right now it's trying to blow on itself.

10:23am

Wife & mother-in-law brought back a dozen chocolate frosted, cream-filled doughnuts. My son has claimed all of them. They're all he eats.

10:36am (from @DougMasson)

So far today, I've quoted (at least) Orwell, Dostoyevsky, Ice Cube, and Flock of Seagulls. #range

12:04pm

I just beat the kids in this year's volleyball challenge, 21-4, 21-2. Safe guess: No volleyball scholarships in this family.

12:08pm

I made a poolside cheese plate. Query: Do I share with the ketubah-breaching, non-cheese plate preparing wife?

12:10pm

Cool. Put a piece of cheese on a cracker at poolside and voila, instant grilled cheese!

12:18pm

Hey @MarriottIntl, I just wanted to thank you for running leaf blowers & hedge trimmers poolside all week long. Can't hear the pool music.

12:19pm

Oh, @MarriottIntl, it was also a great idea to clean the pool shortly after people started swimming and playing.

12:20pm

Seriously, @MarriottIntl, my wife & I shouldn't have to shout at each other just to be heard because your maintenance equipment is SO loud.

12:24pm

@DougMasson I think you need to broaden your repertoire a bit, don't you? I mean that's a pretty narrow range of voices.

12:29pm

My poolside dancing is embarrassing the family. #winning

12:30pm

How come music outside is '60s greatest hits but inside is Vampire Weekend?

12:50pm

Kids wanted pizza for lunch. We just brought some frozen pizzas out and set them in the pool deck. They were ready in about 3 minutes.

12:51pm

We're all trying to gather our emotional strength and sanity before the drive home with grandpa.

1:58pm (from @MariottIntl)

@MSWallack We saw your tweet; do you need assistance? If so, please DM details and your contact info. Thank you! [I suspect that they wanted me to DM (direct message) so that my complaints and our discussion would not be public.]

2:01pm

@MarriottIntl No I don't need assistance. I just want you to be aware of non-guest friendly practices at Barony Beach on Hilton Head.

2:02pm

Kids demanded a volleyball rematch but required wife play on my team. We lost 21-10. What does this say about wife's athletic skils?

2:03pm

After wife's really poor performance at volleyball, I think she should stick to cheese plates. Oh, wait. Never mind.

2:06pm

Tried to explain some simple volleyball fundamentals to wife. Like explaining the high jump to an alligator or 100 meter dash to a sloth.

2:21pm (from @MarriottIntl)

@MSWallack Thank you for the info; we will share your feedback. We appreciate you taking the time to contact us; have a good weekend!

2:22pm

Wife said it's so hot she feels "like a Barbie on the grill." It's hot, but she's not a tall leggy blonde. More "shrimp on the barbie".

2:29pm

Daughter manages to lock us all out of the bathroom. We call front desk for a key. They tell us cap of the pen by the phone works as key.

2:32pm (from @Lilyian)

@MSWallack Strategy. It’s all about the strategy….

2:34pm (from @Lilyian)

@MSWallack Exactly how did you plan to get home from vacation? Run beside my car?

3:12pm

@Lilyian Might be more relaxing than sitting in the car listening to the kids argue & your father try to talk your mother into an accident.

3:34pm

Father-in-law is asking us if he has to go to the bathroom. Not really sure how to answer.

3:39pm

Possible severe storms may keep us from Salty Dog. Is there a fine for visiting Hilton Head and not going to Salty Dog.

3:41pm

Wife and MiL arguing about whether FiL should change pants after going to the bathroom. Issue seems to be how long they will take to dry.

3:51pm

Father-in-law wants to tell the resort that he's a shareholder to see if they'll give us something special. He owns 1 share.

4:48pm

I think my father-in-law is using his lap to save half of his salad for the drive home tomorrow. He did eat a few bites.

5:09pm

Father-in-law moved the salmon from his plate into his sweater before eating it. And yes, he's wearing a sweater in this heat.

5:50pm

Wife is in Walmart … by herself. Father-in-law is not happy about this. He wants to go in and find her. Just in case.

5:56pm

Father-in-law is now convinced we're actually in St. Louis. It must be that huge silver arch over the island.

6:00pm

Kids have just informed me that there isn't a huge silver arch over the island.

6:00pm (from @DougMasson)

@MSWallack Walmart? I might be on FiL’s side on this one. peopleofwalmart.com

6:12pm

@DougMasson Good point. I think his concerns were more of "evil person do evil thing" variety, not that wife would start wearing a thong.

6:31pm

Father-in-law didn't want to get out of the car. "Too cold," he says. Note that it "feels like" 104•. http://yfrog.com/h75p0rrj

6:32pm

Wife now eating - and wearing - chocolate ice cream soup.

6:35pm

Daughter just described wife's volleyball methodology as "waving her hands around, like T-Rex hands."

6:55pm

Son may have left his iPod touch at the restaurant. Rescue mission or punishment lesson?

7:01pm

IPod Touch has been found. Considering losing son instead.

8:05pm (from @Still_H20)

@MSWallack Yes.

8:16pm

As I Pirate fan, I must quote President Obama: “Something very important has happened: the Pirates and the White Sox are in first place.”

8:22pm (from @erked)

@MSWallack Rescue it, but hold it hostage for several days. Erase all his music, and sync it only to your Big Country discography.

9:20pm

@erked No go. He found it. But only after I have him better suggestions of where to look.

9:24pm

Packing. Sad. Actually, given that my wife refused to make me a cheese plate, I've mostly let her pack. Besides, I've got reading to do!

9:38pm (from @KielEWyote)

@MSWallack You and cheese… so high maintenance! LOL :-)

9:40pm

@KielEWyote Before we got married, I told her all I really needed was for her to slice me some cheese, wash & cut some fruits & veggies.

9:41pm

@KielEWyote She tries to accommodate me in years that are prime numbers.

9:42pm (from @KielEWyote)

@MSWallack Ha ha! She’s a smart one!

9:43pm

@KielEWyote Remind me that if we ever have you over to our house for wine & cheese … no cheese for you!

9:46pm (from @KielEWyote)

@MSWallack How about I get cheese and no wine? All those years in Catholicism, I’ve had my share of wine. Ha ha!

9:49pm

@KielEWyote Fine. Kraft American for you. You can watch me drink a 2005 Bordeaux. Wife can't drink so she'll share your cheese.

10:35pm (from @shoupus) [Jenny Shoup, one of my law partners]

I'm at RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchen (Los Angeles, CA) http://4sq.com/Ogb9nE

10:42pm

Wife & mother-in-law now arguing about whether to pack MiL's unopened bottle of Canola oil. Don't you take Canola oil on vacation?

10:43pm

@shoupus I'm not.

Saturday, July 7

7:33am

Checking out and heading home. Gonna try to make it in one day. (@ Marriott Barony Beach Resort) http://4sq.com/NLO2jw

8:28am

Leaving exactly one hour late. Is this a good start or not?

8:44am

Kids are watching Doctor Who. Time paradoxes appear to play havoc with daughter's brain.

8:45am

Father-in-law appears to have lost something, but can't remember what. So he's gonna rummage around the car to try to find whatever it is.

8:48am

Wife is not pleased that I didn't shower this morning (um, weren't we trying to hurry?). Told her I could shower at a truck stop.

8:49am

Wife now says that I stink. I told her it's manly aroma that should make her want to get up and make a cheese plate.

9:27am

The car is very quiet. Bad for tweeting but very, very good for collective sanity.

9:55am

At a rest stop for a potty break. MiL sees a map on the wall. "Oh, what's that a map of?" Me: "South Carolina." Mil: "How interesting."

10:22am

Father-in-law back to rummaging in the magic drawer (glove compartment) hoping some chocolates will magically appear.

10:36am (from @erked)

@MSWallack For vacation, I rely solely on rapeseed oil.

10:37am

@erked Hey, hey. There are children in this posse.

Reply posted July 9, 6:58 am (after the end of this travelogue) @MSWallack Sorry, that was unintentionally weird and a result of my juvenile tittering over the word "rapeseed."

10:41am

And now we're back to changing lanes every 84 seconds or so, with the occasional fake out or swerve thrown in for … whoa! … good measure.

11:37am

Ok. This is going to take several tweets to get the full story. We stop at a Shell/Circle K for a bathroom for FiL. MiL pulls up to drop …

11:38am

… him off and then she'll go park. He gets out and "drops something" but he doesn't know what. Son get out to help him. They both go in …

11:44am

By the time I get in I find son has raced past FiL into the ONLY bathroom. Yes, just 1. Recall we stopped because FiL really had to go.

11:45am

So while waiting, I found some deodorant (now wife is complaining I got the wrong one - it was a gas station for crying out loud!).

11:46am

Eventually it was daughter's turn (after FiL and son). She saw how disgusting it was and refused. So we decided to go somewhere else.

11:47am

Now remember, we're trying to hurry so we can get home in one day. Nevertheless, before we can leave MiL decides to buy a $1 lottery ticket!

11:48am

But first she must interrogate the mostly asleep clerk to learn everything she can about the different litter tickets. The rest of us, well…

11:49am

… WE WANT TO USE A BATHROOM! Finally she finishes and we all walk out the door … but then FiL turns and heads back to the bathroom again.

11:51am

Finally, back in the car we start looking for another place with a restroom. After a few minutes, we turn around to go the other way…

11:52am

As we pass the place we'd already gone, FiL points it out and says we could stop there, then gets agitated by our collective "No!"

11:53am

Eventually, after going over hill & dale, we found a Burger King (none of us dared eat there) with clean enough bathrooms. Only 30+ minutes!

11:54am

Remind me to check to see if her lottery ticket won.

11:56am

MiL didn't ask store clerk about "litter tickets". She asked about lottery tickets. I'm not sure what a litter ticket is.

12:01pm

MiL has now complained that we're not helpful because we don't have immediate answers for traffic issues and get annoyed at her annoyance.

12:11 (from @Still_H20)

@MSWallack impressive u r able to live tweet this excursion.

12:18pm

Major traffic jam. I found us a way around lots of the traffic but not enough. And we didn't want to venture off into banjo country.

12:22pm

Bad accident. SB traffic stopped. Lifeline helicopter in the road. Heavy traffic on our side just for looky-loos.

12:24pm

@Still_H20 MiL drives. Wife and I are in the back, kids in the middle as a snark buffer.

1:22pm

Is South Carolina the biggest state in the country? I ask because we've been driving and driving and driving and … well you get the picture.

1:24pm

Stop 3 (still in South Carolina). Argh! (@ McDonald's)http://4sq.com/MR5iJs

1:25pm

Maybe they moved Indiana further away? Just to screw with us.

1:27pm (from @DougMasson)

@MSWallack We weren't supposed to tell. But . . . surprise! (We moved it somewhere over by Kansas.)

1:30pm

@DougMasson Why am I not surprised that you're responsible?

1:35pm

I've just been told by a wholly unreliable source that Indiana has, in fact, been moved. Somewhere near Kansas, I'm told.

1:37pm (from @DougMasson)

@MSWallack Just trying to get back to Central Time. Thought I'd hide behind Illinois and Missouri as buffer states.

1:37pm

After I order a drink, MiL informs us she's gonna stop at the neighboring gas station to buy water. After McD's drive-thru.

1:37pm

As soon as we clear the drive-thru, FiL announces he needs to use the bathroom. At McD's. Not gas station. I decide to go too.

1:39pm

But by the time I'm finished and done, FiL is still getting out of the car. So MiL is walking to the gas station while I watch FiL.

1:42pm

No. She waited until he was done. Now she's walking to the gas station. It's like she doesn't want to get home today.

1:43pm

And the potty break was extra long because FiL couldn't figure out how to flush the toilet. Then …

1:44pm

I had to show him the sink so he didn't wash in his hands in the urinal. Then I had to help him turn on the water (an automatic faucet).

1:49pm

Mother-in-law has been in the gas station buying a bottle of water for over 10 minutes. Buying lottery tickets again?

1:53pm

Can't leave McD's yet. Can't find FiL's teeth. "They're in the green bag," says wife. "No I moved them," says MiL, "but I don't know where."

1:54pm

Wife just broke the car window with her head. Figuratively (well mostly) of course. It did make a satisfying "thunk" sound.

1:54pm (from @barkway)

Too funny!» @MSWallack: Can’t leave McD’s yet. Can’t find FiL’s teeth. “They’re in the green (cont) tl.gd/i7doaq

1:59pm

After that stop, I now suspect that Indiana has been moved yet further. Maybe closer to Colorado?

2:00pm

Wife just texted her sister that we've been touring South Carolina, driving from bathroom to bathroom for the last 5 1/2 hours.

2:07pm (from @bmk)

@MSWallack Judging from how it feels outside, the only direction we're moving is closer to the Sun.

2:09pm

@bmk That certainly sounds possible. I have some global warming on my shoulder, knee, and foot.

2:12pm (from @aaronecarroll) [Aaron Carroll, doctor, educator, and co-author of Don't Swallow Your Gum!: Myths, Half-Truths, and Outright Lies About Your Body and Health and Don't Cross Your Eyes...They'll Get Stuck That Way!: And 75 Other Health Myths Debunked

@MSWallack judging by temp, Indiana has moved to the equator.

2:12pm

Just passed a horse trailer. Sad to know that their ride is probably more comfortable than ours. Nay nay whinny nay.

2:16pm

Mother-in-law now apparently trying to play some kind of game with the horses in the trailer. Swerving toward them to scare 'em, perhaps?

2:16pm

Finally made it to North Carolina. I'm worried that they will have added a West Carolina for us to drive through too.

2:21pm

Now FiL is trying to discern the purpose of today's trip. We need to remind him every 20 minutes or so that we're on the way home.

2:21pm

Wife is not enjoying the mixture of the (apparently nasty) deodorant I bought and leftover McD's chicken wrap.

2:50pm

Stop 4. (@ Citgo) http://4sq.com/NeehiJ

3:00pm

FiL announces he needs another bathroom break. MiL gets off the highway. Then FiL says "I didn't mean now; I meant soon." We stopped anyway.

3:01pm

Talked to a cop at the gas station. Hoping he would arrest me (thus saving me from this car ride).

3:02pm

Now that we're back in the car, mother-in-law has decided to rearrange her stuff. Just because.

3:06pm

Just as we get onto the highway, father-in-law starts eating prunes. We just stole them from him; hid them, too.

3:10pm

Son handing paper towels to us when MiL swerves so violently, they fly out of his hand. Looked weightless as they bounced off the ceiling.

3:19pm

My wife has just discovered that while peanut butter may mix well with chocolate, her Kindle does not.

3:31pm

@donwonslow In the Author's Note to "Satori" you ask how Trevanian's fans would respond. You are no "pretender to the throne". Well done. [Unfortunately, I had a type in Mr. Winslow’s Twitter handle. I noticed while preparing this compilation, so I corrected and resent the tweet.]

3:38pm

Now reading "Blood Oath (President's Vampire #1)" by Christopher Farnsworth. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B003NX …

3:58pm

FiL has just noticed the GPS. He seems to dispute that it knows where we're going. He also worries that we don't know where we are.

4:00pm

MiL, while driving on the twisting roads in the big hills (I refuse to call them mountains) decides it's a good time to play with her phone.

4:12pm

Listening to FiL rant, we're not sure whether to laugh or cry. It's sad to see what dementia can do … but it can also offer up good comedy.

4:13pm

Right now he doesn't believe that we're headed home, that we had to go through mountains, that we know where we are or which way to go.

4:14pm

MiL already planning our next stops.

4:18pm

FiL now complaining that it's almost dark and not safe to keep driving. MiL made him take off his sunglasses.

4:27pm

Father-in-law now yelling that we're lost in the mountains. Telling his sister (on the phone) to come "up here" to get him.

4:28pm

Did I mention that we've been out of the big hills for half an hour or so? Road now is long, straight, and mostly flat.

4:42pm

We have reluctantly just passed the prunes back to the front of the car.

4:46pm

Didn't @DEVO have a song "Jerkin' Back 'n' Forth"? Mother-in-law must be a @DEVO fan based on her driving technique today.

4:59pm

We're stopping for gas. Father-in-law angry because he isn't ready to use the bathroom yet.

4:59pm

Stop 5. (@ Exxon Oil) http://4sq.com/MaUq4B

5:10pm

Father-in-law continuing to rant. Mother-in-law, in exasperation, says, "Are you nuts?" Wife & I from the back: "Yes!"

5:12pm

Wife just brought out a can of chicken. Eating it with a knife (sorry, no forks). And she complains about my deodorant?

5:12pm

If mother-in-law keeps jerkin' back 'n' forth like this, my wife will be wearing her can of chicken.

5:16pm

Good time to repeat a tweet from 2010 travelogue: "It' s ha rd to typ ew hen my mot her-in -low keeeeps jer king teh carr all ovur de rood."

5:18pm

If you're enjoying the 2012 Wallack Twitter Travelogue, here's a link to the compiled 2010 edition: http://blog.wallack.us/2010/07/wallac …

5:20pm

Father-in-law doesn't want to go to Lexington. Wants to go home. Lexington is on the way home.

5:23pm

Mother-in-law has been spelling L-E-X-I-N-G-T-O-N to father-in-law for the last 10 minutes. By now, even I'm confused.

5:26pm

Wife now suggesting father-in-law and daughter get a hotel room together so we don't have to hear them complain.

6:07pm

Mother-in-law now trying reverse psychology to get father-in-law to take a nap. Either it'll work or she'll go bonkers too.

6:18pm

First wife won't make me a cheese plate. Now she won't even feed me her Cheetos. Just what is the world com … OUCH!

6:51pm

Stop 6. (@ Wendy's) http://4sq.com/M8Fjy5

7:10pm

This. Wendy's. Is. Slopoooooooooooooooow. [And no, the p in the word Slopoooooooooooooooow was not intentional.]

7:17pm

MiL wants to drive with her sandwich in one hand, her phone in 2nd hand, helping FiL eat with 3rd hand, & drive with 4th hand. What? Wait!

7:23pm

Fly in car wants to be a martyr. Dive-bombing MiL. Then over to FiL causing him to spill food onto the food he'd spilled on himself earlier.

7:25pm

Stopping again so MiL can clean up FiL. He doesn't want to give her his food and is fighting her for it.

7:27pm

Stop 7. I think. I may have lost count. (@ Shell Gas Station)http://4sq.com/N9qgkD

7:28pm

We are now taking bets on whether we'll get home by midnight.

7:29pm

Father-in-law's door is open. He can't figure out how to close it. Oh, and MiL is mad at us.

7:30pm

Now father-in-law is back to wondering where we're going and why. Still not believing that we're going home.

7:43pm

Father-in-law wants dinner. Doesn't believe we just had dinner. Not like there's a mess in his lap for evidence, or anything.

7:58pm (from @amymasson)

@MSWallack So, does he have a memory problem?

8:00pm

@amymasson Dementia. And afternoons are the worst. I think they refer to it as "Sundowner's Syndrome".

8:00pm (from @amymasson)

@MSWallack Sounds like a hoot.

8:02pm

@amymasson That's one word for it. Like I tweeted earlier, both sad & comic at the same time. I's easier to find humor than to focus on bad.

8:03pm

MiL tailgating car in front of us. Wife: "You're too close to this car." MiL: "I know." And on we drive.

8:14pm

Listening to the ongoing discussion between FiL & MiL about our journey and where they will sleep tonight would make Abbot & Costello proud.

8:16pm

Father-in-law now claiming that we've kept secret from him the fact that other people are in the car with him. He's surprised to see us.

8:19pm

Wife has just suggested the invention of a "senior citizen gag". We could test it on my mother-in-law. Oh, wait. I have that wrong don't I?

8:48pm

Now father-in-law thinks we're driving to the airport to "ship him off" to … somewhere. It is tempting.

8:51pm

Once again, sorry for the dark turn this travelogue has taken, but it's a relief valve for the stress in the car. Humor instead of tears.

9:01pm

Father-in-law yelling that his doc said he isn't supposed to have stress. If he'd take a nap (as doc suggests) we wouldn't have stress.

9:04pm

Now he's raving that we're all going to go to jail because of what we're "doing to him".

9:16pm

Daughter talking him off the ledge by asking him about events from his past. Might be working.

9:39pm

Daughter did a great job asking FiL questions about his past. Seemed to calm him down and tire him out. At least a bit.

9:44pm

Daughter now says "we owe her" for her efforts to help grandpa. I told her I'd give her a vacation to Hilton Head.

10:27pm

Wife has been invited to see "Magic Mike" friends. This is fine; it's about me after all. But she better come home with a damn cheese plate!

10:29pm (from @KielEWyote)

@MSWallack Everyday you talk about cheese, you remind me more of Steve Urkel. :-) http://twitpic.com/a5626w

10:30pm

@KielEWyote Nah. Not just any cheese will do. And a good cheese plate should include some grapes, too. Maybe bell peppers.

10:33pm

@KielEWyote Funny thing is, I really don't eat that much cheese. But it's become a special treat late at night at Hilton Head (w/ wine!).

10:36pm

So close to home I can almost smell it. Of course we have to drop off (and unload) MiL & FiL first, so who knows when we'll really get home.

10:43pm

I'm thinking of sleeping in the refrigerator tonight. Pros & cons?

11:14pm

Home. 14.5 hours.

And there you have it: The Wallack Family 2012 Summer Vacation Travelogue! Will there be future episodes? Who knows. It doesn’t seem likely that my father-in-law will be able to travel anymore. And, as I noted, it’s hard to tweet while driving. But I’ve had a lot of fun doing these and I’m going to try to find ways to continue some kind of vacation travelogues in the future.

Oh, and if you’re a publisher interested in a humorous travelogue book… or maybe you want to make a movie or TV show? Well, my contact info is in the upper left corner of this blog! Get in touch!

Update (July 17, 2012): Corrected the dates of the first two entries (from July 27 and July 29, to June 27 and June 29).

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Thursday, June 28, 2012

Pascal’s Wager (Climate Change Edition)

Hmm. I wrote this a few weeks ago and just noted that I never actually posted it… Anyway, with the temperature expected to his 105° today, it seems the perfect time…

Back in the 17th Century, philosopher Blaise Pascal posited the notion that there was more to be gained by wagering on the existence of G-d. He concluded that a rational person should live life as if G-d exists. Essentially, the premises was that if G-d exists and you live your life accordingly, then you will reap rewards in the afterlife. If G-d does not exist, there will be no downside to having lived a good life. On the other hand, if you were to live a “bad” life, again there would be no downside if G-d doesn’t exist but there would (so the theory goes) be a huge downside if G-d did exist.

Of course, there are some tremendous logical problems with Pascal’s Wager (as this argument has come to be known), but that isn’t the point of this post.

Instead, I want to suggest a similar premise but in the realm of climate change. And yes, I know that I’m not the first to have tied these two concepts together.

So let’s start by looking at the possibilities: First, either the climate is changing … or it isn’t. And second, we either try to do something about it … or we don’t. Whether you “believe” in climate change or not really isn’t the question; rather, the question is what you (we) choose to do that matters.

To analyze the interplay of these possibilities, let’s start with the premise that climate change is, indeed, a great big hoax. In that case, the choice to do nothing will obviously have no negative consequences. If I make no effort to prevent something that isn’t going to occur anyway, then my failure won’t make that event that wasn’t going to occur suddenly become real.

What if we decide to do something about climate change, even though it’s a hoax? Well, then I guess it’s possible that we’ll waste lots of resources and money trying to find solutions to a non-existent problem, although it does stand to reason that at last some of those resources expenditures will result in beneficial developments (more fuel efficiency, for example). So it seems that the only real downside to trying to prevent this “hoax” from coming true would be an drain on resources and capital. (And as an aside, to those who suggest we shouldn’t do something about a non-existent problem, I’d ask them about their support for laws to prevent non-existent voter fraud…)

But what if climate change isn’t a hoax? What if it’s real and the consequences that the scientific community have been warning about are real, too? Well, if we put those resources and expenditures into trying to stop climate change (or reduce its effects), then perhaps we’ll succeed; perhaps we’ll actually be able to prevent climate change that will alter the planet in potentially irreversible ways. And that would certainly be good, wouldn’t it?

Finally, what if climate change is real … and we decide to do nothing. What if the planet really does warm significantly and sea levels rise? If, in 100 years, the east and west coasts are both under water, how much money would it, in hindsight, have been worth spending to stop that result? If the change in temperatures turned the American breadbasket into infertile, hostile soil such that we had to become an food importer, would we be kicking ourselves at not having had the foresight to try to prevent that situation from coming to pass? If more and more severe storm systems begin to cause more and more significant damage to both people and infrastructure, would we bemoan that we hadn’t tried to do something to prevent changes to our planet?

As I see it, if we do nothing and climate change is a hoax, then everything’s just peachy. If we do something and climate change is a hoax, then we’ve (maybe) wasted resources. But if we do something and climate change is real, then perhaps we can prevent catastrophe. If we do nothing and climate change is real, then catastrophe is almost certain.

You pick. Are you willing to take the risk that climate change is a hoax and therefore elect for us to do nothing? That’s fine … if you’re right. But if you’re wrong, if climate change is real, then where will that leave us? Where will that leave our children and our grandchildren? Are you so certain that climate change is a hoax that you’re willing to do nothing at the possible risk to the lifestyle — or even life! — of your children and grandchildren?

For a similar analysis, please take a few minutes and watch this video explanation:

Labels:

Bookmark and Share


Wednesday, June 20, 2012

President Obama, Immigration Reform, and Republican Bullsh*t

As readers of this blog most likely know, I was (and remain) a strong supporter of the DREAM Act. I’ve gone so far as to express my belief that Opposition to the DREAM Act Is a Racist “F-You” to the American Dream. And I was very critical of soon-to-be-former Sen. Lugar for dropping his support for the DREAM Act (of which he had been a sponsor for years) because, he claimed, Democrats had “politicized” the issue of immigration (I’m Losing Respect for Sen. Lugar (update)).

Now that President Obama Secretary of Homeland Security has issued her memo suspending deportations of certain undocumented immigrants, many Republicans have become almost apoplectic in their anger and dismay. So it’s no great surprise the extent to which they have decided to lie and demagogue and simply bullshit their way around the issue. The most common things you’re likely to hear Republicans say (over and over and over) are that President Obama violated the Constitution (or, perhaps, for those who prefer to be a bit less bombastic, the claim may be that President Obama overstepped his authority), that his action creates an amnesty or a “pathway to citizenship”, that the “amnesty” will encourage more illegal immigration, and that his action makes comprehensive immigration reform more difficult to accomplish. I want to (briefly, I hope) tackle each of those points. But first, it’s worth doing something that most of the Republicans and Faux News “journalists” can’t be bothered to do: Look at what President Obama and the Department of Homeland Security actually did.

So, for starters, you might want to read the memo that Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano actually wrote to the Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Read her memo and let me know which parts you disagree with:

By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home. As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many of them. However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities.

The following criteria should be satisfied before an individual is considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to this memorandum:

• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;

• has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;

• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

• has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and

• is not above the age of thirty.

Our Nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner. They are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways. Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.

As part of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the above criteria are to be considered whether or not an individual is already in removal proceedings or subject to a final order of removal. No individual should receive deferred action under this memorandum unless they first pass a background check and requests for relief pursuant to this memorandum are to be decided on a case by case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all cases.

1. With respect to individuals who are encountered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):

• With respect to individuals who meet the above criteria, ICE and CBP should immediately exercise their discretion, on an individual basis, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.

• USCIS is instructed to implement this memorandum consistent with its existing guidance regarding the issuance of notices to appear.

2. With respect to individuals who are in removal proceedings but not yet subject to a final order of removal, and who meet the above criteria:

•I CE should exercise prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, for individuals who meet the above criteria by deferring action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being removed from the United States.

• ICE is instructed to use its Office of the Public Advocate to permit individuals who believe they meet the above criteria to identify themselves through a clear and efficient process.

• ICE is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.

• ICE is also instructed to immediately begin the process of deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria whose cases have already been identified through the ongoing review of pending cases before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

3. With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings and meet the above criteria, and pass a background check:

• USCIS should establish a clear and efficient process for exercising prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, by deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria and are at least 15 years old, for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.

• The USCIS process shall also be available to individuals subject to a final order of removal regardless of their age.

• USCIS is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.

For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.

Whew. Sorry. I know that’s a mouthful. Just out of curiosity, now that you know what the Obama administration really did, was the news coverage, punditry, or political posturing that you heard even close to accurate? If not, you might want to think about who you’re listening to, what agenda they might have, and whether you should trust other things from that “news” source. One point to chew on: This wasn’t an executive order at all and if you hear that it was … well, someone either hasn’t really looked at the facts, is playing fast and loose with those facts, or isn’t quite telling you the truth.

Now, on to the substance.

The first point that I want to make is on the subject of prosecutorial discretion. That’s not a phrase that has been used in the public sphere very often prior to this matter. In essence, the idea is simply that the government, acting through its prosecutors, has the discretion of which crimes to prosecute and which alleged criminals to bring to trial. Prosecutors exercise this sort of discretion all the time. Obviously, they may choose not to prosecute a case when the evidence is weak. The prosecutor may be convinced that the alleged criminal is, indeed, guilty, but without compelling evidence the prosecution would be a waste of limited resources. Similarly, and probably more importantly, prosecutors don’t have to prosecute every single crime. Does every teen caught with a beer go to jail or even appear before a court? Of course not. What about every person who gets pulled over for speeding or running a red light? Does every single shoplifter get prosecuted? And it isn’t just minor crimes that are sometimes ignored. How many Wall Street bankers have been prosecuted for the actions that led up to the financial meltdown? How many members of the Bush administration have been prosecuted for advocating, ordering, or permitting torture? With regard to immigration, we know that prosecutors have routinely elected not to bring deportation proceedings against certain illegal immigrants for a whole host of reasons, from economic hardship, to family obligations, to, well, the list is probably endless. And, until now, that has never really been a problem.

We have a limited number of prosecutors, a limited number of courts, and finite resources available. Thus, not every crime is, can be, or should be, treated identically. Prosecutors have to decide which cases are the most important ones to prosecute. They have to decide who to deport. And that is prosecutorial discretion.

So, in essence, Secretary Napolitano has simply instructed the prosecutors working under her (and President Obama has essentially directed the Justice Department’s prosecutors, who it is worth mentioning are political appointees) to focus their attention on other, more important crimes and “criminals” and not to waste those precious prosecutorial resources on this small subset of people who have otherwise not committed any crimes and who are valuable members of society.

One quick tangent: Let’s say for the sake of argument that a 14-year-old commits a non-violent felony. Possession of a marijuana joint, for example. When that child turns 18, absent aggravating circumstances at the time of the conviction, doesn’t that crime get expunged from the child’s record? Of course. But that isn’t true in the case of a child brought to the US illegally by his or her parents. When that child turns 18 he or she is still deemed to be a criminal, I guess because the continued act of being in the US is a crime, even though the “bad act” was not really committed by the child, but by his or her parents. OK. Tangent over.

Now, given what I’ve described about prosecutorial discretion and now that you’ve read what the Department of Homeland Security has actually done, could you please tell me how President Obama has either violated the Constitution or overstepped his authority? Recall, of course, that it is the President who is in charge of the Executive branch of which both the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are a part. If Congress wants to pass a law that requires each and every undocumented immigrant to be deported, I suppose they could (of course, they’d also probably have to increase funding for prosecutor’s offices, public defenders, and courts). Or, they could pass immigration reform.

As for those who say that President Obama has issued some kind of amnesty (like, for example, Sen. Jim DeMint [R-South Carolina] or Rep. Lamar Smith [R-Texas]; see Politifact’s analysis of whether President Obama’s action grants amnesty), they would do well to re-read (presuming that they’ve read the memo in the first place) the last paragraph (emphasis added):

This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.

One quick issue to note about this paragraph. The statement that the memo “confers no substantive right” is likely only meaningful to lawyers, but it is extremely important. In essence, that paragraph means that someone cannot sue the Department of Homeland Security or US Government to force compliance with this memo or to prevent a prosecutor from using prosecutorial discretion to go ahead with a deportation proceeding. In other words, the memo doesn’t grant any rights to undocumented immigrants; rather, is just tells prosecutors how to handle certain situations.

Anyway, given that the memo specifically notes that it is not conferring immigration status or a pathway to citizenship and noting further that “[o]nly the Congress” can do so, if you hear a “journalist,” pundit or politician tell you that President Obama either conferred immigration status or created a pathway to citizenship, please recognize that they are lying to you.

Another of the charges leveled against President Obama is that the decision to not deport certain people will encourage additional illegal immigration. First, it’s worth remembering that the Patron Saint of the Republican Party, Saint Ronald of Reagan, granted amnesty to over 3,000,000 illegal immigrants. Hmm. Anyway, with regard to the current claim that the policy will encourage illegal immigration, it is worth recalling this part of the memo (emphasis added):

has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;

I’m not exactly sure why a policy that requires presence in the US today will encourage future illegal immigration. And just to show you how crazy some Republicans are when it comes to their need to demonize illegal immigrants and President Obama, it’s worth noting the claim made by Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) in an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien:

“You’re talking about people that came over at 16 years of age. At that point, you had a say in it. And that looks kind of more like amnesty,” the congressman said.

O’Brien was skeptical of this remark, challenging the congressman: “You think a 16-year-old whose parents are coming across the border has a say in whether or not they’re just going to stay behind in their country?”

“They’re certainly in a position to have a conversation with their parents about it,” Farenthold replied.

Right. So the 16-year-old child should prevent the parents from immigrating illegally. What about a 12-year-old? 4 year-olds? Are they getting “amnesty” Congressman?

Finally, I want to look at what Speaker John Boehner had to say:

I think we all have concerns for those who are caught in this trap, who — who through no fault of their own are here. But the president’s actions are going to make it much more difficult for us to work in a bipartisan way to get to a permanent solution.

Do you have any idea what he’s talking about? I mean let’s think about it for a second. Under Boehner’s leadership, the House of Representatives refused to take up the DREAM Act (it was passed in December 2010, before the new Republican majority came to power). The Senate, meanwhile, passed the DREAM Act … oh, wait. That’s not actually true. A majority of the Senate (55 Senators) voted for the DREAM Act … but in the Senate, a mere majority, even a 5-vote majority, is not enough to override a filibuster, and thus, though supported by a majority of the Senate, the DREAM Act failed. One of the principal objections to the DREAM Act repeatedly voiced by many Republicans was that it granted amnesty and a path to citizenship. Some said that they would support the DREAM Act if it didn’t include amnesty or a path to citizenship (which, is, of course, the whole point of the DREAM Act). But think about it for a minute: Isn’t what the Republicans wanted of the DREAM Act exactly what the Obama administration did? It’s kind of like healthcare reform: Republicans wanted an individual mandate until President Obama agreed with them and gave them what they wanted; then it became unconstitutional.

So anyway, how is it that deciding not to deport children — but not granting them amnesty or path to citizenship — makes it harder to work in a bipartisan way (as if Speaker Boehner has worked in a bipartisan way since taking the speaker’s gavel…)? Remember what Secretary Napolitano’s memo said:

Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

But somehow, in Speaker Boehner’s world, that makes it more difficult to act in a bipartisan way.

No, the truth is much simpler. Republicans don’t want immigration reform. And, maybe even more importantly, they don’t want President Obama to have any sort of a success that he can point to. The Obama administration did something that will be popular with many Americans (not just Hispanics Latinos). And that sort of success and popularity is anathema to many on the right. So now, to act in a bipartisan manner or to work on immigration reform might, in some circles, look like a victory for President Obama. And the Republicans can’t have that now, can they?

Oh, and isn’t it interesting that Mitt Romney refuses to say whether he would overturn this decision should he become President?

Update (June 22, 2012)

I wanted to add three quick items to this post.

First, yesterday (a week after President Obama’s new policy was announced), Mitt Romney spoke to the National Association of Latino Elected Officials. Here is part of what he said:

Some people have asked if I will let stand the president’s executive action. The answer is that I will put in place my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the president’s temporary measure.

In other words, Mitt Romney wants to pass comprehensive immigration reform … but he won’t say what that would look like and he won’t say whether he will rescind the instruction not to deport certain undocumented immigrants. And don’t forget that President Obama also wanted to pass immigration reform but was stymied by Republican filibusters and refusal to consider proposals.

Second, since publishing the original post, I’ve read several discussions about the scope of prosecutorial discretion. I’ve seen some interesting arguments as to why President Obama’s action is or is not within the scope of his powers and prosecutorial discretion. I’m still convinced that it was within his powers and is a legitimate example of prosecutorial discretion. But as always, my mind is open and I’m willing to consider arguments to the contrary.

Also, on this point, I also read one analogy of a further example of prosecutorial discretion that I think is quite apropos to the issue of deciding not to deport a particular group of undocumented immigrants. We all know what speed limits are. And we all feel comfortable going at least a little bit faster than the speed limit. Would you have any problem if the Governor, mayor, police chief, or similar official, told police officers not to write tickets for speeding on an Interstate highway unless the person was going at least 10 miles over the posted limit or was driving in a dangerous manner? I suspect that this is already the case. It seems a decent analogy to the deportation issue.

Finally, last night I recalled something I learned when I attended the first Indianapolis Latino-Jewish dialogue last month, namely that use of the term “Latino” was probably a better choice than “Hispanic”. I’ve corrected the the usage in the original post.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share


Thursday, June 14, 2012

Are You in Compliance With Indiana’s New Smoking Ban? Probably Not.

In my ongoing (though occasional) series of posts examining new Indiana statutes, the time has come to take a look at Indiana’s new smoking ban. First, two caveats: I was in favor of the smoking ban and I didn’t really pay all that much attention to it as it was making its way through the Indiana General Assembly. I’d had no real need to read the statute until I was asked a question about it yesterday.

Once I read the new statute, my initial response was essentially one of befuddlement. How, I wondered, could a legislature composed of many lawyers utilizing the services of the highly competent Legislative Services Agency craft a bill that was so poorly drafted. And before I get into the weeds of what I mean, let me note specifically that I’m not talking about the decision to exclude casinos, taverns, or fraternal clubs from the ban. Sure, I’d like to see the smoking ban be more rather than less inclusive, but that isn’t my primary problem with the bill as written.

For those who want to read the enrolled act (i.e., the new statute as passed by the Indiana General Assembly) in its entirety, it can be found on the website of the Indiana General Assembly. And for those few who care, the new statute is Indiana Code § 7.1-5-12.

So let’s take a look at some of the pertinent parts of the new statute.

Section 4.

    (a) Except as provided in section 5 of this chapter, smoking is prohibited in the following:

        (1) A public place.

        (2) A place of employment.

        (3) …

        (4) The area within eight (8) feet of a public entrance to:

            (A) a public place; or

            (B) a place of employment.

    (b) An employer shall inform each of the employer's employees and prospective employees of the smoking prohibition applying to the place of employment.

    (c) An owner, operator, manager, or official in charge of a public place or place of employment shall remove ashtrays or other smoking paraphernalia from areas of the public place or place of employment where smoking is prohibited under this chapter. However, this subsection does not prohibit the display of ashtrays or other smoking paraphernalia that are intended only for retail sale.

    (d) An owner, operator, manager, or official in charge of a public place or place of employment shall post conspicuous signs at each public entrance that read “State Law Prohibits Smoking Within 8 Feet of this Entrance” or other similar language.

Now, those of you who are lawyers or who have read my critiques of statutes in the past should immediately be asking what, exactly, does the statute mean by a “public place” or a “place of employment”.

Section 1. As used in this chapter, “place of employment” means an enclosed area of a structure that is a place of employment. The term does not include a private vehicle.

Section 2. As used in this chapter, “public place” means an enclosed area of a structure in which the public is invited or permitted.

Hmm. Got that? And did you catch the circular reference in the definition of place of employment?

Just for the record, the broad list of places that are exempt from the smoking ban include horse racing facilities, riverboats, casinos, bars, cigar bars, tobacconists, and fraternal clubs (and similar types of places all of which must meet a number of further conditions to be exempt). Oh, and there is one more important exemption:

Section 5(a)(11): The premises of a business that is located in the business owner’s private residence … if the only employees of the business who work in the residence are the owner and other individuals who reside in the residence.

Now, consider, if you will, the following scenarios, and for each, tell me whether employees must be told of the smoking prohibition (per Section 4(b), whether ashtrays must be removed (per Section 4(c)), and whether the “no smoking” sign must be posted at the public entrance (per Section 4(d)):

  • A law firm occupying a suite that consists of a portion of the 23rd floor of a high rise building;
  • A doctor’s office occupying a suite in a single-story office building;
  • A dentist’s office in a free-standing building;
  • A food truck parked on a public street;
  • A cell phone case kiosk in an enclosed shopping mall;
  • A hair stylist that rents a chair in a larger salon;
  • A parking garage;
  • The enclosed restrooms at a neighborhood swimming pool;
  • A gazebo in the common area of a residential subdivision;
  • A church, synagogue, mosque, or other house of worship;
  • A sukkot (a small tabernacle built by Jews as part of a harvest festival) built by a synagogue that is open to the public;
  • A carnival funhouse or midway arcade;
  • An artist’s booth at a local art fair;
  • A tent erected in a park for a wedding or similar gathering; or
  • The sales office of an apartment project.

Oh, there are a few that I forgot. And think about yourself for these:

  • A private residence at which a maid or plumber or contractor provides services to the homeowner;
  • A private residence from which a homeowner conducts a Mary Kay, Avon, or Tupperware business if that homeowner’s mother or a friend sometimes come to the home to help with the business;
  • A private residence where a home healthcare worker comes to provide certain healthcare or physical therapy services;
  • A private residence from which a homeowner conducts a web design business and to which a photographer or graphic designer occasionally comes; or
  • A private residence where the homeowners pay the neighbor’s high school student to come and babysit.

See the problems?

If the law simply said that smoking was prohibited in these places, there probably wouldn’t be much of an issue. But the law doesn’t stop there. Instead, it requires that employees be notified, that ashtrays be removed, and that signs be posted.

Thus, as I read the statute, an argument can be made that if you hire a babysitter to watch your kids while you go to a movie, you will be in violation of Indiana law if you don’t inform her that smoking is prohibited in your home, if you don’t remove all ashtrays from the rooms that she is allowed to go into (unless, of course, you are trying to sell the ashtray to her…), or if you fail to post a conspicuous sign near your front door.

Seriously.

Now, perhaps that reading is too broad. Perhaps because the babysitter owns her own business rather than being an employee or your business (as opposed to you), then the statute doesn’t really apply to that situation. That’s the argument that I’d make. But is it clear enough for you that the homeowner who hires a babysitter isn’t employing the babysitter in a business within the home? And what about the Avon lady?

And if the law really does want a “no smoking” sign to be displayed at each of the types of businesses and structures that I’ve mentioned in the first group of scenarios, won’t those signs quickly become both a visual nuisance and essentially meaningless? We don’t require businesses to post “no drinking” signs if they don’t have a liquor license or “no gambling” signs if they don’t have a gambling license. For that matter, we don’t require businesses to post “no murder” or “no burglary” or “no insider trading” signs, either. The statute also requires “smoking permitted” signs at facilities at which smoking is, indeed permitted. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say that you can’t smoke anywhere that doesn’t have a smoking permitted sign? Maybe all doors behind which smoking is permitted should be green and those behind which smoking is prohibited should be red.

There is yet another point of confusion worth considering. Let’s say that you own an office building or maybe a shopping center or strip mall. Individual spaces within your building or mall are leased to tenants. Remember that the obligation to post signs and remove ashtrays is imposed upon the “owner, operator, manager, or official in charge of a public place or place of employment”. So who is responsible for posting the notice on the door of each tenant’s space? Is it your job? Is it the tenant’s responsibility? Or is the responsibility incumbent upon some public official? And if you post a notice at the main entrance to your building or mall, do we really need additional notices on the door to each office or store within the building or mall?

And while I’m thinking about it, does each separate “structure” at an amusement park have to have a separate “no smoking” sign? Maybe I should start a business making Indiana-compliant “no smoking” signs as it looks like there may be a need for millions of them to be posted across the state.

It seems to me that the idea of the smoking ban is a good one. But the implementation (even setting aside the extensive list of exclusions) seems hopelessly flawed, The statute is too narrow in where it bans smoking but way too overbroad in its coverage of who needs to comply with its notice requirements. And I think that we can all agree that most businesses aren’t going to post these sorts of signs or warn employees. Certainly homeowners won’t think that they need to post warning or remove ashtrays. A statute that we all know will simply be ignored is clearly not an effective statute.

Yes, I understand that the response may be that the statute isn’t intended to apply in some of these sorts of situations (especially to things like a homeowner hiring a babysitter or the Avon lady). But if that’s the case, then the statute should be much, much more clear. There is a skill in drafting well-crafted legislation. It isn’t necessarily easy to do. But when there is a statute of this broad of applicability and for which even a quick reading reveals numerous potential problems and questions, then it seems that the drafters — not to mention the legislators that passed the bill — needed to take a step back, think carefully, and make the revisions that may have been necessary to eliminate as many potential problems and definitional issues as possible. And that was the failing with this bill.

Oh, and two more queries: Is a lighter a type of smoking paraphernalia? And do I have to remove an ashtray that is a work or art that I display even though I don’t smoke? I mean, does my law firm really have to get rid of the decorative ashtray that was given to us by a relative when we first opened for business in 1993 and into which no ash has ever fallen? The law says yes.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share


Monday, June 11, 2012

Will You Create Jobs With Your Tax Reduction?

I think I’ve mentioned repeatedly on this blog that I’m neither an economist nor an expert on tax policy. As anyone who reads this blog regularly will recognize, I’m driven more by social issues. But it does appear that “the economy” (whatever that may really mean) is going to be the primary issue in the upcoming election. And so I want to take a brief look at one of the ongoing memes of the current political debate: The notion that giving tax breaks to “job creators” will help to spur job growth.

You see, I don’t think that this is really true. Oh, sure, some people may decide to create jobs. But will those jobs be created because the business owner got a tax break? That’s the real question isn’t it?

Look at this way: Let’s say that you’re the owner of a widget factory and you’ve been making a few million dollars each year (your own income, not the income of your company). And now let’s say that President Romney gives you a tax break. Are you taking that money, reinvesting it in your company by hiring a new employee or three … or are you taking the family to Cabo or on a cruise? Here’s what I think: You might use that money to hire a new employee … but only if you thought that there was going to be an increased demand for widgets. Just because you get a tax break and get to put more money in your pocket doesn’t equate to the idea that more people will be buying your widgets, especially if the widget purchasers are still looking for work or paying more so that you could have your tax break. And why would you hire more widget builders if you’re not going to actually sell any more widgets?

Or think of the plastic surgeon. Will he hire more nurses to help him perform more rhinoplasties or breast enlargements because he now has more disposable income? Or will his decision to hire more people be almost entirely dependent upon whether there will be more demand for his services? I mean, why would he want to hire more nurses if he isn’t going to, you know, need them?

Certainly home builders aren’t going to hire more guys with hammers until there’s more of a demand for new homes and stores won’t hire more sales clerks until there are more people shopping.

And a law firm isn’t going to hire more lawyers unless it has work to put on their desks.

You see, just hiring people doesn’t actually create work for those new employees to do.

So just where is it that these so-called “job creators” are going to be creating new jobs?

Perhaps tax breaks for the wealthiest will lead to new jobs as first class flight attendants (or in private plane production) or at high-end hotels. I suspect that the company that makes residential car elevators will be able to thank Mitt Romney for the uptick in business. Maybe manufacturers of other high end products (Rolls Royce, Rolex, and so forth…) will need to gear up production. But will tax breaks for millionaires (or billionaires) really spur job growth in the manufacture of most consumer goods or foodstuffs? Will it have a direct impact upon the demand for new housing construction or the auto industry? Will pharmaceutical companies see a sudden surge in hiring just because their top shareholders now get to keep more of their incomes? Will the banks suddenly be willing to lend more and correspondingly need to hire more tellers and loan officers?

I don’t think so.

Try this: If you know someone who makes enough money that they would see a tax break under President Romney (or a Republican Congress), ask them precisely how many new jobs they will create because of that tax break. And then ask them why that tax break will spur them to create new jobs. Ask why a tax break is more important to job creation than demand for their goods or services. Ask if they created new jobs during the 90s when taxes were higher than they are now. Why then but not now? And ask them if they’re willing to pledge to create those new jobs with the money that they save in taxes. See how they respond to that.

Thinking just about those whom I know personally and who would benefit from a tax break, I’m not sure that any of them would create jobs just because of that tax break. Maybe I’m wrong. I’d love to hear from them and hear about the jobs that they’d create if only they didn’t have to pay so darn much. Um, right.

Finally, and most importantly, if you hear a politician tell you that it is important to give tax breaks to “job creators”, don’t just accept that claim without more. Ask the politician to explain precisely what sorts of jobs will be created and why. Ask whether those jobs will be created here in the US or in Chinese or Mexican factories. And then ask the politician for empirical evidence that supports their claim that this sort of hyper-trickle down economic theory will work. Because all of the data that I’ve seen suggests that, in fact, it doesn’t work.

I think that we need to find ways to put more money in the pockets of consumers. With more disposable income, they’ll be more interested in purchasing goods and services. And the businesses that supply those goods and services will need more employees to help produce and provide the goods and services. And those new employees will, in turn, consume goods and services themselves, and so on and so forth. Millionaires and billionaires don’t need the aid; the poor and working class families, by contrast, do.

The point is to grow the size of the pie, not grow the size of the piece of the pie enjoyed by the wealthiest.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share


Thursday, June 7, 2012

Not AWOL but Depressed

Sorry for the lack of recent posts. I’ve had various other things going on that have occupied my time and kept me from blogging. But if truth be told, I will say that I’m a bit depressed, too. You see, as I read about what’s going on in the world of politics and as the election campaign begins to take shape, I realize more and more that rationale discourse, dialogue, debate, and discussion are worth very little, if anything. Rather, all that really matters is the ability to spend outrageous sums of money. And even that wouldn’t be so bad if the money was spent in a way that actually educated voters. But far too much of the expenditures are used, at best, to do nothing more than attack a candidate and, at worst, are replete with outright lies.

And, I’d note, it seems more and more that the media seems almost complicit in allowing candidates, their surrogates, and their Super PACs lie with impunity or, in the rare cases where a lie is noted, it is contextualized with a “both sides do it” framework but without any concept of scope, scale, or meaning, or impact.

What is the point of trying to write about the issues, to point out factual inaccuracies or hypocrisy, or to explain reasoning for a position, when a handful of billionaires can anonymously spend unlimited amounts of money to drown out any sort of reasoned discussion? And when they have their own “news” network devoted to their cause…?

There have been a bunch of things that I’ve wanted to write about recently but I keep having this sinking feeling that it’s just not worth my time. Those who I really want to try to convince seem almost immune from facts, reason, or logic; if they heard it on Faux News or Limbaugh’s program (or Glenn Beck or Laura Ingraham or any of a bunch of other shows) then it must be true and nothing that I or anyone else (who actually thinks that facts matter) does seems to make any kind of dent.

Don’t worry. I’m not giving up. I’m just venting and maybe catching my breath. Because I’m sure that as the election draws nearer and the lies begin to fly even thicker and uglier then I’ll have plenty to say. And even if I’m feeling a bit (well, more than a bit) powerless in the face of millions of dollars spent to lie to people, I still recognize that our democracy is premised upon people expressing their opinions, something I’m clearly not shy about doing.

OK. End of pity party.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share


Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Quoted in The Indianapolis Star

For those who missed it, I was quoted in a story on the front page of today’s The Indianapolis Star. I was interviewed by reporter Chris Sikich for his story Allisonville Road bridge project in Indianapolis to begin Wednesday. Any my big quote?

I’m expecting it to be a mess.

Eloquent, no?

But it was on the front page.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share


Mitt Romney: A Man Without the Instincts or Moral Fiber to Do What’s Right

In several posts over the last few months, I’ve taken Mitt Romney to task for his tepid responses to over-the-top rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” and “prostitute” accusations (and lies) to Ted Nugent’s violent fantasies to the attacks against Romney’s chosen spokesperson who just happened to be gay to his failure to really accept responsibility for or demonstrate that he learned anything from being a high school bully (see Insults, Apologies, and the False Equivalency in the War of Words, Mitt Romney, Ted Nugent, Dana Loesch, the Politics of Hate, and the Fear of the Voting Base, Bullying and the Lessons Learned (Mitt Romney Edition)). The genie that Sarah Palin let out of the bottle in the 2008 campaign and which John McCain tried unsuccessfully to tamp down is now in full swing. And Mitt Romney has demonstrated that he has either no interest in preventing hate-filled or racist rhetoric or that he simply doesn’t have the spine to do so. In either case, that is neither a winning formula for a presidential candidate nor the hallmark of a man who would be a successful occupant of the Oval Office.

Several new incidents have occurred that offered Romney further chances to demonstrate that he understands the importance of using the bully pulpit to call out that which is wrong … but following each of those incidents he has settled for the role of the coward, willing to allow others to engage in hate speech while he simply looks around as if to say, “Who, me?” while washing his hands of any sort of responsibility or need to call intolerable behavior just that.

The most well-known of these recent incidents is Donald Trump’s return to spouting birther nonsense and claiming that President Obama is a liar (on the basis of … well … nothing, really). And all of this came just a few days before Romney shared a stage with Trump for a major fundraiser. So what did Romney say in response to Trump’s birther comments?

You know, I don't agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don't all agree with everything I believe in. But I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.

Now let me be clear about one thing: I don’t hold a candidate responsible for everything that every supporter of that candidate has to say. That’s foolish. But

You see, there are supporters and then there are supporters. There is a difference between someone who believes in the candidate’s position and maybe even offers a few dollars of support and a billionaire that the campaign actively sought an endorsement from. There is a difference between someone who attends a campaign rally and someone who hosts a high dollar campaign fundraiser. There is a difference between an “average Joe” and a egotistical television personality with a name and hairdo recognizable to virtually everyone. It isn’t a case of “guilt by association” to ask Romney about the statements of someone that Romney has gone out of his way to work with and from whom Romney expects aid in raising millions of dollars because that association is one of Romney’s own choosing and one that he could set aside if it was the right thing to do and if he had the moral fiber to recognize and act upon that.

Romney hasn’t rejected Trump’s endorsement (or money) any more than he’s rejected Ted Nugent’s endorsement. Compare that to the actions of Sen. McCain in 2008 when he rejected Rev. John Hagee’s endorsement because of things that Hagee had said about the Catholic Church and the Holocaust. Sen. McCain understood that doing what’s right was more important than an endorsement and that integrity was more important than winning. Romney, who has already proven that he will do or say (or even “believe”) anything to get the nomination, is also proving that there is nothing too low for him allow his supporters or surrogates to say or do.

Moreover, Trump isn’t the only Romney supporter who has been engaging in birtherism in recent weeks. You’ve probably heard about the efforts of Arizona’s Secretary of State Ken Bennett to get Hawaii to certify President Obama’s birth certificate. Bennett went so far as to tell an Arizona radio station that he might keep President Obama off of the November ballot. While Hawaii has now certified the birth certificate and Bennett has “apologized” saying “if I embarrassed the state, I apologize” (emphasis added, and note that the apology is for embarrassing the state, not for the harm to the political process or President Obama), Romney has said nothing about the matter. And why should he, you ask? Again, Romney isn’t responsible for the idiotic statements or actions of other Republican office holders. However, in addition to being the Arizona Secretary of State … Bennett is the co-chair of Romney’s campaign in Arizona. So, while Romney may not be responsible for the statements of just anyone, he certainly should be held accountable for the statements of his surrogates and his chosen campaign officials.

And it’s not just how Romney has responded (or not…) to Trump and birtherism. For example, consider the following exchanges between Sen. McCain and voters back in 2008.

Now compare Sen. McCain’s reaction above to how Mitt Romney responds when a woman suggests that President Obama should be tried for treason.

Quite a striking difference, no? To be fair, when asked by reporters after the event, Romney did say that he did not agree with the woman’s comments that President Obama should be tried for treason. But he didn’t have the spine or moral instincts to tell her (and the audience who cheered her) that she was wrong. And he didn’t volunteer that opinion until asked by reporters. Hard to get that 50.1% if you tell people something that they don’t want to hear I guess.

There is yet one more recent example that I want to touch on, one that has gotten very little attention. A few weeks ago, Romney held a “secret” meeting with a group of conservative (right-wing?) online writers and bloggers. Included in that meeting was blogger Dan Riehl of RiehlWorldView (I’m not going to provide a link because … well, because I don’t want to give him any traffic and some of the views that he offers are just … well, keep reading). Without going into too many specifics, I can safely say that Riehl doesn’t seem to have any sort of internal filter on the things that come out of his mouth (or, fingers, I suppose). I’ve had my own run-in with him on Twitter and seen how he responds to those with whom he disagrees. Riehl is the sort of character who, rather than discussing facts or issues, throws ad hominem attacks and seems to have a fixation on using sexual references and innuendo as his favorite form of attack. So a few days ago, following an appearance on MSNBC by Joan Walsh (the editor-at-large of Salon.com), Riehl went on the (sexual) offensive again, with, among other things, the following tweets:

I don’t mind Joan Walsh getting low, but if she’s going to open her mouth, wish she’d do something I might actually enjoy for once!

And

I think I may have just discovered the most polite way of telling Joan Walsh to suck on this. lol

And

&, please, no indignant protestations of any alleged sexist attack. The woman is a pox, not a woman as ive evr considered sum1 2 B 1

Nice guy, huh?

Moreover, as Mediate notes, Riehl has a history of this sort of incendiary, sexually charged attack:

The Romney campaign could not have known that Dan Riehl was going to make this particular attack on Joan Walsh, but Riehl’s history includes sexist attacks on Meghan McCain, publishing photos of a rival blogger’s 4 year-old niece under the headline “Is Jeff Poor A Pedophile?,” and publishing another article wondering, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s wife lay in the hospital after a serious car accident, “Isn’t It Time To Euthanize Reid’s Wife?”

This isn’t even his first foray into speculative oral sex fiction. Riehl previously targeted The Daily Caller’s Tucker Carlson with his fellatio fantasies, publishing an article entitled “Breaking: Tucker Carlson To Give Head On Pennsylvania Avenue.”

This is the sort of person that Romney is inviting to secret meetings to help him win the White House. Again, Romney isn’t responsible for what every blogger has to say any more than President Obama is responsible for what I have to say; Romney isn’t even responsible for what every blogger who supports him has to say. But when one of his chosen bloggers engages in hyper-sexualized attacks of the sort that Riehl has a history of making and when he makes such an attack after being invited into Romney’s secret cabal of bloggers, then doesn’t Romney have an obligation to stand up and say “this is wrong” or “I appreciate Dan Riehl’s help but his attack on Joan Walsh was over-the-top and unacceptable”?

Recall, of course, that when Hillary Rosen, a pundit not affiliated with the Obama campaign made far less offensive statements, leading members of the Obama campaign called out those statements literally within hours and President Obama did so the following day. And none of those statements minced words; they tackled her comments head on with strong rejections.

But when prominent Romney supporters dabble in birtherism (well, in the case of Trump, “dabble” is probably a total understatement), when supporters accuse President Obama of treason, when hand-picked bloggers engage in sexual verbal attacks, what we hear from the Romney campaign is barely a hint of criticism which serves only to register his implicit support for those statements.

Based on his conduct in incident after incident, Romney has demonstrated over and over and over that he has neither the spine nor moral fiber to be President.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share


Friday, May 25, 2012

How to Respond to “Facts” That Aren’t?

Several times over the last few weeks, I’ve heard someone tell me a “fact” about President Obama’s policies that I know to be false. For example, I was reminded that President Obama signed a UN treaty that will eliminate the Second Amendment. False. Another person complained to me about how much their taxes had gone up because President Obama raised their taxes. False. Someone else said that they didn’t think it was right that President Obama wanted to force churches to recognize gay marriages. False. Those are just some highlights.

So here’s the question: What is the best way to respond to these people? I can explain that UN treaty has to do with arms trafficking and has nothing to do with domestic US gun laws (or that a treaty cannot trump the Constitution). I can talk about tax policy and how taxes have been lowered and are at their lowest rates in 50 years (give or take). And I can talk about same-sex marriage until I’m literally blue in the face.

But the people who cite these “facts” don’t appear to be willing to listen. They head it on Faux News or read it in a chain email that they received from a “trusted” source or even in a mailer from their legislator (and a politician would never lie, right?). And so when these people go into the polls, they are making their choices on policy decisions based on lies. As I’ve said over and over, if that person has a different view than I do, that’s fine (though I’d like to convince them and bring them around to the side of light and good). But if that person’s honest viewpoint is based on dishonest, fraudulent, false information, then of what value is that viewpoint? People don’t want to believe that they’ve been lied to or manipulated, but they often seem unwilling to trust contrary information. The chain email is more reliable than The New York Times because “the mainstream media is biased in favor of liberals” or something similar. And if they heard it on Faux News, then it must be true!

Thus, I’m curious to know how others confront this sort of situation. And please don’t say that you just ignore it or walk away. Allowing a lie to stand just helps make it true to those who repeat it over and over again. But what strategies work to get people to take a realistic look at the false information that they’ve been fed? Which sources of information are deemed reliable enough to justify a reconsideration of “facts”? What styles of argument or explanation work to help debunk the lies that people have latched onto and taken as truth?

Maybe I’m being a bit overdramatic, but I think that the solution to this problem is central to the stability of our political process because we cannot make good decisions on complicated issues if our reasoning is based on fraud and lies.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Objections to Marriage Equality Just Don’t Make Sense

In the wake of President Obama’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage, the response that I keep hearing from opponents of marriage equality is that allowing gays to marry will somehow damage the institution of marriage. And, though I’ve written about this before (over and over, it seems; see for example Can Somebody Help Me Understand…?), I still don’t understand how the actions of one couple in formalizing their loving relationship will have any impact whatsoever on other couples. What is the fear or concern that opponents of same-sex marriage are really expressing? Is there really something beyond homophobia or the “ick factor” of a gay sex?

If you are an opponent of marriage equality, will you decide not to get married because gay couples can get married? Will you divorce your spouse because gay couples can marry? Will you suddenly decide not to adopt? I didn’t think so. Thus, I’m really having a hard time understanding how a gay marriage will impact heterosexual marriages or heterosexual individuals. How will someone else’s happiness harm you?

One line of explanation is that allowing gay couples to marry would be “changing the definition of marriage”. OK. I’m not sure that I agree. But let’s work with that for a moment. Why is changing the definition of marriage a problem? Again, if the definition is changed to become more inclusive will that cause you to not get married or force you to get divorced? Of course not. So what’s the problem? Not terribly long ago, the definition of marriage in many states also exclude interracial marriages. Did changing that definition have some sort of societal-wide adverse consequences upon single-race marriages?

Even as the law stands right now (and without even focusing on the fact that some states allow same-sex marriage), the definition of marriage already varies from state to state. In most states, individuals must be 18 to get married, but in Nebraska they need to be 19 and in Mississippi they need to be 21 (and does that seem odd to anyone else?). But even those rules aren’t hard and fast as most (all?) states allow individuals to marry when they are young, sometimes even younger than the age of majority when certain conditions are met. Thus, we cannot even reliably say that a marriage is the union of an adult man and an adult woman (as some kids can marry and some adults cannot); nor can we even say it is the union of a man and woman as those under majority age (as low as 14 in some states, I think I read) certainly aren’t “men” and “women” so far as common understanding goes.

Similarly, some states allow people to marry a first cousin, while others do not.

We don’t have to look back too far to see how definitions of marriage have changed, either. Mitt Romney may claim that the definition of marriage is 3,000 years old … but to do so he has to ignore the fact that his great-grandparents were not only polygamists, but that they fled to Mexico when Utah was changing its law defining marriage to outlaw polygamy.

And think back to your European history classes. Sure marriages may have been between one prince and one princess, but were those sorts of arranged political marriages what we think of when we think of the definition of marriage? We don’t seem to mind the idea of Orthodox Jews or Gypsies arranging marriages for their children, often to people in other states whom those to be wed have never met. Yet that sort of “marriage” falls within the commonly understood definition of marriage while a union based on love does not?

For that matter, there is some argument to be made that same-sex relationships were not only recognized in medieval Europe, but even the subject of religious rites within both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Obviously, there remains some debate on this subject, but history and tradition aren’t quite as clear-cut as opponents of marriage equality would like you to believe.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but don’t Catholic nuns consider themselves to be “married” to Jesus? Wouldn’t that expand the definition of marriage to include a woman and her deity or a woman and ancient (though dead) prophet (depending of course of your view of Catholic theology)?

One of the things that really burns me about this whole discussion is the way so many marriage equality opponents fall back upon religious understanding of marriage. Remind me again what Jesus said about homosexuality? Oh, wait. He didn’t. More importantly, equality opponents seize upon a few lines from the Bible to brand homosexuality as an abomination and thus infer that something that is an abomination cannot be natural (i.e., G-d could not have created gay people because G-d made man in G-d’s image and wouldn’t create an abomination; thus homosexuals must have chosen that “lifestyle” and decided to become abominations). Therefore, the reasoning seems to go, if homosexuality is unnatural, then certainly we shouldn’t condone it or give it recognition in law. Do I have that right?

But the problems with this line of reasoning should be obvious. First, is the question of “pick & choose” theology. In other words, why are some things that G-d said were abominations still considered to be abominations while others now have entire restaurant chains devoted to them (I’m looking at you Red Lobster)? And if G-d didn’t make gay humans, why did G-d apparently make gay animals … or shrimp? If animals without a cloven hoof are unclean, why didn’t G-d cleave the hooves of those animals? If animals that don’t chew their cud are unclean, why didn’t G-d make all animals chew their cud? And so and and so on and so on… I keep failing to find the sermon where Jesus says, “Keep stoning the gays, but go ahead and have a cheeseburger and a shrimp cocktail; stop believing that a woman’s life comes before that of her fetus, but go ahead and cut your hair and wear cotton-polyester blends; keep owning slaves but don’t stone your daughters.” I guess I missed that chapter. Oh, and why is it that the Bible seems to prohibit gay male sex but not lesbian sex? Maybe G-d had a subscription to Showtime?

Second, it’s important to remember that biblical references have been used to justify all sorts of things over the centuries, whether it be slavery, laws against inter-racial marriage, laws against women’s suffrage, and who knows what else. How many Jews have been killed in the name of G-d or Jesus or the Bible? When we hear about a thief in Saudi Arabia having his hand cut off we recoil in horror; yet the Bible does call for a hand for a hand, doesn’t it? And when was the last time you saw a new groom demand that his non-virgin bride be stoned following their wedding?

We also need to recall that atheists are allowed to marry. How does a religious understanding of the definition of marriage address that? And what of Buddhists or Jains or African animists? How do the words of one (or two or three) faith traditions define the traditions or understandings of those people? If you’re an opponent of marriage equality, you really don’t want to learn about Native American cultures and the Two-Spirit or berdache. But of course, that religious tradition doesn’t matter here in “Christian” America, does it?

Then again, if a religious definition of marriage was truly central to our understanding of marriage, then shouldn’t we ban inter-religious marriages (especially, say, among a Christian and non-Christian)? Shouldn’t we ban atheists from marriage entirely?

Oh, and before I conclude the discussion of the definition of marriage in the context of religion, it may be worth going back to the Bible and examining the “marriages” of Abraham and Solomon (for example). Just how many wives did they have? What exactly was the relationship between David and Jonathan and why were they kissing? Also, if you would, remind me again who Jesus married? Many religions seem to hold a place of honor for practitioners  who live a life of celibacy and faith; yet how is it that we view men and women deciding to live a celibate life without procreating as perfectly normal (or even a choice to be honored) but two people sharing their love with one another as unnatural if they are of the same sex?

Though this particular horse was long ago beaten on this blog, I continue to note that one of the objections to marriage equality is that it doesn’t produce children. But, as I’ve said here in the past, a marriage where one of the partners is infertile doesn’t produce children either. Nor does a marriage where the couple elects not to have children. And yet we don’t prohibit infertile couples from marrying, we don’t require men to divorce post-menopausal women, and we don’t require that marriage licenses include a promise to bear offspring. So what exactly does have procreation have to do with prohibiting same-sex marriage? Don’t forget that a same-sex marriage may  produce children through one of the partners or via adoption.

Which, of course, leads to yet another commonly heard refrain, that children do better with a mother and a father. That may be true (though I’m not convinced that is what the scientific evidence actually says; it may be more accurate to say that children do better in a two-parent household than in a single-parent household). But the end result (oft-heard) of that reasoning is that we would rather have children remain in foster care than be adopted by two loving parents if one of those parents is gay. Perhaps children do better with both a mother and father. Perhaps. But they probably also do better if the parents are rich. And smart. And don’t live in Mississippi. Or smoke. But we don’t use those criteria to determine who can adopt. I mean think about it. Are we really so scared of “the gays” that we’d prefer children to grow up without any parental involvement or as wards of the state in a foster care environment than allow them to be raised by people who may desperately want a child just because the prospective parents are gay? Perhaps we should ban all non-Christians from adopting, too. After all, we wouldn’t want adopted children to be exposed to … gasp … Islam or Judaism or atheism, would we. No, that would be bad for the children, right?.

Another point that I can’t let slide is the suggestion that marriage equality means that churches, synagogues, or mosques would be required to solemnize or recognize same-sex marriages. That is completely false. No religious affiliation is presently required to recognize any marriage that it doesn’t want to recognize. A rabbi cannot be compelled to officiate at the marriage of a Jew to a Methodist; a priest cannot be compelled to say mass at the marriage of a Catholic to a Muslim, and no member of the clergy would be obligated to sanction the marriage of a man to another man. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying to you or just painfully stupid. Don’t forget, we also allow judges and certain other public officials to conduct marriages that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Similarly, the Catholic church doesn’t allow divorces (usually) and a Jewish divorce (a get) is difficult to obtain; yet the government has no problem allowing a couple to obtain a divorce whether or not their religion recognizes that divorce.

And that’s really the whole point, isn’t it? Marriage may be a religious doctrine (at least to some religions). But it is also a civil contract between two people that the state recognizes and helps to enforce. As I’ve also mentioned previously, the state does not recognize consecration or bar mitzvah or communion or any of a host of other religious observances. Just marriage. So ask this question: If a civil union was completely and totally the same as marriage in all but the name, then would you support civil unions? And if a civil union was completely and totally the same as marriage in all but the name … then what would be wrong with just calling it a marriage and erasing the fiction that the two were somehow something different?

Thus, when I reflect on all of this, I can really only draw one conclusion: Virtually all of the objections that people raise to marriage equality are mere excuses for the true problem. Religion is an easy out; tradition sounds good. But none of these objections, when really analyzed and mulled over, hold much water. Nope. It seems to me that the real objection isn’t religion and it isn’t tradition and it certainly isn’t procreation. Nope. The real objection is a simple objection to homosexuality and homosexuals. Many people find it “icky” and the idea of sanctioning it feels wrong because of that “ick factor”. And, so, what better way to avoid something that feels “wrong” to you than to try to sweep that which makes you feel uncomfortable under the proverbial rug. Sure there will be gays around, but if they can’t get married then maybe you won’t have to be exposed to them and all that icky gay sex. And then your world will be just that much happier and safer of a place, right? In the end, it seems to me that many in our society are willing to discriminate against people solely on the basis of who they are and simply because who they are makes some people uncomfortable. I don’t think that most marriage equality opponents are evil or even, really, bigoted; rather, they are uncomfortable by homosexuality and would prefer to keep it at a distance.

Or could it be that deep down, those people might be questioning their own sexuality? Ooh. Best not go there…

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Monday, May 14, 2012

Bullying and the Lessons Learned (Mitt Romney Edition)

Do you remember that time in your senior year of high school when you gathered a group of your friends, led them through school in search of a kid who was unpopular because he was different (or maybe even homosexual!), had your friends tackle and hold down that unpopular kid, and then, while this kid was being held down, kicking and screaming for help, you cut his hair so that he would better conform to your idea of what a student at your school should look like?

Do you remember that?

But I bet you would remember that if you’d done it, wouldn’t you?

I suspect that each of us have a handful of memories of actions in which we engaged, especially as kids, and of which we are now ashamed. I bet each of us has done things that hurt someone, whether intentionally or not, that we we bear as painful reminders of our own failings.

Depending on the severity of those incidents, on the harm caused, and on our own ages at the time, those actions may be better left in the past and may not reflect on the character of a person today. But in other cases, again, depending on things like severity, harm, and age, those actions may, in fact, properly reflect on the character of a person, even years later. And, perhaps more importantly, how we responded to those actions may offer further insight upon our character.

For example, I certainly recall with shame the fact that my friends and I (and, in fact, most of my 3rd-grade class) teased a boy in our class who occasionally soiled his underwear. I think that at the time we knew that we were in the wrong. But we were 8 or 9 years old. Now, nearly 40 years later, I still remember that. I wince when I think about those words and deeds. And I think back upon those moments when I see others being teased today. Have I always done all I could to stop teasing or to help those who might be the target of the “popular crowd”? Of course not. But I have tried, as often as possible, to stand up when I see bullying or other forms of targeted injustice and say, “No. Stop. Wrong.”

Events in my past, events in my childhood, created memories and taught me lessons of right and wrong upon which I can and have based my adult behavior.

So what can we learn about Mitt Romney’s character when we learn not only that he led a pack of high school seniors to tackle and hold down a gay kid so that Romney could cut that kid’s hair as the kid kicked and screamed for help, but that he doesn’t even remember the incident? There is a part of me that is (almost) willing to forgive Romney for the bullying incident itself. He was a high school student at the time, not an adult (or was he already 18…?). But… But given the severity of the incident (it would be one thing if the kid hadn’t been kicking and screaming for help…), Romney’s age (he was either 17 or even an 18 year old adult at the time), I don’t think that I can give him that free pass. And I factor into that the fact that Romney was not just “any other kid” but rather a class leader at a tony private school and the son of the state’s sitting governor. But, by the same token, I’m not sure that the bullying incident, in and of itself, tells us much about Romney’s character that can be extrapolated 47 years into the future.

After all, are you the same person now that you were as an 18-year-old? I know that I’m not (hell, I was even kinda Republican-leaning back then). People grow and learn and change.

But what I can’t reconcile, what forces me to keep coming back to this incident from Romney’s past, is the fact that he doesn’t even remember the incident? And note that he doesn’t deny that the incident happened. That would be one thing. Then we’d be facing a he said/she said sort of situation where it is the credibility of the various players that is in question. But Romney doesn’t deny the incident. Rather, he doesn’t remember it. How can anybody not remember an incident like that?

Well, I suppose one could forget an incident like that if it wasn’t isolated. If you had a habit of bullying those around you then you’d probably be far less likely to remember any particular incident. Or, if you didn’t draw any lessons from that incident, if you didn’t recognize in the days and weeks that followed (when, presumably, you would still recall it) that your conduct was wrong, if you felt no guilt or remorse for the pain that you’d caused in another… In that case, I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t recall the incident because operating with that sort of mindset, that kind of incident simply wouldn’t have been memorable. If causing extreme emotional grief to another is not internalized and processed and recognized as wrong, then why should it be any more memorable than what color shirt you wore on June 17, 1982, or what you had to eat on the last day of 3rd grade?

And so I think that the lesson to be learned about Mitt Romney’s character is that the sociopathic bullying of a presumably gay student as high school senior didn’t make a mark upon Romney’s development into the person that he is today. That, I believe, is the frightening aspect of this whole story. Thus, whether it was Romney’s oft-repeated line that he “likes to fire people”, his suggestion that we allow the Detroit to go bankrupt or the housing market to hit bottom, or his actions as a Mormon bishop when he tried to force a parishioner from having a necessary, life-saving abortion, it seems that the failure to internalize and grow from the lessons by an extreme bullying incident have had continuing ramifications on who the adult Mitt Romney really is today. Perhaps Romney’s failure to learn from that bullying episode, his seemingly jovial desire for underwater homeowners or auto workers to experience hardship, his disregard for a woman’s health, are mere examples demonstrating that Romney is, in fact, a cold-hearted, callous individual without real concern for others to whom he doesn’t share some sort of close relationship. Is that the kind of personality we want in the White House?

In 2008, much was made of the word “empathy” when it came to selection of political leaders. But when one of the major factors facing our country is the plight of those who are either facing continued unemployment or a weak economy or even bullying, then isn’t some degree of empathy important? One of the criticisms leveled against Romney is that he is out of touch with the experience of working class Americans. If he is out of touch and lacks the empathy to try to understand that experience, then can we really expect a President Romney to act in the best interests of those who are suffering?

Furthermore, just think of this: Romney could have used this incident as an opportunity to take a strong stand against bullying. He could have called out those who still want to target kids who are different (especially gay). He could have said, “Gee, I still oppose gay marriage, but we as a country really need to be sure that gay teens aren’t being bullied to the point of suicide.” But he didn’t do that. You see, that’s another of Romney’s massive character flaws. He won’t stand up, use a bully (pun intended) pulpit and call out wrong behavior. When his new foreign policy spokesman was was hounded out of the job because he was openly gay, did Romney stand up and so, “I won’t accept homophobic bigotry; I only want to judge people on the basis of their skills and merit”? No. He didn’t. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, Romney could only say (through a spokesperson) that Limbaugh’s comments weren’t the “language he would have used”. Again, Romney could have called out Limbaugh’s language, could have made his deceitful and over-the-top allegations and insults a learning opportunity. He could have taken the proverbial high road. But he didn’t.

It seems to me that whenever Mitt Romney has a chance to show his character by standing up for the victim … he fails; rather, he demonstrates his total lack of empathy as he offers weak non-apology statements out of a seeming fear of criticizing the bullies. Is that the kind of personality we want in the White House?

There is one other element peripherally related to this incident that I want to address. After the initial story about Romney’s bulling incident, those on the right (e.g., Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity) began a “he did it too” defense, pointing to a passage from President Obama’s book Dreams From My Father in which Obama related a bullying incident from his own youth. They point to this passage, describing events shortly after Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia (5th grade, I believe):

There was one other child in my class, though, who reminded me of a different sort of pain. Her name was Coretta, and before my arrival she had been the only black person in our grade. She was plump and dark and didn’t seem to have many friends. From the first day, we avoided each other but watched from a distance, as if direct contact would only remind us more keenly of our isolation.

Finally, during recess one hot, cloudless day, we found ourselves occupying the same corner of the playground. I don’t remember what we said to each other, but I remember that suddenly she was chasing me around the jungle gym and swings. She was laughing brightly, and I teased her and dodged this way and that, until she finally caught me and we fell to the ground breathless. When I looked up, I saw a group of children, faceless before the glare of the sun, pointing down at us.

“Coretta has a boyfriend! Coretta has a boyfriend!”

The chants grew louder as a few more kids circled us.

“She’s not my g-girlfriend,” I stammered. I looked to Coretta for some assistance, but she just stood there looking down at the ground. “Coretta’s got a boyfriend! Why don’t you kiss her, mister boyfriend?”

“I’m not her boyfriend!” I shouted. I ran up to Coretta and gave her a slight shove; she staggered back and looked up at me, but still said nothing. “Leave me alone!” I shouted again. And suddenly Coretta was running, faster and faster, until she disappeared from sight. Appreciative laughs rose around me. Then the bell rang, and the teachers appeared to round us back into class.

But there are several important distinctions that I want to draw. First, I think that there is an enormous difference between a 5th-grader and a senior in high school. Second, young Obama’s actions, though wrong, were in the context of being the victim of teasing himself. Third, Obama wrote about his past conduct and did so years before he was a candidate for Senate, let alone President. He wasn’t forced to discuss this part of his childhood; he did so voluntarily. But most importantly, and directly related to the points that I’ve tried to make above with regard to Romney’s failure to learn from his bullying incident, is the passage from Obama’s book following the portion quoted repeatedly by those on the right, which those pushing the “Obama is a bully” narrative have completely omitted (go ahead, Google “Obama bully girl” and see how many of the links that turn up include the previous quote but not the following):

For the rest of the afternoon, I was haunted by the look on Coretta’s face just before she had started to run: her disappointment, and the accusation. I wanted to explain to her somehow that it had been nothing personal; I’d just never had a girlfriend before and saw no particular need to have one now. But I didn’t even know if that was true. I knew only that it was too late for explanations, that somehow I’d been tested and found wanting; and whenever I snuck a glance at Coretta’s desk, I would see her with her head bent over her work, appearing as if nothing had happened, pulled into herself and asking no favors.

My act of betrayal bought me some room from the other children, and like Coretta, I was mostly left alone.

In other words, some 24 or so years after the incident, Obama apparently still had a fairly fresh recollection of his actions and his emotional response and failure to do what was right. A much lesser act of bullying by a much younger boy created memorable remorse for Obama; a much harsher act of bullying by a much older boy (or even a man), left no memory at all for Romney.

And there, in a proverbial nutshell, is an important distinction between these two men.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share


Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Richard Mourdock: Wrong, Not “Right”, for Indiana

So Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock has defeated six-term Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana’s Republican primary. Wow. Lugar had been one of our senators since 1976 and he’d been widely respected as one of the best senators in Washington during that time. Speaking just for myself, I’ve had several excellent experiences with Sen. Lugar over the years, though I must admit that I’ve lost respect for him in recent years as I felt that he lost his independence and moved right (for more on this see I’m Losing Respect for Sen. Lugar posted September 2010 and I’m Losing Respect for Sen. Lugar (update) posted May 2011). But apparently times change and now the Tea Party rage and desire to return to 1950 (or is it 1850?) has claimed the scalp of one of the true remaining “statesmen” in Washington.

Over the next six months you’re going to hear a lot about Richard Mourdock. I’m sure that I’ll write about him at some length because the idea of him being my senator is, frankly, terrifying. But today, in the wake of his victory yesterday, I wanted to take a brief moment and just highlight a few of the things about Mourdock that you may not know and which should (I hope) begin to give readers pause at the idea of this man being your senator (let alone voting for him).

  • As Indiana Treasurer, he invested Indiana pension funds into automotive stocks and funds that were, at the time the investments were made, essentially junk bonds.
  • When Chrysler finally went into bankruptcy and the creditors reached an agreement that was approved by the bankruptcy Court, Mourdock, acting as Indiana Treasurer, went to court to try to stop the settlement. He took his claim to the Supreme Court and lost. A few things about this whole fiasco are worth noting specifically:
    • Mourdock, paid millions in state funds to lawyers (mostly in New York, not here in Indiana);
    • One of the Court’s findings in its ruling against Mourdock was that even if Mourdock and Indiana prevailed in the litigation, there was no scenario in which Indiana would get more money than under the approved settlement (go ahead and read that again); and
    • Had Mourdock’s lawsuit succeeded, not only would Indiana have received less money than under the settlement, but Chrysler would have been liquidated and the auto industry would likely have been thrown into a massive collapse, likely at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Indiana.
  • Mourdock believes that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution (calling for the direct election of senators by the people) should be repealed so that state legislatures would once again elect senators. The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913.
  • Mourdock also apparently believes that both Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional.
  • Mourdock claims that one of the principal problems in Washington these days is that there is too much bipartisanship. He’s also said that if elected to a minority caucus in the Senate, his principal focus would be, not on legislating or working with Democrats, but on campaigning to elect more Republicans.
  • I can’t forget this: During the 2010 race for Treasurer, Mourdock’s opponent, Pete Buttigieg repeatedly challenged Mourdock to debate the issues (in particular the Chrysler bankruptcy litigation and bad investments). Mourdock didn’t just refuse; he refused to even respond to Buttigieg’s requests. However, that didn’t stop Mourdock and his entourage from showing up in front of Buttigieg’s house one evening for a little publicity stunt speech while Buttigieg was touring the state to meet voters.

Finally (and yes, I realize that this is largely repetitive of one of the points made above), I think some of what Mourdock had to say just this morning during an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd is worth listening to and reflecting upon:

Transcript (emphasis added):

CHUCK TODD: You have said that there needs to be more partisanship in Washington. How do you square that with being a legislator?

RICHARD MOURDOCK: Well, what I've said is that I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view. [...] Bipartisanship means they have to come our way [...] To me, the highlight of politics, frankly, is to inflict my opinion on someone else with a microphone or in front of a camera. [...] Even those Republicans who more often than not vote the right way aren't coming back into their states or their districts and getting in front of the unfriendly crowds and unfriendly microphones to make the point as to why our point of view is good. [...] I feel I can defend the purpose of conservatism, and more Republicans should be doing it just as I want to.

Seriously. I don’t know about you, but he sounds less like someone who wants to be a Senator and more like a spoiled 4-year-old who says, “play by my rules or I’m taking my ball and bat and going home.” And, though it was perhaps an inadvertent word choice, I think the fact that Mourdock believes the the highlight of politics is to “inflict” his opinion on others is … um … just wow.

If you want to be sure that Mourdock never gets anywhere close to the United States Senate, then please show a little love to his Democratic opponent Joe Donnelly.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Stand Your Ground: Stun Gun at School

Today’s edition of The Indianapolis Star included a story about an Indianapolis teenager who was mercilessly teased at school because he is gay (flamboyantly so, apparently). Eventually, when the school administration was either helpless or unwilling to really help this young man (they blamed him for the bullying that he was subjected to noting that his manner of dress and the accessories he wore essentially invited torment) his mother sent him to school with a stun gun. When confronted by a group of bullies, the young man shot the stun gun into the air and the bullies backed off.

I’m sure you can guess where this is going, right?

Yep. The boy is now subject to a disciplinary hearing and may be expelled for bringing a weapon to school. He may also be subject to prosecution because it is illegal to have a stun gun if you’re under 18. He didn’t hurt anyone and he did manage to defend himself from the bullies. But he may be expelled from school and subject to prosecution while those who made is life intolerable — not to mention school officials who did little or nothing to help — may suffer no adverse consequences.

But here’s the really, really sad thing. Had this boy taken with him, not a stun gun, but an actual handgun, and had he not shot into the air, but rather, into the body of a bully threatening violence, then Indiana’s “stand your ground” law might have protected him from any sort of legal consequences. In fact, this was almost precisely the scenario that I outlined in my post Stand Your Ground: A Further Analysis, published just over a month ago. To repeat what I noted then, Indiana’s “stand your ground” states:

[A] person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

And I said this:

Once again, I’m not advocating violence. I don’t want the [gay teens] of the world to take guns to school or to resort to violence to respond to the epidemic of bullying that adults and schools seem impotent (or unwilling) to check. But when we think about the stories we hear over and over again about gay teens (and other teens, not just gays) who have been bullied to the point that they feel that they have no option other than suicide, shouldn’t we worry?

One other thing that I wanted to mention. According to the article:

[The mother] said she called the school about students following [her son] home from the bus stop, but school officials said they could not do anything since the students were not on school property.

Hmm. Interesting. Because unless I’m mistaken, we’ve seen schools all across Indiana and the country taking action against students for conduct on social media even when not on school property. See my discussion in Schools, Free Speech, and Social Media. But when a child is physically bullied, suddenly the fact that the bullying is “not on school property” becomes relevant and a defense for the school not to act? If anything, I’d think it would be the opposite. That is, a school shouldn’t be involved in conduct unrelated to school (such as social media done from home) but should be involved in conduct closely tied to school (such as walking to and from the school bus).

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Newer›  ‹Older