Footloosed!

"Footloose", the 1984 Kevin Bacon vehicle, was the film that answered the question "how did this not kill Kevin Bacon's career?" They managed to hit upon every cliche--new kid in town is a rebel outsider, he hits it off with the preacher's wild-child daughter, inbred townsfolk ban dancing because they're morons--and provided another pop hit for Kenny Loggins, who dispelled the myth that beards are cool. (Chuck Norris and Eric Clapton worked for decades to build that myth, and they got Logginsed!)

Then, in 2011, Hollywood studios decided they'd absolutely ran out of sequels and reboots to make (which I find hard to believe, as they STILL haven't rebooted "Smokey and the Bandit"), and so they made the remake of "Footloose". Deciding to take a risk by casting complete unknowns--except for Dennis Quaid and Andie McDowell, who I suppose are unknown enough these days--and moving the setting from the midwest to very rural Georgia, they otherwise pretty much copied the original. The cliched, stupid original.

Because the deep south actually has black people, the re-make had to actually put black characters in the film (you'll note that the original was whiter than D.C. Bikeshares customer base). Happily, there are no racial issues broached in the film, which proves that the deep south no longer has racial problems. (Haley Barbour was right after all! Thanks for proving it, Footloose!) The town's pastor, played by Quaid, supports the ongoing ban on dancing, because his son and four other kids got killed in a car accident after drinking and driving at some out of town party where there was dancing. This makes about as much sense as banning french fries because Jeffrey Dahmer ate some after murdering one of his victims.

Of course, the Boston townie wins the hearts of the townsfolk and the pastor, convincing him that his daughter's road to sin and lechery could take a welcome detour in his pants, and everyone learns that dancing is great after all, hooray. But I think there are some key unanswered issues:

1) How the hell did a townful of kids who never danced before--because of the ban--suddenly know how to dance like professionals at the movie's climax?

2) The townsfolk at the church scenes were all white, implying that the black townsfolk attend a different church. What did the black church's pastor have to say about this dancing ban? Is he and the white pastor in cahoots?

3) Shouldn't there be at least one Jew or atheist in the town who says "hey what's this deal about the dancing?"

4) With all the effort expended arguing about dancing, shouldn't someone at least point out that these kids should be studying so they can go to college and leave this backwards town?

5) I find it hard to believe a Boston townie wouldn't have more of an issue with the alcohol ban than the dancing ban.

6) If I have kids, I plan to prohibit them from learning to dance. If they protest, I'll make them watch Footloose. Then they'll understand.

Rich People Problems

With all the talk this year about 99 percenters versus 1 percenters, many legitimate questions are raised. Such as, why 99 percent versus 1 percent? How did people in the second percentile (the very very very rich, who are not quite very very very very rich) manage to join the pitchfork wielding mobs? Can the 1 percent be even further split off, so that multimillionaire Theresa Heinz Kerry can storm the gates of billionaire Warren Buffet's mansion? (Considering she likely lives in a nicer home than he does, it'd seem a bit odd).

One common theme is the outright mockery heaped upon rich people who claim that they're not really that rich when you consider their high cost of living. (See item number 6 in this article) It was also laid bare in Tom Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities" where a bond trader making almost a million dollars a year (in the mid-'80s, which is about a trillion dollars a year now) was just barely breaking even due to his lifestyle. Those of us making do on less quite rightly laugh at these pleas--oh, poor little rich person, you can't afford the $50K a year private elementary school for your kids? Have to skip the week in the Hamptons this summer? Boo freaking hoo!

However, in our mockery we should also keep in mind that we middle-income Americans tend to complain about things that would earn the righteous mockery of very poor Americans. I'd complain quite a bit if I couldn't afford to heat my home above 60 degrees in the winter, or could only afford Ramen for dinner (though Ramen is pretty delicious. Just not every night!). Wouldn't a Bangladeshi rope farmer or a New Delhi landfill-dweller see my plight just the same as I'd see Paris Hilton complaining about her chauffeur being out sick?

There's two lessons in this:

1) Everyone should have the right to complain. There's always someone worse off than you, of course, but if we had to go by the standard that we can't complain if someone is relatively worse off then no one could complain about a broken leg so long as someone else out there has been set on fire and left in a pit of ants.

2) When complaining, we should have some perspective, because to someone else we may look just like that rich jerk who complains about having to live off a quarter million dollars a year and cancel their golf club membership. So we can all complain, but our complaints are likely going to be mocked.

Mitt's Sister Souljah Moment

Often, a winning presidential campaign can be defined by a key moment when the candidate takes what at least appears to be a bold stand against certain extremes in their party. The best example of this is Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment, when in the 1992 campaign he publicly condemned the remarks of some obscure rapper whose own remarks seemed to ask why blacks didn't take a break from killing on another to instead kill white people. (This wasn't exactly what Sister Souljah was calling for, but her statements were certainly interpreted this way) By condemning her statements, Clinton made a show of "bravery" by running up against her apologist, Jesse Jackson, who at that time was influential among the Democrats' black and liberal wings. This boosted Clinton's support among independents, made him look strong, and helped him win the presidency. Since then, a "Sister Souljah Moment" has come to mean the time a rising politician took a shot at his own side's sacred cows, looking both strong and more moderate at the same time.

Mitt Romney has just been given the chance to have his own "Sister Souljah" moment. Last week, the news world was agog with repeated comments by Rush Limbaugh to the effect that a 30 year old law student who had the nerve to testify to members of Congress in favor of contraception coverage in university health plans was a "prostitute" and a "slut" who should post sex videos online. The comments were not just crass and crude--I am a fan of crass and crude things generally--but they were also mean and pointlessly insulting. There's really no debate on that matter.

Because Limbaugh for some reason holds a lot of sway as a conservative pundit (and yes, William F Buckley must be spinning in his grave), and because the issue at hand is also a matter of public policy, this would have been a great moment for Romney to have a Sister Souljah moment of his own. When reached for comment on Limbaugh's remarks, all he'd have to say is something along the lines of: "What Rush said about this woman was vile and uncalled for, and he ought to apologize sincerely and personally to her for it. She was participating in a civil discussion about whether and how certain health coverage should be paid for, and exercising her constitutional rights while doing so. To be the target of such epithets, even if only intended in jest, is beyond the pale and quite disgusting."

This would have done a few things:

1) It would have gotten Mitt Romney the spotlight on this issue, right as we're about to enter Super Tuesday, because it would have been the strongest condemnation of Rush from a major GOP candidate since Limbaugh first became a household name.

2) It would have shown moderates and independents that Mitt is not beholden to the party's right wing, and that at heart he's a normal, reasonable guy. And those are the key voters to watch this fall.

3) It would have looked like leadership, even though it takes only common sense to do so.

And really, what would be the risk? That Limbaugh would go ahead and endorse Rick Santorum? Fine, add that dubious advantage to Preacher Rick--Santorum gets less and less likely to become the nominee the more people realize he's a complete theocrat. And what conservative could really see what Limbaugh said and say "right on! You tell her!"?

Instead, though, Romney went with a mild rebuke, noting that Rush used language "I wouldn't have used." Really, Mitt? Sure you're not being too hard on Mr. Limbaugh???

This may later be seen as the moment that could have made Mitt Romney a winner, but his fecklessness may have sunk him.

One Year Anniversary

Today marks one year of marriage--and to celebrate my wife has taken stock of my lifestyle and said to herself "this guy needs to be able to make his own soda at home". So she got me a Sodastream (TM), this brilliant contraption that uses CO2 cannisters to carbonate regular old water, to which you can add syrups and other flavorings. Now, you might be thinking to yourself "why would I need to make my own soda? The store sells soda!" But then, when they invented indoor plumbing a lot of people probably thought to themselves "hey, I have a perfectly good hole in the back yard!" See, the Sodastream (TM) is sort of a life-altering appliance.

Picture it--now, instead of hauling big bottles of Coke from the store, I can just fire up my soda at home. Want less calories? No problem, just put in less syrup! Add fresh fruit if you're that sort of fancy pants, or even add chocolate or vanilla. Prefer your drink a bit fizzier than the suits at Pepsico think it should be? This is your way of sticking it to the man!

Let's pretend your boss is coming over for dinner and you're hoping to win the Brinkmeyer account and get that big promotion. And here he is saying "wow I could sure go for a soda, but not some ho-hum Sprite or Dr. Pepper. I need something a bit more real!" Well, pre-Sodastream (TM) you would have had to say "well tough turkey, boss man! I'm not a miracle worker!" But now, in the year of our Sodastream (TM) you can instead say "try this blackberry cola I just made, Hank! I can call you Hank, right?"

So I'm very excited with our new appliance, and it just goes to show that one year into our marriage my wife knows me quite well. Happy One Year, and here's to many more!

Rush Does What We Expect of Rush, People Somehow Surprised, News at 11

Just when you thought political discourse couldn't get any lower, noted thinker Rush "Problem?" Limbaugh manages to pull a little more water out of the pool. I generally pay about as much attention to what Rush says as I do to Bill Maher, since both get by on bombastic trolling barbs aimed solely to fire up their true believers and rile everyone else, but it seems this time Rush managed to get the attention he sorely craves.

During the recent Capitol Hill debates over whether private insurance companies--notably those affiliated with Catholic institutions--should be required to provide contraceptive coverage, the Democrats decided the best expert to make the case for requiring such coverage was a Georgetown Law student named Sandra Fluke. (Georgetown Law's student health plan apparently does not cover contraceptive coverage--when I attended over a decade ago, I don't recall what exactly they did cover, though it wasn't much and it was still expensive. I never found condoms to be so expensive at the drugstore--even today they're about $15 a box--that I tried getting them through a health plan, though.)

Fluke's testimony focused on the high cost of contraception for her, and Rush commented in his usual form by reasonably discussing whether Catholic-affiliated institutions should be required to have their health plans cover purchases that go against their religious doctrine. Oh wait, no, he instead compared Ms. Fluke to a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she wanted to be "paid for sex". (I should note--if having her condoms subsidized makes her a prostitute, then we live in a world filled with hookers. A Charlie Sheen fantasy!)

Limbaugh's statements about Fluke (eventually culminating in him suggesting she post sex videos online) aren't really worthy of discussion--sometimes you just have to ignore things like that just like you'd ignore a three-year-old yelling "poop!" over and over again to get attention. Particularly since Rush's comments gloss over the real discussion we should be having.

Namely, that is--should the government be telling private health plans what they should and shouldn't cover? If so, where do we draw the line? Most people agree access to contraception is a good thing--and should be encouraged, as even the cost of subsidizing it can be far slighter than the harms it prevents (disease, unwanted pregnancy). And moreover, should there be conscience exemptions, and how far should those go? If a Catholic organization can be exempted from funding birth control, then why can't a Catholic taxpayer be exempt from letting their tax dollars be spent on the same? Is a general state subsidy less intrusive and more fair than an unfunded mandate on a private entity? And did anyone really think some law student's story of how expensive it is for her to buy condoms (and why were her sex partners not helping out, anyway???) would really move a lot of hearts? This isn't exactly equivalent to the widow who mortgaged her house to pay for her husband's cancer treatments, after all.

But of course, any hard debate and intelligent discussion gets lost the minute the civil discourse gets "Limbaughed". Now we're talking about "slut shaming" and how we define "prostitute".

Couponers!

Apparently there's this group of people out there called "extreme couponers" who have elevated their basic cheapness to a form of sport. These aren't your ordinary "hey look I can save on toilet rolls with this coupon, I'll bring it next time I'm at the store" people--no, the "extreme" couponers will spend countless hours rummaging through the trash to collect multiple coupons from both manufacturers and stores, bring them all in and force the cashier to apply "extreme" discounts, sometimes even getting the store to pay them to take their products, and causing an "extreme" headache for ordinary shoppers like me who get stuck behind them on line.

Stores are now trying to fight this scourge of extremely low-class cheapskates. You see, "extreme" couponers not only take up "extreme" amounts of time at the checkout, but they also tend to clear out all the stock in certain items in order to take full advantage of their coupons. I have a few suggestions for the stores:

1) Make sure your coupons read "one per customer, cannot be combined with any other offer".

2) Set up a special checkout lane for "coupons only" so that couponers (who always take longer) won't hold up normal shoppers. This line should also be reserved for old ladies who pay by check, people who want to flirt with the cashiers, or anyone else who doesn't have their lives together.

3) Give your cashiers full license to publicly shame any "extreme" couponer. Let them know there will be no adverse employment action if they decide to go on the intercom and say "price check on cheapskate special! Price check on cheapskate special for lowlife who has too much time on his hands!" There is some business you're better off losing.

The Daily Ponder

One thing about waking up before it's light out and having a bed-mate who is still asleep and not wanting to wake her is that it means picking clothes while essentially color blind. This often leads to clashing colors, often different colored socks and one day even completly unmatched loafers (which was fortunately noticed once I was out in my hallway, rather than at work). This would be much easier if I simply have every pair of slacks and every shirt of the exact same make and color and pattern--simplicity itself! I even heard Einstein did that--had every suit and shirt and tie exactly the same--just so he wouldn't waste any time deciding what to wear each day.

This gets me thinking--why is it so important to have an outfit that looks different every day? Is it to try and prove to the world that we're not re-wearing the exact same clothes, day in and day out, without washing them between wearings? Is it to prove our wealth, showing just how many different shirts and pants we have? Are we somehow all expressing our individuality with new colors and patterns each day?

None of those above reasons seem to matter with those who are required to wear uniforms to work, otherwise you'd see police officers wearing navy blue on Monday, sky blue on Tuesday, khaki on Wednesday, and so forth. We seem to trust that those in uniform are switching out identical outfits each day and cleaning them between wearings, we assume they're wealthy enough to afford clothes besides their uniforms, and their individuality can be expressed in other ways. But somehow, the rest of us need unique ties and shirts and jackets and skirts and the rest. To do otherwise would be odd.

Of course, I could always just pick out what I'm going to wear the night before.