More on Regifting (Food)

You get a last minute invite to a party. You're wondering what to bring. You think: "Oh, I've got that great bottle of...oh wait I can't bring it. It's already opened."

You are counseled not to show up to a party with "used food," be it an already test-driven bottle of rum or a coffee cake with an AWOL corner. To me, bringing "used" items seem perfectly reasonable, and in the future I will no longer bow to this perverse convention.

Have any of you ever stayed until the end of a party? There are always multiple tables sagging under the weight of uneaten quesadillas, still virginal pies, and neglected punch that's becoming less festive by the minute. And the fridge is so packed with barely touched treats you have to seal the door with a blow-torch. Is this really necessary?

No party - not even wedding receptions - ever has as many attendees as the host expects, so the food the host prepares himself is usually more than enough. Then the few stragglers who do show up bring their fully intact desserts, entrees, and libations, and thus every party results in enough wasted cake to reverse the French Revolution. Seems to me if everyone brought partly consumed but still delicious food and beverages, there would be far less food still loitering around after the last partier has found his way to the door.

I hope you like irony, because guess what happens after the party? There is a mad dash to give everything away before it spoils. You're pawning off pies on neighbors. You're hauling miles of brownie into work. Somehow, that's not considered inappropriate. Not only is it the only form of regifting that is acceptable, it makes you the office darling for a week. Regift a few cupcakes with time-stiffened frosting and even the HR folks will wink at you.

What is it about a party that makes it unacceptable to bring something "used?" And you're only busted on this if your bring a pie, a cake, or booze. If you bring six homemade cookies, no one assumes you baked a whole tray and only shared part of it. For all they know, you could have shotgunned the other 46 on the ride over. The problem with a partly eaten cake is that it is a smoking gun. Hard not to notice the slice-shaped chasm in the middle of your Bundt. I always explain the missing piece by saying I baked it in the shape of a Pac-Man.

By the way, no one likes parties anyway. People dread them. That's why everyone shows up late. People mainly hold parties to do a headcount of their friends, and people mainly attend them to curry favor with significant others, or to do some social climbing at work. Parties are either a roll-call or an especially awkward day at the office, so why inflict more pain by forcing everyone to make a trip to the store to find something "new" to bring?

Oh, I forgot tell you: I'm holding a party tonight. That 93% full bottle of rye you have? The one you've had so long it's now able to drink in bars without a fake ID? Don't bring it to my party where it might be appreciated and put to use. No sir! I demand you let it continue stewing as you sprint to the nearest wine shop in search of the cheapest non-cheap-looking Chardonnay you can find.



My Twitter feed wants to party all the time: https://twitter.com/greatMikePayne

In Praise of Regifting

Christmas and Hanukkah are creeping up on us. Will there be any "regifting" in your future?

If you're caught regifting, you're forever branded a pre-conversion Scrooge. You're cheap, you're a bum, you're philanthropyphobic. The next time you participate in a popularity contest in Vietnam you'll lose to Henry Kissinger.

I'm going to risk condemnation by the U.N. by announcing I support regifting. 4/5 of all gifts are totally unwelcomed (proof that no one really knows you). Everyone is always joking about having to pretend they're happy with what they received: "You shouldn't have" (no really, you shouldn't have). "Oh, it's a...juicer. We'll use a juicer, right honey?" (if upon opening your gift the recipient announces what you gave them or confirms what it is used for, you bought the wrong gift). And we all have a sweater we only wear when the sister-in-law responsible for it visits for Thanksgiving (no one is thankful for a pullover too hellish to be included in The Inferno).

Why not wrap up that unloved sweater and give it to someone else? You probably have a friend who has terrible taste in clothes. He LOVES turtlenecks that crush the larynx. What is so inappropriate about wrapping it up and giving it him? You're telling me it is better to let the unwanted gift accumulate dust in your basement? No wonder "Hoarders" has so many viewers.

Oh, but regifting means you didn't spend any money on the recipient! So what? How Christmassy is that accusation? Aren't we constantly hearing the season isn't about money (ironically the chorus usually starts around Black Friday)? If that's the case, by handing over an unwanted gift you're still capturing the sentiment of the season; bringing joy to others and thinking of someone other than yourself. If you were really selfish and money hungry you could have just as easily sold that juicer on eBay.

Everyone says the season isn't about money, but you're a pariah if you regift without parting with money. Everyone says we need to be more considerate about waste, but if you don't let bad gifts go to waste you're inconsiderate. And just when you thought every flaw in the regifting stigma had been explored: If you give away all your clothing after you've worn it for ten years, you're a hero! Those pants you'd keep wearing were it not for the Frisbee-sized hole in the crotch? Just drop them off at your local Salvation Army and suddenly that special needs lovechild you've ignored for 26 years becomes an afterthought. But if you dare give away that unused sweater someone gave you for Christmas, you'll probably have to enter the Witness Protection Program.

If we were honest about what we truly care about, we'd give each other receipts as gifts.


My Twitter feed is the regift that keeps on giving: https://twitter.com/greatMikePayne

If you teach a man to teach, he will keep begging you for fish

Since the housing crisis, we have heard much about predatory lending on Wall Street. Outside of Wall Street and housing, we are accustomed to hearing grandiose "investigative" reports about predatory companies selling faulty products. Yet somehow, the cartelization of the education industry has gone undetected. Where is the Bureau of Consumer Protection when it comes to faulty degrees at inflated prices? Why aren't professors and the colleges they work for ever called predatory? They lure students into accruing an unpayable amount of debt in exchange for useless liberal arts degrees. At least the subprime folks had a McMansion to party in for a few months.

What are these victims of predatory colleges supposed to do with their liberal arts degrees? The old answer was become a liberal arts teacher. Well, the growth of online academies threatens to dramatically reduce the need for teachers, and the constant talk of upgrading America's science/math footing makes liberal arts teaching the deadest of dead ends. Where do all these Women's Studies victims think they're going to teach?

SUNY Albany offers a degree in Puerto Rican studies. How many Puerto Rican Studies teaching positions open every year? Most years, the answer is probably cero.

Let's assume you don't want to teach; you want to be a business person in Puerto Rico. Doesn't it make far more sense to major in something practical like Spanish and then minor in something business-related like finance so you have some actual skills to bring to Puerto Rico? The Caribbean needs Caribbean Studies majors like they need another visit from Columbus.

While we're on the subject of language majors, what the hell is the point of going to college to learn a language? You can pay someone $30 an hour for individual instruction in a foreign language and save yourself tens of thousands. The predators behind language degrees are morally bankrupt, and the students who hold them become literally bankrupt.

Speaking of bankrupt degrees; journalism. Instead of "studying" your way to indentured servitude, start a blog (don't worry, blogs don't have math requirements either) and make your writing your resume. Paid journalism is even more of a pauper's graveyard than it used to be. Why permanently indebt yourself for an income that probably won't even cover the cost of your broadband?

Have you heard the one about the college that offered doctorates in Human Sexuality Studies? Oh wait, it's not a joke. Listen, you don't need years of schooling and $200,000 of debt to learn about human sexuality. Spend one ladies' night at a bar, hit a couple porn sites, and watch one episode of "Divorce Court". You'll be an expert in less than 24 hours.

Where are the muckrakers when it comes to predatory teaching? Ralph Nader needs to write a book about liberal arts degrees called Unemployable at Any Wage. Morgan Spurlock needs to make a documentary where he spends 30 days trying to get a job after majoring in Mayottian History. Lady Gaga needs to raise awareness by performing in a dress made out of Fine Arts diplomas.

The reason predatory education goes unnoticed is because humans have been trained* to shut up and blindly support anything with the word education, learning, college, or teacher attached to it (not unlike the brainwashing surrounding words like troops, soldier, veteran, and military). Predatory education has never been more blatant, though I'm not surprised there isn't major outcry about it. If people had critical thinking skills they wouldn't be majoring in Women's Studies in the first place.

Subprime loans and student loans have a lot in common. If you take out a student loan to pursue most of today's majors, you are bound to become a NINJA: no income, no job, no assets.


*"Women" and "children" are among the most common words of manipulation deployed by politicians and bureaucrats. Teachers have traditionally been women, and students are almost always children, so it ain't exactly hard to link education to the sacrosanct realms of women and children. No wonder predatory education gets a pass.

Education can't create the real high-skill of the future: imagination

Ancient languages reconstructed by computer program

A new tool has been developed that can reconstruct long-dead languages.

Researchers have created software that can rebuild protolanguages - the ancient tongues from which our modern languages evolved.

Currently language reconstructions are carried out by linguists - but the process is slow and labour-intensive.

Another esteemed profession, this time linguistics, is being made less esteemed by the advance of technology. Linguists have actual skill, so it makes sense they have traditionally been esteemed. Speaking of technology, today all we hear is that America needs to "invest in education" so that our countrymen can compete in the 21st Century. But increasingly, the workforce of the 21st Century doesn't involve our humans or anyone else's. Both low-skill AND high-skill jobs are feeling the bite of automation.

The journalism job market (another prestige profession) has been hemorrhaging for years thanks to the Internet revolution. How long can the education cartels hold off a similar onslaught from online academies? Of course no one will miss the thousands of malevolently worthless college professors made obsolete by technology; the tweedbots with elbow patches on their toupee who always sound like they're in the middle of a sneeze as they spew another hollow lecture on Applied Applications.

But it won't just hit the professors who teach twaddle. The fact that online classrooms can teach so many students at once (and at such a low cost, a trend that is going to be hard for the cartels to hide as tuition inflation continues attracting attention) also lessens the need for professors of real subjects like engineering.

Education is a cure-all word that everyone uses for every situation. What many don't grasp is that just because someone is educated doesn't mean he can synthetize info. If all he can do is memorize and regurgitate info., even high-skill info., he isn't going to be as secure as you might think. That's because we have computers (and robots) who can do that. Robotic humans - no matter how many degrees they have - are likely to be eminently replaceable.

Focusing on education is all fine and dandy, but education does not equal imagination. The folks who will survive will be the ones whose real high skill is idea generation, because so far, AI hasn't perfected brainstorming robots (yet). Picasso's quote still holds true (for now). Many of today's well-educated, well-paid, high-skill, low-imagination workers could become tomorrow's secretaries (or temps). All the education in the world couldn't protect American engineers from the outsourcing revolution.

Thanks to the speedy advance of technology, it seems there is going to be less need for everyone. The anthem for computers and robots will be "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better". If there is to be any role for non-cyborg humans, it will be for those with imagination. So if you have kids, teach them to daydream.


My Twitter feed is still crafted with human hands: https://twitter.com/greatMikePayne

The best slogan for future Republican candidates? "Hopeless."

The media spends 96.3% of its time fretting about the evils of old white men, so it is no surprise they are framing Republican problems as resulting from being too white, old, and evil.

 

The Republicans have certainly taken the bait. Last year's Republican Convention was so conspicuously diverse I'm surprised the keynote wasn't given by an AIDS quilt. Of course, these efforts did nothing to dent the "old white men" narrative. The old white men albatross, and its impending demise, was all the press talked about.

The Republican Party IS in major trouble, and part of the problem is old white men, but not for the reasons the media is highlighting.

The OLD part is a key issue. The country is getting older, and old people demand benefits. They will vote to secure benefits more often than they'll vote to preserve social mores. The press needn't fret: those old white men are going to vote for more Social Security and Medicare, regardless if the candidate promising to secure them is vowing to put a pink car in every garage and a transgender chicken in every pot.

So where does this leave Republicans? Let's examine their traditional hobby horses:

 

Religion: no longer the safe sell it once was. Prayer in school, "under God;" these topics have faded from view. The new religion is diversity (TV is now controlled by diversity televangelists). Being "God's party" no longer rings the cash register.

Culture war: Like being "God's party," "defense of marriage" posturing has become more of a liability than a vote getter. Many visible Republican pundits and pretty much all prominent Republicanish CEOs - are pro-gay marriage. Young people don't care about the "sanctity of marriage." Not even young Republicans are gung-ho.

Militarism: At least for now, blind support of every crank military adventure is on hold, so the relentless push to annihilate Persians and Arabs isn't the vote getter it was a few years back. Plus Obama is happily annihilating plenty of Third Worlders, so even if demand for this empire expansion returned, Republicans would have a harder time declaring that if they aren't in office America will suffer a Third World Civilian Murder Gap.

 

Second Amendment: All they have left are guns. As strongly felt as gun loyalty is, gun voters aren't evenly spread throughout the nation. Gun issues are a huge loser in key spots like New England, CA, Ill, NJ, and NY. Having that block of electoral votes in your pocket pretty much sews up the presidency for you, so no matter how loud the Second Amendment boosting becomes, the votes just aren't going to be there.

Second Amendment trumpeting is difficult at the national level, so all the Republican Party can put forth is fiscal austerity. It is the most politically correct Republican hobby horse remaining. Trouble is no one really likes fiscal austerity in practice. Young people demanding student loans don't love it. People receiving Medicare and Medicaid don't invite it to Thanksgiving. And when it comes to Social Security recipients, the only part of their life they aren't nostalgic for is the time before they started receiving Social Security. The weight of these demographics (especially the elderly part) portend a continued diminishment of the Republican Party.

But because fiscal austerity is the safest play left to them, it is now all the Republicans are talking about. They're doubling down on it. What they may not realize is that by talking about nothing else, they magnify their image as stingy, Granny starvers. Doesn't matter that they never follow through on any of their promises of fiscal conservatism (notice they said they wanted to "replace" ObamaCare. So we're supposed to believe RyanCare would be a budget saver?). So at a time when fiscal austerity is particularly unpopular, they are completely draping themselves in it. Doesn't make me want to run out and buy long-dated Republican options.

If you follow mainstream news, you continue to get the impression the Republican brand still matters. The mainstream needs the fake right-left template to concoct simplistic right-left narratives. And progressives still love the idea that they're right-thinking martyrs in a country full of cavemen (remember the political "analyst" who whined that Rick Perry was going to be President?), so they have no interest in letting the "bad guys" leave the stage. None of this coverage or commentary is accurate, but then, when has the news ever been accurate?
 

None of this matters anyway. America is effectively a one-party system. The "conservative" side is only there because, well, it's harder to continue robbing people if you don't give them imaginary choices.



My Twitter feed still beams with hope: https://twitter.com/greatMikePayne
 

Seven candies that are harming society

1) Candy corn

Candy corn is the only candy where the candied version is less of a treat than the actual vegetable. But if you get a pile of these non-treats, don't despair. They make for excellent earplugs.

2) Mounds

No one ever eats Mounds. Instead, they collect their Mounds and immediately try to barter with them on the secondary market. Trouble is, you can never get the other kids to trade you anything for a Mounds. Bitcoin gets fewer upturned noses. If you're lucky, there'll be a clueless foreign exchange student in your school you can trick into swapping a Mounds for something respectable. But be aware of the risk he reports you to the embassy.

3) Mallo Cups

Don't let the cup shape fool you into thinking you're about to experience candy bliss. Mallo Cups resemble black holes for a reason. Every Halloween there are warnings about dangerous candy stuffed with razor blades. Mallo Cups are actually much more dangerous to the giver, because if you give someone a Mallo Cup with a blade in it they'll probably use it to shiv you. Actually, a Mallo Cup with a switchblade center isn't so bad. At least if you cut your tongue off you never have to worry about reliving the horror of tasting Mallo Cups.

4) Bit-O-Honey

I don't understand how these things continue to survive. I never see them in stores. I never see anyone eating them. Yet every Halloween you're sure to get three or four in your pillowcase. They only seem to appear on Halloween. Sounds like a zombie movie. If only Bit-O-Honeys were as tasty as human brain.

5) Sugar Daddy

Delicious financial arrangement, disgusting candy.

6) Raisinets

How bad are Raisinets? You've heard that the natives sold Manhattan for $24. Well, the original offer was for $10 billion and a box of Raisinets. You can see why the natives renegotiated.

7) Mary Jane

The horrible name is just the beginning. Taffy in any form is a dealbreaker. No one craves taffy. Taffy is never served for dessert. You never visit a friend's house and find a candy bowl full of taffy on the coffee table. In an age where ice cream now contains every imaginable foodstuff ("I'll have the Pesticide Swirl with nightcrawler sprinkles, please."), you never see ice cream with taffy in it. So how could anyone be cruel enough to give these things to unsuspecting children? I guess barbarism lives. The only upside to these killjoys is that they're guaranteed to knock out a few teeth, so at least you'll have some tooth fairy money you can use to go buy some real candy.

7) Any candy that requires modification

How many times have you heard "Aw dude, ___ are so much better when you freeze them," or "Trust me, ____ are great if you dip them in peanut butter."

Yeah, of course it is better because then it's a totally different candy. It's like saying: "My wife is super hot, if you picture her with breast implants, full body lipo, and a face transplant from a model."

An Evening with John Densmore

I've written before about being a zealous, irritating Doors fan when I was a teenager:

I probably had that haircut.

Recently I attended a book reading given by Doors drummer John Densmore. He was reading from his new book The Doors: Unhinged, which uses the story of his legal battles with Krieger and Manzarek to expound upon what he calls "the greed gene."

As I sat in the audience waiting, I began to feel foolish. What was I doing there? Was I another tragic dud fruitlessly chasing down the sensations of adolescence?

Before I could dash, leaving behind a dense cloud of self-hate, Densmore walked out. Looked younger than his age; quite an achievement for a lifelong rocker. He began to talk, and his readings and musings fishtailed across many subjects. Maybe this looseness was a tribute to his jazz drumming roots (don't worry I don't actually mean this sentence).

His central theme was "the greed gene." As he put it, he and the surviving Doors (and other wealthy musicians) already have nice houses and "some groovy cars." Why do they need more? Why risk tarnishing the sentiments fans attach to their songs by licensing them for commercials? He roasted Townsend a bit for taking the opposite stance. Densmore wasn't dogmatic. He said he could understand why young, struggling bands sell their songs to advertisers. But "once you have a toehold of success," how much do you really need?

I don't blame musicians for selling their songs to advertisers. Having said that, I definitely prefer not to hear songs I like converted to jingles. Hopefully in Densmore's position, I would do the same thing, but who knows?

The Doors evidently had the only democratic agreement in popular music history. Everyone got 25%, and everyone had veto power (both arrangements suggested by Morrison). Densmore shared the story of one very famous veto: the time Jim freaked out when the others didn't consult him before agreeing to let Buick use "Light My Fire" in a commercial. The chorus was to be: "C'mon Buick, Light My Fire." Jim contacted Buick and said if they used the song he'd go on television and smash a Buick with a sledgehammer. The Doors and Buick did not break on through to a deal. Jim's stance seems to have had a great impact on John.

Since Jim's death, many other offers for lucrative licensing have come in, and the reason they didn't come off was because John said no every time. Consequently, Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek tried suing him for more money than the Doors have generated in total since their inception (an intimidation tactic, obviously). Densmore won, thanks to that unusual arrangement the Doors had. The others had no case, so as John put it, all they could do was try "character assassination."

He didn't sound bitter about it, though. In fact, John said he and Krieger were planning to play a cancer benefit sometime next year.

He was at his best during the Q&A at the end: totally unpretentious, and though he wasn't getting paid for the event, and though he is already rich and doesn't need to sell books, and though his legacy in rock is already secure, he still seemed excited about getting his point across (his new book is self-published, so he is putting his money where his mouth is). Not for a moment did he slide into self-congratulation or sanctimony. With respect to celebrity charity (and charity in general), Densmore pointed out that the word philanthropy has a Greek origin and is supposed to mean "loving mankind." Preening celebrities humble bragging about how charitable they are doesn't fit that definition.

Mr. Densmore seemed like a man who still has some hope. This struck me: The Doors' music is frequently morbid - This is the end, no one here gets out alive, before I sink into the big sleep, I promised I would drown myself in mysticated wine, all our lives we sweat and save building for a shallow grave, the human race was dyin' out no one left to scream and shout, people walking on the moon, smog will get you pretty soon - but never despondent. There is a sense of romanticism to The Doors' meditations on death. Sure, no one gets out alive, but why mope? Doors' songs are more about taking arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them, as opposed to suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

I left the reading overflowing with self-hate, but not because I sat and listened to John Densmore.