Random Thoughts

We desperately need a lawn so we can yell at damn kids to keep the hell off it.

*******************************
Do you realize that cavemen probably never suffered from scurvy? Lucky bastards! And they didn't even need the FDA to force them off soda.

*******************************
This afternoon, at a local waffle establishment, WOS excoriated us for resting our elbows on the table. Isn't it time we retired this one? From the minimal research we have conducted, it appears the prohibition arose from medieval times, when standards of table manufacturing were somewhat lax, specifically when it came to legs. Irregular or otherwise poorly constructed table legs would make tables prone to tipping over if the local (no doubt heavily armored and bear-skinned) Vikings rested their elbows upon them. But this is 20th-century America, Gosh darn it! Table artisans long ago perfected leg craftsmanship. We reserve the right to rest elbows, feet, or any other protruding body parts wherever we so desire!

Now get off our parking lot, you damn kids!

Correction

In yesterday's post, we spoke of the debate over whether to allow people to use food stamps to buy soda. We speculated about why government authorities, if so worried about the eating habits of the impoverished, didn't simply hand out food instead of vouchers. We wrote:

"The reason, we assume, is that the government does not want to be seen as overly patriarchal."

Of course, we meant, "paternalistic."

We regret the error, and we feel shame, and we will go sit in the box. But what we feel greater shame about is the fact that not a single Sloppist caught the mistake. Honestly, people, we've been working with you for almost two years now, attuning your ears to the cadences of fine writing and the subtleties of advanced vocabulary. And yet! Not a SINGLE one of you called us on that most egregious of sins against language and basic literacy, confusing "patriarchal" and "paternalistic."

We need to go sit in a dark room for a while.

Eat, Drink, But Don't Be Merry

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has asked the Feds for permission to forbid food stamp recipients from using the vouchers to buy soda. Mayor Bloomberg, who has previously taken aim at cigarettes and transfats acids, sees the promotion of healthy lifestyles as part of his mandate, so this attempt to reduce sugar intake among the city's poor is not a wholly surprising move.



Let us stipulate that the government does have the right to do this. After all, the Department of Agriculture already forbids the use of food stamps to purchase tobacco or alcohol. There is something of a "beggars can't be choosers" quality to the proposition: These folks are recipients of public largesse, and the public thereby enjoys the right--if not the obligation--to impose certain conditions upon the recipients. Indeed, the very fact that food aid is distributed through vouchers--as opposed to cash--is an acknowledgment that the government has always sought to maintain some control over the items purchased with food stamps. Nevertheless, we find something unsavory about the mayor's proposition.



The proposal is hypocritical on two levels: First, and most obvious, it is hypocritical for any but the most fanatically disciplined eaters to cast stones at another's dietary choices. We would wager that the billionaire Mayor Bloomberg enjoys the occasional soda--to say nothing of beluga caviar and goose liver pate. And as much as solidly middle-class folk like Your Not So Humble Correspondent acknowledge the importance of eating right, we are hardly paragons of dietary rectitude. (Yes, we WOULD like fries with that, please.) What gives us the right to tut-tut the minor pleasures of others? Don't food stamp recipients have enough to worry about? Let the kid have a Dr. Pepper!



The second level of hypocrisy is more subtle. As we mentioned above, the whole premise of giving food stamps as opposed to cash subsidies rests on the idea that the government wants to ensure that food aid is used to buy food. As a result, some restrictions are a presumably necessary evil. But where do the restrictions stop? Certainly, forbidding the use of food stamps to buy tobacco makes sense: Aside from certain omelet dishes in the deepest South, tobacco does not qualify as a "food." Similarly, alcohol, while providing some calories, is of questionable nutritional value, and the government has some logical reasons for restricting alcohol use (preventing drunk driving, for example). Now, we propose restricting soda consumption because soda contributes to obesity and dental problems.



But why stop there? If the government truly wants to encourage healthy eating, why not impose more restrictions? Why not say that food stamps must be used only to buy the leanest cuts of meat? Fresh vegetables? Juice and water? For that matter, why have a voucher system at all? Why not simply mandate the type and amount of food that program participants can have and then distribute those supplies accordingly?



The reason, we assume, is that the government does not want to be seen as overly patriarchal. Program administrators want to convey the impression that they are interested solely in the public good, but that they trust the public to make the right choices when given the opportunity. Except they don't--trust the public, that is. Maybe they shouldn't. But why not just come out and say so.


************************************************


Serendipity watch:



On the same day that the article on food stamps appeared, one of the "Most Popular" e-mailed articles was all about the latest juvenile food craze: spaghetti tacos.Maybe One and a Half Cooks can publish a recipe?

(Images: soda from Water for Life Usa; spaghetti tacos from The New York Times.)

System Failure

Boy, you let ONE four-year-old die horribly and everyone jumps down your throat!

OK, sorry, we even offended ourselves there. But the story in today's Times about Marchella Pierce, the aforementioned four-year-old, got us thinking about the nature of systems: Specifically, isn't "failure" just an unavoidable feature?

Marchella's story is horrific. The girl weighed 18 pounds at the time of her death; her mother apparently kept her tied to a bed to prevent her from taking food. The article outlines the various agencies and individuals who had opportunities to intervene--the details don't really matter: These stories of children who (cliche alert) fall through the cracks are always the same. Hindsight is always 20/20 (sorry, we forgot to sound the cliche alert that time), and one can always identify the egregious errors that were made.

This does not excuse individuals who failed to intervene on Marchelle's behalf. Our point is that the knee-jerk reaction--to shake one's head at bureaucratic ineptitude--is as cliched as the lazy writing in the previous paragraph. We suggest that the very fact that these stories continue to make news suggests that the system does work.

All stories of system failure are alike; every systemic success is successful in its own way. The irony is that the stories of success--despite their individual quirks--sell so many fewer papers.

Think about airplanes. These multi-ton behemoths sail through the air, thousands of moving and electronic parts firing precisely, avoiding treacherous weather patterns and other planes, to bring their passengers safely to land. And still there are accidents. And with every accident, investigations commence; recommendations appear; redundancies proliferate. Flying becomes safer until the system fails again. And the process repeats.

Zeno's paradox: A man stands at one end of a room. He travels halfway across. Then he covers half the remaining distance. Then half again. He keeps getting closer and closer, but he never reaches the other side.

Systems have inherent limits, and they will never reach the perfection of the other side of the room.

How'd You Like Some Salt for That Wound?

We see that the Second Avenue subway is actually coming into being. For our non New Yorker followers, the Second Avenue subway resides in the same general realm of semi-mythology as the Messiah or civility in public discourse: It's something people expect to see SOMEDAY, but that no one really expects to encounter in one's own lifetime. So we were amazed to see that front-page story affirming that construction has commenced.

We feel for the merchants (and presumably the residents) who are suffering massive disruptions and economic hardship because of the construction:

"Peter Ahn, the owner of Ivory Cleaner near 85th Street, said earnings were down 10 percent because customers told him they were dropping clothes off on more pleasant commercial avenues."

We're sure Peter Ahn appreciated people coming all the way to his shop to tell him that they wouldn't be coming to his shop any more! While there, they couldn't have sprung for some martinizing?!?

(Image from Starts and Fits)

Former Muppet Star Pulls Back the Curtain on "Sesame Street"

Spoke to FOS yesterday. We got on the subject of "Sesame Street." He informed us that the classic children's show has undergone numerous changes since its inception some 40 years ago (FOS has two children, so he has some recent exposure to the show). We decided to get the behind-the-scenes "scoop" on the show from one of the original stars, Mr. Grover Anderson, whose new memoir, Passages, hits bookstores this week.

SOL: Mr. Anderson, thanks for taking the time to meet with us.

GRO: Oh, please, call me Grover.

SOL: Grover. . . .So, congratulations on the book. Why now?

GRO: It was time. It has been 40 years, and so many of the original members of "The Street" have just become forgotten. I really think it is time to tell their stories.

SOL: Tell us something that we don't know about "The Street."

GRO: Well . . .Here is something: Most people do not know this, but Oscar was not the original grouch. That garbage can was on the Street before Children's Television Workshop started taping there. It was occupied by a grouch named Sherman, and he was going to be the show's grouch.

SOL: He was replaced.

GRO: He disappeared. On the first day of taping, the producers went to check on Sherman, and they found Oscar. To this day, no one has ever heard from Sherman. No body has ever been found, but of course Oscar will not let anyone in the can, so. . . . Draw your own conclusions.

SOL: We notice that we haven't seen much of Bert and Ernie lately.

GRO: Ernie took a bath in the dot-com crash. He had invested heavily in Pets.com--he loved that sock puppet. Anyway, he took an extended leave from the Street, traveled around the country. . . . Bert is still in the apartment. He does not come out much. He was pretty shaken up after Sherlock died.

SOL: That would be Sherlock Hemlock.

GRO: Yes.

SOL: He died on 9/11, right?

GRO: Yes, you know, it was a shock to all of us. Sherlock had no business being at the towers; he was retired. He had emphysema and an enlarged prostate, but he just wanted to help out. . . . He went in while everyone else was running out, waving his magnifying glass around as if that was of any use. . . . The authorities found his mustache. . . . Bob and Maria have it on their mantel.

SOL: This is a delicate subject, but you yourself haven't been on the show much. . . .

GRO: Yes, well. . . .Look, at the risk of sounding bitter, this was also one of my main motivations in writing the book. I am extremely unhappy with the direction the show has taken in recent years. . . . Some of the casting choices the producers have made.

SOL: You're talking about Elmo.

GRO: (Sighs) I am. I know what people are going to say, "Oh, Anderson is just upset that he is no longer the show's official 'cute, lovable' monster.' And I will admit there is a certain envy on my part. But people just have the wrong idea about Elmo.

SOL: Really?

GRO: He is out of control, Man! Sure, when he first came on the show, he was an innocent; he was fresh off the bus from Iowa! But once he got a taste of the big city, he went crazy!

SOL: How so?

GRO: Well, he started drinking heavily around 2003. I think his troubles really began when he had that fling with Lindsey Lohan. . . .

SOL: That was in '05, right?

GRO: Yes. We thought he had hit bottom when the paparazzi caught him and Lindsey snorting coke off Amy Winehouse's stomach. Little did we know.

SOL: Things got worse?

GRO: After Lindsey, Elmo went after older women for awhile. It was. . . disturbing. But at least these women had some class.
Lately, though, he has been getting. . . experimental again.
And you heard about the whole Katy Perry flap. What you may not know is, as soon as their song ended, Elmo buried his face in her chest and made motorboat noises.
It took three production assistants to pull him off her--and all the time he never stopped that horrible insane giggling!

SOL: What do you think needs to happen for the Street to remain relevant and child friendly.

GRO: Obviously, they need to rethink the direction they are going with their monster characters. Look, Arnold [Arnold McIlvaine, aka, 'Cookie Monster'] and I had our faults, but we were basically good role models. I have been taking medication to help with my rage issues, and Arnold will be out of rehab next month. I humbly suggest that we--or someone--should take Elmo's place.

SOL: Grover, thank you for your time.

GRO: My pleasure.

(Image of Elmo and Katy Perry from Bukowski's Basement; Elmo and Jake Gyllenhall from Allie Is Wired; Elmo and Oprah from Muppoems; Grover from Redcrosspdx; Sherlock Hemlock from Flickr)

BIrthday

Birthday. Lazy. More tomorrow.