A beard is a helpful device

I've never had a beard before. Oh, I grew one now and then but I always shaved it off after a glance in the mirror. Made me look old. But now that I'm actually old, I don't mind that effect. In fact, I like the beard a lot.

The thing is, I look "finished" the instant I wake up. Before growing a beard, I'd look tacky in the morning because I hadn't shaved. But now I'm glorious from the get-go. Very helpful.

I imagine this is similar to women who have "makeup" tattooed on their face. Wake up, be perfect. It's a great idea.

Go, beards!

Interesting article at Spiegel Online

Want to read something with substance? Well, click here. It's an interview with Andrew Solomon at Spiegel Online. From the article:

For his book, "Far from the Tree: Parents, Children and the Search for Identity," author Andrew Solomon interviewed 300 parents with one thing in common: Their children were completely different from themselves. 

The article covers so many fascinating family situations. My only complaint is that it's far too short. I wanted more. Guess I'll have to read the book. Seriously, grab a cup of coffee and click on over to Spiegel.

PS: There's a glitch that implies there's a "Part II". It's just page 2 of the article, which you encounter by clicking normally to page 2. In other words, there should be no mention of a "Part II".

The root of Republican insanity

On his excellent blog, Ed Brayton quotes Conor Friedersdorf, whom he describes as "one of the smartest conservatives (real conservative, not just an anti-liberal)". Here is Friedersdorf's quote. I'll have something to add at the end:

“Republicans can pretty much say whatever they want, no matter what the bizarre logic and no matter what connection it has to what they were saying five minutes ago, and Fox News will totally accept it and blast it for hours or days,” Jonathan Bernstein observes. “The result? Republicans have become incredibly lazy. After all, why bother constructing a coherent argument if you don’t need one.”

It’s true. In order to get good press from the conservative media, Republican politicians need not craft a brilliant political strategy or impress with policy substance or excel at persuading the public that conservative ideas are the way forward. They need only find themselves in conflict with President Obama and Democrats…

Watch Sean Hannity. Listen to Rush Limbaugh. With few exceptions, the focus is winning whatever fight happens to be dominating the current news cycle. Each one is treated as if it is as maximally significant as any other, and that is no coincidence. If you’re driven by partisan tribalism more than ideology, if getting in rhetorical digs at liberals thrills you more than persuading adversaries or achieving policy victories, it makes sense that you would fight substantively inconsequential battles with no more or less vigor than any other…

The amount of conservative hackery broadcast and published every day remains staggering. In private, that fact is widely acknowledged even among movement conservative pundits, who can hardly deny something so glaringly obvious. But I have long been in a tiny minority of observers who regard conservative media as something that must be reformed if the right is to recover. How can an ideological movement succeed if its leaders and its rank and file daily rely on bad information from sources that constantly peddle fiction as fact?

Undeniably true. But I think we must take this a step further back and ask, "What allows Republicans to accept 'glaringly obvious' lies?" There is only one answer: religion. Once you allow a pernicious, "glaringly obvious" lie such as "god is real" into your life, you're lost. This fault is what allows Republicans to believe in nonsense. They opened the floodgates by believing in gods, and anything rushed in (including Rush Limbaugh!). It would be funny if the consequences weren't so tragic for our country.

Boring baseball

Yesterday's two playoff games were incredibly, mind-numbingly boring. There was no action, no nothing. It was hitless inning after hitless inning. Yay, baseball. Meh.

But here's the thing. I'm waiting for the World Series to end so I can focus on writing my next novel. The day the games end, I will begin to write. But that day may come sooner than I thought.

If the Cardinals beat the Dodgers, and the Tigers beat the Red Sox, I won't even watch the World Series. I mean, who cares which team wins that match-up?

Good. I'm dying to go back to writing. Baseball is a huge distraction for me. Once it's out of the way, my real life (as a writer) will begin again.

Besides, the idea of missing Buck and McCarver's boring game observations is appealing. They ruin any game they call. Best not to watch.

Anyone watching these games? Nah, I thought not.

Odd English

Yesterday I found myself thinking about the expression "after the fact". As in, "I only learned about it after the fact." For some reason, it struck me as odd. Why include fact?

Noodling around in my head, I wondered what the opposite expression was and realized it's "beforehand". As in, "I was trained beforehand." Hmm. Fact and hand. You'd think the two terms would match, like foreword and afterword, but they don't.

No one seems to be sure where beforehand came from. It's an old English expression, to be sure, but why the hand is included isn't clear. Some etymological sites suggest it might mean taking action before "another hand" has an opportunity to do so. Could be, but sounds a bit shaky to me.

I found an interesting note on this topic on answer.com. A commenter named Mai said:

And to extend this a bit, afterhand...
First hand, second hand, afterhand (1439) are from the notion of something being passed down from hand to hand.

That sounds likely. Hand to hand. (Aside: I can't decide if I've ever heard the term afterhand. It seems distantly familiar, as if I encountered it long ago in a book. Not sure.) This also makes me think of "firsthand experience", as in something that you yourself experience; yours is the "first hand" to "touch" the experience.

As for after the fact, I can't find the souce for this expression. Offhand (Awk! There it goes again!) I'd say it's the result of a police-official (or schoolmarm) mindset. "The suspect learned after the fact that he'd bulldozed the wrong house." It reeks of official-ese. Also, it seems to me there's a sense of wrongdoing attached to the phrase. The fact is usually something at least slightly negative. "I didn't know she was just fat when I asked how her pregnancy was going. I only learned this after the fact." It has a bit of ameliorization to it. It's an attempt to evade full responsibility. "I didn't know!"

Or maybe that's just me. Any thoughts, wordlings?

Egan's column

Timothy Egan has an interesting op-ed in the NYT about Pope Francis. It's called "Lapsed, but listening". Yes, it's yet another column praising Francis but this is no sychophant's homily. (In other words, he's not brown-nosing the pope.) It's realistic and paints an accurate portrait of the Roman Catholic church at this moment in time. This church really really needed a pope like Francis.

Check it out. Even if you're wildly atheistic (like me), I don't think you'll find fault with what he says. He's just stating the facts, m'am. And he's also right about one sad thing: Francis is not a young whipper-snapper. There's only so much he can do in the years that remain to him. Let's hope (if he keeps being sensible, anyway) that he's one of those guys who is nimble and quick-witted until he's 100 years old.

And yes, I do know that Francis is the head of a religion that is based on lies. There is no god. That's a fact that will never change. Nevertheless, he's doing something startling. The horrid anti-gay language of the church has already softened since he was crowned king of the priests. That's progress, no matter how you look at it. I can't help but be pleased.

I know it could all change in an instant. But for now, Francis isn't too bad. Can we at least agree on that?

Dave Beegle

The song is Sandy's Painting. I love this guy.

A perfect animated Zimmerman

Did South Park nail it, or what? I'm always amazed when an artist can replicate someone faithfully with just a few lines. I mean, that looks exactly like Zimmerman, doesn't it? (Click for larger.) And yes, he's shooting an African-American cartoon character -- or at least, one that he thinks is African-American.

This guy is doomed in America. This will follow him to the grave, which I suspect is not far away in his future.

Read Raw Story's report to learn about the episode. I haven't seen it, but it sounds very funny.

National Coming Out Day

Having never been "in", I never had to "come out". But I do encourage any gay person who's in the closet to step out and nail the door shut behind him.

But of course, you're never out to the whole world. For this reason, I always tell each new person that I'm gay. I look at it this way: if you're going to reject me, I want you to do it before I develop a relationship with you. This way when I walk away -- which I'll do immediately -- it won't hurt. After all, I hardly know you (and you're a stupid twit). It's a protective mechanism.

Today I saw an article on John Aravosis' blog. It's by Mark Thoma, MD, and it's about the importance of coming out to your doctor. (I always do that, too.) Thoma said this:

When it did happen to me, [i.e., a doctor had a bad reaction when Thoma, the patient, said he was gay] I felt angry and hurt. But a few minutes later, I felt relieved. Relieved that I hadn’t continued to see that doctor, built a professional relationship with him and then found out a few years later that he was “uncomfortable” with gays. Then I’d have had to move on. Instead, I found out during the first exam and just left and got a new doctor.

Good advice, and that's just the way I operate. Tell 'em on the first visit -- in fact, within the first minute of the visit. If the doctor can't handle this information, he or she is not worth going to. I see a doctor who's totally fine with having gay patients. I wouldn't go to any other kind of medical professional. 

Any coming out stories you'd like to share? Do tell.

A painful day in sports

I found it agonizing to watch the Giants game last night. Jeebus didn't want Eli to win. I guess it's that simple. But seriously, two interceptions in the first five minutes? Dog!

And of course, all the while I was flicking between the football game and the baseball game. Alas, I found no surcease in this manner. The evil Tigers beat the wondrous A's.

Truly, 'twas a painful day in sports. The Mudville nine come to mind. Anyone out there watch the games?