Little help...

So, yesterday we went down to Rush and Maple to do some shopping at Urban Outfitters. We brought the beautiful Ellie with us, and it was astounding how many people approached us to comment on how cute she was. Seriously... here's an example of what we heard all day: "So, I guess Jimmy's having people over tomorrow night and me and all the girls were going to go over there, but I really don't want to see what's his name and... Oh, my God!!!" Whenever they'd see our little darlin', they'd stop dead in their conversational tracks to comment on how cute she is. Many a complete stranger stopped us to let us know that our baby was Cute (with a capital-"C"). We were just, like, "duh..."

It's a given that the Mrs. and I think she's the most beautiful baby ever, but even we were a bit surprised by the reaction she got. The woman sitting next to Laura on the bus said, "Your baby look like the Gerber baby... You should look into that." I guess my question is: should we?

Whether or not she could actually be successful posing for some pictures (which she would because she smiles like a pro), is it an acceptable thing to do to your baby? I was talking about it with pylbug last night, and the concensus we reached was a couple of grand made now is, like, 25K by the time she goes to college. Am I, however, robbing her of some piece of her childhood by doing so? I mean, we'd be ready to replace her formula with vodka and coke... Seriously, is there something wrong with throwing a head shot out there and seeing what happens? Anyone else out there do so?

Thanks for any input you have and talk to you soon...

Fuckery, indeed...

I was reading a recent post on Kaka Mak's blog and she had a link to another blog mentioning a friend of the blogger who had recently been raped. She said her friend did not want to press charges because she didn't want the additional stress of having her sex life put through the wringer. It is common defense practice to show that a woman, by virtue of her lifestyle, she was somehow "asking for it." That made me think that women aren't nearly angry enough about this shit...

Kaka and her friends talk a lot about the objectification of women, but it seems to me that the real problem is the de-objectification of a woman's sexuality - that there is a view that a woman's sexuality is merely a channel for male sexuality to express itself. Indeed, we have more protections in place for objects - for stuff - than we do to protect the objective reality of a woman's sexual life and her ability to protect it.

For instance, I can't walk into an Apple store and walk off with a new MacBook Pro without paying for it. The excuse, "Did you see the way it dual boots Windows with OSX? It wanted me to take it..." I can't take a rental car and then show that it had a history of many drivers, therefore I had a right to drive it. Indeed, the bulk of Law is set up to manage the exchange of such goods and properties. I get something from you, but only if I provide you with the agreed upon value of exchange. The value of exchange in the sexual encounter is simple: permission. If you can't secure that, no deal. If you can't secure the value of exchange, you have no business getting it.

This is true at all points of the transaction. Both parties in a housing deal have the right to terminate the agreement at any point up until the deal is finalized. The same should be true in matters of sex.

Maybe we should institute a receipt system for sex. No receipt, no sex. If there's ever a dispute, there's either a receipt or no receipt and we know if permission was granted. I know I'm ranting, but c'mon... There must be something we can do to stop the fuckery...

Bring it on

So, I was on my way out to CoP practice tonight and I was listening to the joint press conference being held by Dubya and Tony Blair. I'm sure neither would have planned it this way, but the last question asked was, "You have both mentioned mistakes regarding the war in Iraq. Which mistakes, in particular, do you regret most?" The PM answered that the strength of the resistance shouldn't have come as a surprise and that, in retrospect, this fact will be drawn into even starker contrast. The President answered, "Saying 'Bring it on.'"

I thought, "At last... Some humility from that insane cowboy." Turns out, though, that his rationale was that "[he] needed to learn how to speak in a more sophisticated manner," and that "in some parts of the world, this was misinterpreted." See? There's the problem: the rest of the world just doesn't realize that in America, "bring it on" is actually a well thought out and diplomatic statement that is precisely not some sort of political macho posturing. If only the rest of the world could understand that when the U. S. of A. says, "F#@% you and catch this MOAB," we really mean that we're pursuing a diplomatic course of action that we feel is in the best interest of the global community.

That's kind of the mantra for this administration: "We're not doing anything wrong - the facts are just being misinterpreted."

The news conference ended with Bush asking Blair, "Mr. Prime Minister, can I buy you dinner?" and (in my head) the Brokeback theme began playing...

Well...

At least the Cubs got a hit today... and, Bonds sucks.

New guy wasn't there today

The well-dressed man was not at the corner of Michigan and Pearson today. I can only hope that means that "FBI Agent, Chris Saviano" has stopped raping his wife.

Weekly Wrap: May 14, 2006

Here's the wrap on this week in Devin:

• Happy Mothers' Day! Here's to all the mothers out there. Here's to my beautiful wife on her first Mothers' Day. Thanks for being the best wife and mother in the world. It can't be easy raising the smartest baby in the universe. Ellie's the best, isn't she?
  
• Al Gore on SNL: I think that guy from my last post is right that he's a robot. But he was pretty funny for a robot.
  
• This week in Cubs: I wonder if Iron Chef America is on...
• 6-6-06: Some movie must be opening. We have been warned...

Remember, if you come across a giant "X" or target on the ground, don't stand on it.

New guy in the hood

Now, I'm accustomed to all manner of crazy down on the ol' Mag Mile.

There's the woman who yells at everything and everyone. The first time I noticed her she was actually yelling at me - "HEY! BUDDY! WATCH IT WITH THAT CIGARETTE!! YOU'RE GONNA BURN ME!!!" She was standing 20 feet away from me, but scared the crap out of me nonetheless.

There's the guy with the sandwich board and the bullhorn who's convinced the Russians replaced Al Gore with a robot and they're using him to turn the good ol' U. S. of A. communist. He may actually be right that Al Gore is a robot, but unless Gorebot 2K can transform into a fighter plane, or a tank. or a giant electric rhinosceros, I don't think we have anything to worry about.

There has been a new kid on the block lately, however. He's not particularly loud - in fact, I've never heard him utter a word. He's not sloppy like the rest - in fact, he's dressed in suits of fairly high quality. He doesn't seem intent on drawing attention to himself - in fact, he only seems interested in silently displaying his sign (rain or shine) which reads:

"FBI Agent, Chris Saviano" stop raping my wife!

I've passed him every evening for the past week. I wonder what the story is. It's been haunting me. If he's there again Monday, I'm going to ask him...

More lies, damn lies, and statistics...

John Stossel is a dick. I'm sure this isn't breaking news to anyone who's seen his work, but the reason I think he's such a big dick is the fact that his primary tool for "investigative journalism" is the statwistic. What is a statwistic, you might ask? Here's an example:

FADE IN
NARRATOR: "John Stossel: an investigative journalist who's a force for good in this treacherous world, working diligently to uncover the lies." You might think this... But you'd be wrong! Here's something to think about: 100% of people who watch John Stossel will die!
CUT TO
CITIZEN (Concerned look on face): My dad used to watch John Stossel... Now he's dead!
CUT TO
NARRATOR: There you have it, America. Go ahead and watch John Stossel. But if you do, you will die!

Now, I only caught part of his segment on 20/20 last night, but it was enough to see through his schtick. Two assertions he made were particularly distasteful to me: foreign aid is pointless, and teachers are overpaid.

He contends that foreign aid does more to line the pockets of dictators than it does to help the needy, therefore don't give money to foreigners. Now, while I believe that throwing money at a region won't be enough to fix the problem, I don't think the answer is "stop giving aid." What's needed is a better channel to deliver the aid to those who need it. He didn't even touch upon the fact that the reason we're giving aid to these regions in the first place is that we're strategically dependent upon them remaining a viable nation-state or that one of our best chits for negotiation with these regimes is the threat of discontinuing funds. The whole segment was just a myopic Bono bashing. Not that Bono doesn't deserve a little bashing, just not at the expense of the developing world.

His attack on teachers was even more annoying. Between clips of teachers saying they made 55K and that they spent their summers in Florida, he pulled the old "Teachers make all that money in 9 months! Extrapolate that out to a full year and they make more than physical therapists!" See that? There's the statwistic for you. If you look at national averages, and you pay teachers 133% of their salary, they'd make a little bit more than physical therapists!!! He doesn't consider the fact that education is arguably the most important job or that they only have 9 months in which to make their salary. So, since some teachers who've been at it for 20 years or teach in a wealthy suburb make 55K, the Chicago Public School teachers should shut up and not strike. Granted, this hits a little close to home for me since my wife is a CPS teacher. She puts up with more frustrations and accomplishes more important things in 9 months than I'll wager any of us non-teachers do in a year of Mondays. Again, myopic...

So, there it is America... Go ahead and watch John Stossel. However, if you do... Be prepared to die!!!

and I couldn't get hired at Farm and Fleet...

Does Bush even read the resumes that cross his desk? It seems he brings the same discerning eye to the hiring process that he uses when considering legislation. The latest "supremely qualified" individual to get the nod from the oval office is Air Force General, Michael Hayden. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that he nominated a military man for a civilian post considering who the Secretary of Defense is. Let's review a few nomination highlights from our president:

Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense)
Cons - Complete lack of military expertise
Pros - Kinda looks like FDR
This guy has done an amazing job at dodging criticism, considering he seems to have learned military planning from a handful of Xbox games.

John Bolton (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.)
Cons - Complete asshole in a diplomatic role
Pros - U.N. works better as a caricature in Austin Powers movies than it does in real life.
Like appointing Barry Bonds to lead the hospitality committee...

Paul Brown (Director, FEMA)
Cons - Biggest emergency previously managed involved horse crap
Pros - Turns out he's better qualified to manage an emergency than the administration that appointed him
Poor Brownie... All that standing behind him turned out to be so that they could shove him in front of the oncoming traffic.

Harriet Miers (Supreme Court)
Cons - Complete lack of judicial expertise
Pros - Kinda looks like Amy Sedaris in "Strangers with Candy"
Sleazy law firms, lottery scandals, and helping cover up W's national guard disservice - not sure why they didn't hire her...

So, now we have a military guy who helped put the warrantless domestic surveillance program in place nominated to run the CIA. Next up, Paris Hilton as Education Secretary...

Okay... I didn't need to see that...

There must be some kind of regular clearing of the decks at the local homeless shelters because every so often, the mag mile is populated by hordes of shuffling, mumbling, shouting, or just plain smelling bad folks.

Today, on my way out of the Hancock Building, there was a smelling-bad type woman seated on one of the planters that are there to keep people from driving trucks of explosives into the building. She was hunched over with half her arm down her Goodwill pair of Zubas and she was going to town strumming the flesh banjo.

Ewww... Maybe the tourists thought she was a street performer. Ewww...

--- Sent via BlackBerry ---

TV, or not TV: That is the question.

So, yesterday was Ellie's four month checkup at the pediatrician. He told us she was in the top percentiles in height, weight, and head size (well, look at her dad...). He also said she was almost preternaturally intelligent. Okay, maybe he said she was "very physically adept for a 4-month old" but, c'mon! That's 'cause this shit is too easy for her!

Unfortunately, at this age each visit means more shots. Babies don't like shots. To make it even worse, she awoke yesterday in the greatest mood in a long time. Even at the doctor's office she was smiley and playful. Then, the nurse broke out the battery of shots and Ellie was like, "What the hell are you doing!?!" By nightfall, she seemed to have recovered.

Laura had put together a list of concerns we had and the doctor cleared us on all of them. The last item on the list was television for infants. Now, we have friends at both extremes of this issue. Some of our friends absolutely prohibit television until at least 2 years of age, while others bring a portable DVD player to the restaurant so they can eat in peace. The doctor's opinion was that the television prohibition was put in place for the lowest common denominator - that it should not be used as a substitute for interacting with your child. However, I've heard that an infants brain can't process what they see on television because they don't have a handle on object permanence (for instance, why on television a person will vanish and reappear - which I still think is due to magic or homunculi).

So, any of you reading: I'm interested where you fall on this spectrum. Personally, I'm a big fan of synaesthesia. If she's listening to music, what's wrong with imagery tied to that music? I mean, look at A-ha's "Take on me" video... that rules! Seriously, Ellie is very engaged by her environment and one of the things in that environment is television. We have been strict in preventing her from watching, but couldn't she benefit from controlled exposure?

Interested to hear if anyone has an opinion. Talk to you soon...