In response to my recent post about dressing and acting respectable:

Sheila Tone: I think a lot of people from nice backgrounds believe dressing down is a way of showing solidarity with the poor. They also enjoy the idea that they can trick others.

Dave: David Brooks famously noted that BoBos (his term; essentially SWPLs with money) will borrow fashions from a foreign peasant — maybe a Guatemalan poncho, for example — but never from poor American whites.

W: That’s obvious, Dave, because a rich SWPL dressing like a poor white could actually be mistaken for a poor white.

I am inclined to believe that it has more to do with “tricking others” than showing any sort of solidarity, though I don’t know that they would necessarily view it that way. I think a lot of it relates to the decision of informality. I think of the whole Casual Monday-Friday phenomenon in the office place and I think that more of it has to do with attitude than actual comfort. At least for guys. Maybe I’m an outlier here, but I simply do not believe that jeans are any more comfortable than slacks. In the south, they’re less comfortable due to the heat. But people prefer them regardless and I believe they do in large part because wearing casual clothing, whether comfortable or not, allows people to feel more relaxed.

I’m not sure I’m entirely on board with the notion that whites don’t dress as poor whites. At least not as it relates to young people. Wearing blue collar shirts (“Gas Station Shirts”, as I used to call them, even though they typically were not actual gas station shirts) was a fad for a while. I was a fan of this fad because I knew a great place in Phillippi where I could get said shirts for $2-3 a piece. This may have had more to do with the solidarity that Sheila refers to. On the other hand, they were typically worn by people that are most diametrically opposed to poor whites in terms of philosophy and politics. Additionally, in Delosa it’s not too uncommon for people to “dress cowboy” if they are remotely in to country music.

What’s interesting about both the blue collar shirts and dressing western is that, though people across the economic spectrum do it, you often see key distinctions between between the way that people that dress that way out of necessity or actual cultural placing and the people that dress that way just because. For instance, I was terrible at the Gas Station Shirt fad because I insisted on tucking my shirt in and that ran contrary to the norms. A good portion of the time not only are the shirts untucked, but they are unbottoned with a shirt underneath (this I could do – so long as there was something between my belt and my body other than my pants). Well-to-do people that wear the cowboy wear are conspicuous because their shirts and even jeans always seem to be well-pressed.

Now, this either defeats the purpose or is part of the package. It’s sort of a way of showing solidarity or at least taking off airs, but in a way that suggests “I am not really one of them. “

Jamelle Bouie writes that Emperor Palpatine (of Star Wars fame) was not as wrong as we think:

I’m not so certain that the operating philosophy behind the Galactic Empire — that despotism is necessary to maintaining the peaceful cohesion of a galaxy-spanning empire –is entirely wrong. Especially since we have enough examples of republican forms of galactic government to know that the alternative isn’t that much better. The previous galaxy-spanning political unit — the Galactic Republic — collapsed largely because it was too large to be effective. The Republic didn’t even possess the strength or legitimacy to handle a trade dispute on a minor core world, much less an existential threat like the Clone Wars.

Several years ago, Jon Last wrote a seminal piece entitled The Case For the Empire:

Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic’s staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In “The Phantom Menace,” Queen Amidala admits, “It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions.” In “Attack of the Clones,” young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply “doesn’t work.”

The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In “The Phantom Menace” a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic’s United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.

Bouie is a liberal and Last is a conservative, which makes this a rare non-partisan issue (except for the fact that Last wrote his piece when Republicans were in power and Bouie his now that the Democrats are… the justification of power rises and wanes depending on who, precisely, is in power).

This sort of puts its finger on something that I find myself thinking about on this issue or that. Some of the greatest evils that have been committed were an illegitimate response to legitimate issues. Whether the villains were greedy oligarchs or the extraordinarily unfavorable terms of a post-war treaty, Hitler and Castro came to power because the previous models of governance were not working for large segments of the population.

Having gotten Godwin out of the way, you can see this in contemporary issues as well. To pick an example of something that has worked in multiple directions, sexual harassment law. Sexual harassment law, whatever its faults, was a response to a real problem. When women did not have sexual harassment workplace protections, there were no systems in place where she could file a complaint if men would demote or punish women that were not receptive to their sexual advances. The original incarnation of sexual harassment law, however, also went too far and the backlash was to be expected. Men had little or no defense against any allegation and could, at least theoretically, be fired for an innocent gesture taken the wrong way. There were absolutely no assurances that men wouldn’t be fired simply because a female coworker wanted them to be fired. There was no way that this was not going to cause a backlash. Even if it were the case that the men most likely to speak up were those that really just had a disregard for women and wanted the right to treat them however they wanted, they gained an audience in part because there were some legitimate fears about what this sweeping legislation would ultimately mean.

Ben Franklin’s famous quote about security and freedom notwithstanding, a society that disregards security for too long will almost certainly lose its freedom in the long run. When policies don’t allow the law enforcement and security personnel to do their jobs, the temporary result will be a population more free from police interference. The longer-term result is increased anger at rising crime that results in a new round of legislation that’s not unlikely to go five steps too far.

There needs to be a term for the opposite of the slippery slope argument. The slippery slope argument says that if you give in 10% on Issue X that you’re setting to stage to give in 20%, 30%, and up to 100%. The opposite of this would be that if you don’t give in the 10%, you’ll create a situation that will have people clamoring for a 50% solution.

Ultimately, institutions have to be able to respond to the problems set before it. Further, to the extent that those in power completely disregard the perspective and concerns of the opposition, they lay the groundwork for a disproportionate backlash that could easily outlast the effects of the legislation that they managed to get through in the first place.

-{Note, I touch on a lot of areas here with varying degrees of volatility. It may be too much to ask you to keep focused entirely on the abstract, but any and all comments that are disrespectful towards people that you disagree with will be cropped or deleted. Ditto for comments expressing great skepticism that the people you disagree with are good-intentioned or honest about their motives.}-

While driving through Shoshona on The Great North By Northwest Jobs Tour, Clancy and I got pulled over for speeding. We had just stopped to refill the gas tank and I had handed the keys over to her. I hadn’t conveyed to her the rather low speed limit in town and so there were were on the side of the road with flashing lights.

Further complicating matters was that we had a taillight out. Though we didn’t know that to be the case, it wasn’t a surprise. I’d had that light replaced the week before and the guy that replaced it said that it was going to happen again because a leak was allowing water inside. If I’d had the receipt, I would have been able to show the cop that we’d just had it replaced and so we were quite surprised that it went out again (no mention of the leak, of course).

Oh, and we had no proof of insurance.

The cop told us to watch our speed and gave us a warning for the taillight and the speeding. He did give us a ticket for the insurance, but also told us that if we could just prove that we were insured it would be dismissed. He told us that we looked like good, upstanding folks, so he was going to cut us a break. We thanked him profusely.

Later on the trip we were in a bookstore on the Shoshona/Cascadia border that the punner in me wishes was called Borders but alas was their main competitor. We were waiting to hear back on whether or not we would be driving directly back to Gemini Falls or going home. So we decided to hang out at the bookstore. Clancy brought in a book she’d been reading. She asked Customer Service if she needed some sort of tag for her book since she brought it in, but declined and the lady at the checkout didn’t feel the need to check up on that because, well, we looked like good people.

As a smoker and serial-loiterer, I sometimes get run off by local establishments. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. It tends to happen most when two factors are in play, one of which is that I am not dressed nicely. It got to the point that if I knew I would be smoking a cigarette at a convenience store I would actually dress up for the occasion. Half Sigma, I think it was, wrote a short post a while back about a criminal-type who managed to avoid suspicion primarily by dressing in a suit.

I am a relatively fortunate guy. I was born white into a house with solid middle class values. I was taught (though it didn’t always take) how to dress up or down for an occasion. I was taught to be polite to cops and polite to people in general. That appearances matter. Though this is belied a bit by my loitering, nonetheless I was taught that it is best not to look or act the least bit suspicious. While it is everyone’s right to act suspicious, just because something is a right does not make it a good idea and people can make trouble for you if they feel its worth their own trouble.

It’s enough to make one wonder the extent to which this is a healthy outlook for a society. I’m sure an indignant, younger version of myself would have felt that it was not. Stereotyping is bad and all that. Just because a kid is dressed like somebody that makes trouble does not mean that he should be treated that way.

The older I get, the less convincing I find that perspective. Even if you are doing nothing wrong, you are providing a degree of cover for those that are doing wrong. If criminals all start wearing plaid tomorrow, it would make the job of police officers a lot easier! Making their job easier not only results in less crime, but it also involves them spending less time bothering good, upstanding folks trying to suss out the criminals.

I’m not advocating laws being passed to ban plaid or anything like that. Nor do I think that being deferential to a police officer should be one of those things forced with the strong arm of the law (except as required). And I don’t think that wearing plaid should, in and of itself, be probable cause for anything. The same goes for mouthing off to a cop (within reasonable limits, of course).

There is a saying that just because something is a right does not make it right. The next step is to say that just because something is a right does not make it morally neutral, either. It may not be illegal for a man with an unpleasant build to wear a speedo to the beach, but that doesn’t mean that doing something he knows will make others uncomfortable is not self-centered and distasteful.

On the subject of deferring to law enforcement personnel, it would of course be much easier to do that if you can trust them. There are parts of Delosa and Louisiana and other southern states where I would never, ever let a cop look in my car without a warrant. There are other circumstances with any police department where I would be a lot more reluctant. Often, police departments bring this sort of resistance upon themselves.

This is one of those areas where I think a good amount of disservice is done with traffic enforcement. Speed traps are a great way to raise funds, but they’re also a good way to create mistrust between the police and the citizenry. It makes more of our encounters with cops than not an adversarial experience. Cities, counties, and states have rights about what kind of speed limits to post. They also have the right to shorten yellow lights at intersections. And the right to park bait cars. But just like the actions of the citizens have inconvenient ramifications sometimes, so do actions of the authorities.

-{Take care to note that other than in the rhyming title, no mention of race is mentioned here.}-

Peter is getting momentary fame over at Half Sigma with the Peter Principal Rule, which states: Non-athletic activities which only men participate in, yet are not viewed as traditionally masculine, are the nerdiest activities.

There’s a back-and-forth over at Half Sigma where Engineer makes the strong counterargument that it’s not that the nerdiness of the activities define the nerd but rather that the nerdiness of the actors determines the nerdiness of the activity.

Kevin K, on the other hand, suggests that it’s the difference between doing and simulating. If you’re actually hunting, then booyah, but if you’re simulating it on a computer, then that’s nerdy. By this standard, fixing a car is doing… but so is fixing a computer. Are they received the same way? Probably not so much.

All of this is a long way around to wondering how nerdy the following video is. I mean, creating comic books superpowers? Engineer would say nerdy because it’s not the sort of thing that popular people would be into. But the dude’s creating fire, which would meet with Kevin’s approval of masculinity.

Personally, if that’s being a nerd, then I wouldn’t ever wanna be cool.

1) If a man is still single when he is 32, he is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) A beta who is shafted by women’s perpetual pursuit of alphas
(b) A victim of feminism
(c) Probably a really nice guy who can’t seem to find a woman because they’re all busy dating alphas and jerks.
(d) An alpha who has access to any woman he wants and so does not need to marry
(e) Wisely foregoing an institution so ridiculously lopsided in favor of women.

2) If a woman is still single when she is 32, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is obviously obsessed with alphas and that’s why she can’t find a man.
(b) Is stuck up and has standards set way too high.
(c) Is captive of the feminist ideology about fish and bicycles.
(d) A whale
(e) Is the mother of some kids to some alpha she slept with while spurning betas
(f) Has something seriously, seriously wrong with her.

3) If a man cheats on a woman, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Culpable because she obviously married an alpha and could have avoided this fate by marrying a nice guy that would have been faithful.
(b) Culpable because she is a harpy that drove her otherwise nice guy to cheat on her.
(c) A victim of feminism as it pertains to the sexual revolution that entitled the man to act on his base instincts the same ways that women always do.

4) If a woman cheats on a man, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Destroying her family for the chance to sleep with an alpha.
(b) Showing her true, ugly nature and disproving once and for all that women are more sexually restrained than men out of some sense of morality.
(c) Demonstrating the failures of feminism by placing woman empowerment over the value of family and moral values

5) If a woman leaves a man that cheats on him, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Demonstrating the failures of feminism by placing female empowerment over the values of family and morality.
(b) Culpable because she obviously married an alpha and could have avoided this fate by marrying a nice guy that would have been faithful. Now, she’s only added to her culpability by allowing her original mistake to result in the dissolution of a family.
(c) Only leaving because feminism will allow her to sit around eating bon-bons and smoking cigarettes while he gets every last free dime he has taken in child support and (where applicable) alimony.

6) If a woman leaves a man that cheats on her, he is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Being punished for following his biological impulses the same way that women always do.
(b) A victim of the court system which will probably use his infidelity to limit his access to the children and take every last free dime he has by taking it for child support and (where applicable) alimony.

7) If a woman does not leave a man that cheats on her, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Proof positive that women are attracted to assholes.
(b) Only sticking around so that she can hold it over his head and control him all the much more.
(c) To blame for any future infidelity since she rewarded his immoral behavior.

8) If a woman does not leave a man that cheats on her, he is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Screwed.
(b) Going to have it held over his head.
(c) Probably going to be forced to stop sleeping with other women because she fails to recognize that he has BIOLOGICAL NEEDS.

9) If a woman marries a nice and faithful guy, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Use him for his money and/or platonic companionship and cheat on him with an alpha.
(b) Use him until she can find what she wants and leave him for an alpha after the first opportunity.
(c) Going to secretly have an alpha’s baby and pretend that it’s his.
(d) Visibly and desperately unhappy.
(e) Fooling herself into thinking she’s happy while she pines away for an alpha.

10) If a woman marries a guy that turns out not to be faithful, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is proof positive that women are attracted to assholes.
(b) Turned him into an asshole because she’s a harpy.
(c) Drove him to it by having the audacity to age.

11) If a woman stays at home to raise the kids, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is a lazy user who married the dupe so that she wouldn’t have to work so that she could sit around and eat bon-bons all day.
(b) Is proof positive that women will only marry rich men.

12) If a woman stays at home to raise the kids, he is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) A dupe who is being used for his money
(b) Being cheated on by his wife who is sleeping with the pool-boy, outlaw biker, or an investment banker while he’s gone.

13) If a woman works after having children, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is putting her own petty career aspirations ahead of the needs of the family.
(b) Chose to marry a low-IQ bum rather than someone with money that would have allowed her to stay home.
(c) Is proof positive of how feminism has destroyed the institution of family.
(d) Is cheating on him with a pool-boy, outlaw biker, or investment banker.

14) If a woman is thin and attractive, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is a stuck-up b*tch.
(b) Will only sleep with alphas even though betas would treat her far better.

15) If a woman is not thin and attractive she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) A whale
(b) Worthy of contempt

16) Women who sleep with a lot of men are (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Exhibit A in the destruction of sexual morality thanks to the feminists.
(b) A slut.
(c) A hypocrite.

17) Women who sleep with few men (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Are obviously holding their standards way too high as they wait for an alpha when they could have a super-nice beta who would treat them like a princess
(b) Are fat or ugly
(c) A religious hypocrite because she would totally sleep with Brad Pitt if given the opportunity proving that it has nothing to do with sexual morality and everything to do with thinking that she’s better than all the men she won’t sleep with.

18) A man who wants to put “none of the above” for any of the above questions (circle one or more of the following):
(a) A dupe brainwashed by feminism
(b) A dupe brainwashed by liberalism
(c) A dupe brainwashed by political correctness
(d) A self-loathing man
(e) A nice guy too nice to realize that the above (and feminism more broadly) is to blame for his lack of success
(f) A nice guy who lets his relative success with women (and the relative/eventual success of those he knows) blind him to the obvious truth

19) A woman who wants to put “none of the above” for any of the above questions (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Hates men
(b) Is brainwashed by feminism, liberalism, and/or political correctness
(c) Is a slut
(d) Hates nice guys

Melissa Blake wants to know why men are reluctant to date women with disabilities. Lordy, lordy do I hate questions like that. It’s the sort of question that invites dishonesty. Either you lie and say that you are not reluctant to date someone disabled or tell the truth and let those that are lying get the upper hand. Or you’re not lying and are disabled (though, even if you’re disabled, you could be lying). Disability is actually not something that’s high on my list of repelling traits. I’m not particularly physically active myself. As long as she can sit, she is capable of doing 90% of what I want to do. But that’s not the same thing as saying that, all things being equal, I would prefer someone that is not disabled. I would prefer not to have to make the accommodations that dating a disabled person would require. None of that is to say that I would high-tail it out if something happened to Clancy, but it would come as a blow not just for her (though, of course, primarily for her) but also for me.

Meanwhile, Not a Ten complains about people telling him that he is fixated on people out of his league. (Actually, we don’t know it’s a “he” and a lot of commenters assume it’s a “she”, but both the answer-lady and I read it as a “he” so it’s a “he” for the sake of this discussion. ). There’s not even a nod to the irony of saying “Why should I put up with less if I can get more?” without asking “Why should a hot person put up with me if they can get another hot person.” Wendy the Answer-Lady’s answer was more-or-less on target. And the truth is that you sometimes can trade up in looks, but it always comes at a cost. Girls that date down in the looks department often do so because they lack options and they often lack options for a pretty good reason. So unless you actually have an exceptional quality to offer, best not to get too ambitious.

Shortly before we were married, Clancy and I were talking to some acquaintances of hers and some friends of acquaintances and one young woman said “You should elope and put down the money on a house. Weddings are a waste of money.”

I didn’t know her very well and that really did not get us off on the right foot. First, when someone is excitedly talking about their coming wedding, it’s pretty bad form to pooh-pooh weddings. Secondly, she did not have sufficient information to render a judgment (her folks were footing the bill, it wasn’t a particularly extravagant wedding, we wouldn’t be buying a house for years anyway, and so on). Thirdly, her logical priorities were not ours. Clancy and I had no dreams of white horses and carriages, but having a fair number of people there was pretty important to us and allowing them to join us in celebration of our union was as good a use for that money (ours or not) as any. The memories from that weekend will last a lifetime.

So my general thought towards her was, well “Who the flip are you?” Or perhaps with more colorful language and more in reference to her self-image than her actual identity. Now, over the short time I got to know her I came to like her a great deal and the kind of person that I wish I knew more of. But that was definitely in spite of and not because of the advice that she gave.

Last week Web took issue with some internet personal finance guru who said that a great way to save money is to relocate to a less expensive area. Web and I locked horns for a bit, but ultimately I don’t think that we’re all that far apart. Underlying the problem of the original piece that Web took on was that the author didn’t say that relocating to a less expensive area may be a good idea to save money nor did he say that it’s something some people should consider. Rather, he said that it is something you should do to save money. Therein lies a pretty crucial difference.

First, as Phi pointed out, for some people living in an expensive area (as represented by San Diego) is worth the price premium compared to living in a less expensive area (represented by Valdosta). Further, already having a job in Los Angeles will often be a lot better for your finances than moving to Reno and trying to find a job. Suggesting that moving to less expensive area is something “people” (broadly spoken) should do ignores individual circumstances that can carry a lot of weight. I still maintain that it’s really good advice for a whole lot of people, but it’s also bad advice for a lot of people to.

To take another example from the original article, not having pets was something else that he recommended. Sure enough, having pets can be a pretty expensive proposition. But pets provide their own reward for a lot of people. In fact, I’m pretty sure pets correlate with happiness more than children do. The author was wise enough not to suggest that everyone go childless to save a few (okay, a lot) bucks, but pets are another area that he might should have thought twice. Yeah, if you don’t have the money to support a pet, you shouldn’t get one. But implicit in the author’s calculations is that the value of a pet is outstripped by the expense. For some people this is true, for others this is very, very untrue.

A number of items on the list fall under the category of “This is what money is for.” Some people want to make the big bucks precisely so that they can live in New York City or Los Angeles. Some people will take a huge quality-0f-life hit in order to live in Portland or Boca Raton. Some people would take the money saved on not having a dog and would spend it on something that would bring them less happiness than a dog would. Even discounting the housing crash, some people know that they won’t be buying a house and believe that the memories attached to a big wedding would actually bring them more happiness.

Sharing one’s experiences and perspective is a good thing. And pushing back against what one perceives to be the ill-considered actions of others is not necessarily a bad idea. Pointing out to someone that talks about how nobody can afford to live a middle class life anymore that they it’s possible they could live a more middle class life in another city ought to be fair game. But lecturing them on the fact that they chose their current predicament and that a middle class life is as simple as moving to a more affordable city is, among other things, tactless. So am I being tactless when I say that Half Sigma should have stayed in Arizona? Perhaps, though in my defense Sigma brings it on himself by doing the exact same with regards to law school and college in general.

It is Half Sigma’s position that if you’re not going to one of the Top 14 law schools, that you’re wasting your time and money. I think that tucked in there is a very good assessment of the perils of law school. I wish people would have been saying that back when I was taking the LSAT and I may not have bothered. And his advice may well be 100% correct if you live and want to continue to live on the upper east coast, but his universal advice does not necessarily apply to people that live in Delosa. Sigma is right that going to the University of Delosa School of Law doesn’t guarantee anything and may be a whole lot more risky than going into engineering, medicine, or 50 other areas of study, but for a lot of people – even people that are capable of taking the classes to become an engineer – if they have a passion for or interest in law, are particularly motivated and smart, and don’t have aspirations of going to NYC or DC and being a hotshot, they will often be better advised to take the risk of law school. I know that among my friends that have gotten law degrees, none seem to have expressed any regret for having done so and none went to Top 14 schools. Again, I’m not saying that it’s not a risk and that people should not be apprised of the risk that it can be, but advice like “Don’t go to law school if you can’t get into the T14” may be good for a lot of people but is bad for a lot of others.

Of course, in Half Sigma’s defense (and perhaps my own), blogging is perhaps the sort of place where one should be able to just let things fly. Of course, that only works if you listen to what people tell you in return. That’s something that bloggers don’t do a particularly good job of. In fact, the more inclined someone is to give everyone advice the less inclined they are to listen to anyone else, in my experience. I know that I have previously made some pretty broad comments that, in retrospect, should have been more narrow insofar as they applied only to some people and not quite as universally as I had imagined. But, after years of listening and even spending some time defending their point of view*, I have come to understand the good counterarguments that a lot of people have.

* – I’ve found that one of the best ways to understand an argument is to get into a debate and try to advocate it. There are a number of positions I’ve taken on Hit Coffee and elsewhere that I don’t entirely agree with (one such example is obesity). Sometimes I actually come around to believe what I’m saying and other times I don’t, but even in the latter case I get a lot better idea of where they’re coming from.

A back-and-forth between Sheila and Phi reminded me of a thought that I had earlier today and that I have from time to time:

There are two main goals in romantic relationships: sex and monogamy. If a girl wants a stable relationship, that can be a bit of a challenge. But sex is not so much. If a guy wants sex, well that’s a challenge. But if he wants a stable relationship without sex… well, that’s a challenge, too. Sex may be a poor bargaining chip, but guys don’t even have a similar weak-arse equivalent. We can’t say “I promise a sex-free relationship!” and expect to get one (even a temporary one until something better comes along) as easily as a woman can get a sexual partner by offering strings-free sex.

There’s no real solution to this dilemma and ultimate this isn’t a particularly deep or insightful thought (and not one original to me, I’m sure), but there ya go.

A few weeks ago I got into it with a guy named Justin at Phi’s place. Justin suggested that women like guys with more flab than they have. That runs contrary to my great deal of experience on the issue both as a former tubmeister and a former beanpole. I’ve heard the statement made before, but frankly it comes across to me somewhere slightly less credible than “I just want a nice guy” and somewhat more credible than “I don’t care about looks.” Women that are comparatively heavier than myself are overrepresented among the women that have actively campaigned for my romantic companionship. The attention I got as a beanpole was significantly greater than the attention I got as an even moderately overweight guy. The attention I got as a substantially overweight guy – even from heavy girls – was negligible.

But where Justin’s comments about girls liking a bigger guy because of some feeling of being protected is not completely without merit. The thing is, though, that it doesn’t apply to weight nearly as much as it does height. I have fairly extensive catalog of my strengths and weaknesses in the dating market from back in the day. The more I weighed, the bigger the score in the “weakness” column. My height, though, was always a plus. This was particularly true among comparatively tall women, but somewhat true among moderately tall women and even true, from time to time, among shorter ones.

I was thinking about this as I read the Frisky post about how to date a tall chick. I found the discussion to be much more interesting than the post itself. In my experience, taller women are actually more self-conscious about being abnormally tall than the guys that date tall chicks, provided that the guys themselves are not themselves abnormally short. My experience is, of course, not as a tall girl but as a tall guy that is appreciated by tall girls. My wife (5’10”) is not generally the type of person to care about such things, but even she expressed an appreciation of being shorter than her husband even when she’s wearing 3-inch heels. An old flame of Clint’s (6’0″) actually lined two suitors up to decide which of two guys that asked her she would go to the school dance with (Clint won). And so on. That’s not to say that all tall women are hung up on their height, but in the same way that many of my tormentors in high school were short guys with something to prove, the women I know most hung up on male height are those that are themselves tall. Some guys prefer shorter girls and so tall women with an open mind can be discriminated against, but it doesn’t seem to be quite as common. Maybe that’s just me.

One of the things that some of the taller guys didn’t get is that it’s different when a tall guy is joshed around with because of his height and when a taller girl is. Tall guys, unless they’re freakishly tall, do not generally have reason to be self-conscious about their height. None of the bullies I ever had made fun of me because I was tall. Maybe it’s because my width was a more obvious point of criticism, but I also think because there’s no percentage in going after a guy because he’s tall. Notably, some people made fun of Clint for being short. But he wasn’t short. He was just standing next to me a lot. For girls, though, it’s different. Being tall is considered unfeminine by some. Some guys do discriminate against them. They are likely to have an even more difficult time finding clothes that fit than a tall guy is and the clothes they purchase matter more. So even lighthearted ribbing on a woman’s height that would be perfectly acceptable on a guy can be more problematic with a woman.

The short women also don’t get it. You think it’s hard for you to find clothes? It’s much harder for tall people. Casually, it’s easier to wear something too big than too small. A lot of smaller people can continue to buy kid-sized things but bigger people don’t have that option unless they can buy men’s clothes (which they often do!). And while it’s inconvenient to have to reach for things on the top shelf, it’s also inconvenient not to fit in a plane seat or the back seat (or front seat) of a car. Women generally have longer legs than men so leg-space can become an even bigger issue for women than for men of the same height. Okay, I’m probably selling short the inability to reach things and that may be slightly worse than having to crouch in the car, but it’s closer than short people think.

Plus, for short women, they have the ability to make short guys and moderately-sized guys feel tall and they rarely put off tall guys. When I was younger, I was actively attracted to shorter girls until I realized that it was a market mismatch. Again, while discrimination against taller women is not universal in the dating marketplace, it’s still not unheard of. And if tall women would prefer a taller guy, that’s very much their right. But it’s an inconvenient desire. Tall guys are in a similarly beneficial place, of course, as I described before. Short chubby women in particular seem predisposed to be attracted to taller but not as chubby men. Sort of allows them to feel like the guy is “bigger” in that “protect” sort of way but without having the disadvantage of having to date someone with a comparable BMI. I don’t think it generally works. Certainly didn’t work on me.

Of course, being a tall woman is not without its disadvantages for some of the same reasons that I rejoice in being a tall guy. Not just because you can reach things! Being tall allows you to eat more. Weight loss may be less apparent (despite losing similar poundage, people notice my wife’s weight-loss a lot more quickly than they notice mine), but weight gain is less problematic. I think that this is more true for guys than for girls since we can get away with more extra weight than can girls, but I think it’s also true (to a lesser extent) for girls. At some point you can be described as “big” in a way that’s not meant in an unflattering way. Some of the chubby shorties I was referring to earlier aren’t actually that much overweight from a pure poundage standpoint, but what little extra weight they have seems to clump up in unflattering places. So tall women at least do have that.

Short men, on the other hand, don’t even have that. About all they’ve got is the ability to fit into more places. It’s hard not to be sympathetic.

The notion of Instant Replay is somewhat controversial in football. On one hand, you have the importance of accurate calls. If the video cameras catch something the refs missed, then shouldn’t that be corrected? On the other hand, you have pure pragmatism. There are all sorts of things that the refs always miss. There are plays that are simply too close to call. A three-and-a-half hour game could easily be stretched to five or more hours with too liberal an instant replay rule. Coaches could use replay challenges as defacto time-outs, which is precisely what happened when the NFL first tried instant replay (they’ve changed the rules since). So the leagues came up with their rules. Nobody is really satisfied with them because, well, what it would require for them to be satisfied with them changes from week to week and play to play depending on whether the rules favor their favored team or the opposing ones.

Several years ago, there was an NFL playoff game between the Tennessee Titans and Buffalo where what appeared to be a forward lateral was thrown in a play that determined the game in favor of Tennessee. The refs did not call a forward lateral and though it appeared to be one in the replay, it was not deemed conclusive to reverse the call. And so the Tennessee Titans went to the Superbowl. Bills fans remained bitter and many suggested that they should reverse the result or if they win the Superbowl there ought to be an asterisk or somesuch. Titans fans argue that it wasn’t a forward lateral to begin with or, if it was, it doesn’t matter because that’s just how the ball bounces sometimes. Both stances have their merits. Teams should not win because the refs make a mistake. But there is also a point where you have to move on and accept that life is not fair.

However, one would imagine that had the circumstances been reversed, Bills fans would have been talking about moving on and Titans fans about the importance of the rulebook. There’s really no question about this. That doesn’t stop each team’s partisans from getting on their soapbox and saying that it isn’t about this particular game it’s about fairness or being an adult and accepting the unfairness of life.

Of course, sports are a multibillion dollar exercise in frivolity. It doesn’t reach the same importance as, for instance, public policy. Or the makers of public policy.

The Massachusetts State Legislature recently enacted a law allowing the governor to appoint a temporary senator until the next special election. The All Important Factor in this was that Massachusetts should not be denied representation between now and the election simply because a senator died. Several years ago, the same legislature passed a law denying the governor the right to make appointments and creating special elections with the All Important Factor being that appointments are anti-Democratic. Of course, that there was a Republican governor in office the same year that there was a good chance of a vacancy being created back then and that there is a Democratic governor and an important vote coming up in the senate now is hardly a coincidence. But in each case, they dressed it up as a matter of principal. Democracy, on one side, and pragmatism on the other. Both are valid arguments.

Republicans, of course, point out the inconsistency and charge that the change of heart is {gasp} politically motivated, but they themselves have rather suddenly embraced Democracy when it’s prudent. In 2002 in Texas, when they won the state legislature, suddenly it was undemocratic to have a majority-Republican state represented by more Democrats than Republicans. Throwing all of their supposed allegiance to tradition in process out the door, they created new districts that, quite astonishingly, lead to more Republicans in congress. But… they did have a point about a Republican state being represented by Democrats in congress. And the Democrats had a point about the bald partisanship involved as well as the dangers in changing congressional districts at the drop of a hat. But neither position was particularly in-keeping with their philosophy so much as it was politically expedient.

There are times when abstract philosophy and political expediency meet. For instance, even setting aside partisan factors, it is extremely likely that Democrats would support as many recounts as possible to get the “most accurate” result. Likewise, Republicans are, in general, more likely to say that if somebody didn’t fill out their ballot correctly they forfeited their own vote. So when the 2000 election hit, everybody lined up in their “proper” formation. When it was inconvenient, of course, the Democrats had no problems tossing unfavorable ballots and Republicans had no problem accepting a Supreme Court verdict they would have abhorred if it had gone the other way. And these reversals were genuinely considered fair and proper. Sure, in some cases it was cynicism, but there were two valid sides to this argument and each side found it pretty easy to clutch to the side that was most convenient for them and believe it.

The list really goes on and on. Parties out of power suddenly gain all kinds of new respect for the Filibuster while parties in power suddenly feel reverence towards pragmatic democracy. Consensus and democracy are both important concepts. Protests that are scary and immature when your side is in power are suddenly importantly protected free expression when your side is out of power and vice-versa. Protests are both immature and importantly protected free expression. The entire notion of freedom itself is constantly under review. When talking about smoking in bars, some people will wax philosophic about the importance of freedom. Then, in a discussion about insurance companies, the exact same person will demand that the government step in and sort everything out to make things fair for the “little guy”.

It’s a lawyer’s job to defend his client in court. He is expected to do this (within certain parameters) whether he believes in it or not. An uninterested party, the judge or a jury, are supposed to take both sides into consideration and come to a conclusion on whose interpretation of justice, facts, and the law is correct.

I used to be a political blogger and I used to discuss politics quite frequently with anybody that would listen. I still follow politics closely, but rarely discuss it anymore. The main reason for this is that almost everybody that is anxious to talk about politics is a lawyer at heart. They are discussing things with you to Make Their Case and that’s pretty much it. The balancing of valid points of view is rarely given much heft. The notion that there are competing ideals that provide a solid basis even for views that you are ultimately unsold on is extremely hard to establish. Instead, the right and wrong of a situation come down, more than anything, to allegiance to political party and political philosophy.

Not that there’s anything wrong with partisanship. It’s a rather necessary function of democracy. Just as lawyers are a necessary function of our court system. What exasperates me, though, is that the legal maneuvering seems almost never to end. And the uninterested observers are actually apolitical “moderates” and “independents” who are among the least educated and least thoughtful voters out there. And even in cases where they are neither of these things, they typically “hate politics” and are always in search for some “middle ground” that doesn’t even exist were it not for two sides pulling the rope feverishly. So you’re left to talk politics with the lawyers, and that’s as much a cross-examination as it is any sort of actual discussion. Where the stakes are more important than a Titans-Bills football game, but the discussion ultimately isn’t.

-{If your response to this is to say “It’s really the people that disagree with me that do this. The people on my side rarely do.” or a quest to prove that even though both sides do it the other side is much worse, please don’t bother.}-