What Would Lloyd Say?

The Heels Who Caused The Recession?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:53:14 PST

There are many theories about what caused the current recession. Some feel it had to do with sneaky mortgages. Others believe it was the result of greedy Wall Street. And there are those who always look for somebody to blame who believe our financial problems are the result of the Republicans, the Democrats, aliens from outer space, or some secret society that meets every Thursday at the Holiday Inn. All of these people should just look down at their feet. That's right. I'm suggesting it's possible that shoes caused the whole financial downturn.

In recent months, many consumers have not been making purchases unless they think the items are absolutely necessary. This has been the case across the board -- except when it comes to shoes. All kinds of shoes have been selling very well in the last few months while the rest of the economy continues to struggle.

People almost always buy shoes for themselves. I don't know about you, but I don't think I've ever gotten shoes as a gift. You never hear the slogan, "Say it with shoes." So some people buy shoes for themselves as a treat. The thinking goes like this: "We can't afford a new car or to renovate the kitchen, so I'll buy myself a nice pair of shoes." If people are feeling low because of their low bank accounts, I guess they feel that shoes will lift their spirits...as well as their arches.

I worry that with some of the wealthier consumers, there might be a "let them eat cake" philosophy. Perhaps there are people who think things like, "I don't get why those people who lost their houses are so upset. Why don't they just go out and buy some new boots?"

Jennifer Black of the research company Jennifer Black and Associates says, "It's just fun to shop for shoes. Maybe part of the fun is you don't feel fat." I've never had fun shopping for anything, but I guess some people do. I understand what Ms. Black is saying: Buying shoes is not as tortuous as shopping for a bathing suit or jeans that you can only put on if a pulley is involved.

Another group of people feel that a new pair of shoes is simply more of a necessity than a new purse or a new tie. Still others buy shoes they feel they need for an inexpensive vacation. Instead of going to a fancy resort, some people are taking advantage of free outdoor activities -- activities in which they wear new outdoorsy shoes.

All of these reasons help explain why shoes are selling so well these days. Congress didn't have to pass a stimulus bill for flip-flops. Shoe sales were $1.5 billion for October, which is the best October shoes have had since 2006.

Because of all of these reasons, I'm suspicious of the shoe industry. For every analyst who's trying to explain why shoes are selling right now, I'm sure the shoe companies have at least one or two analysts of their own. So they would've known ahead of time that during a recession, people would still buy shoes. They would have known that since consumers won't be buying many other things, people might buy more shoes than they'd purchase during good economic times. So a recession might actually help shoe companies.

That's why I'm suggesting that the shoe industry may have caused the recession. Call it the Cobblers' Cabal. Isn't it just possible that those who are able to convince people to buy incredibly uncomfortable shoes are smart enough to bring about a recession? Countless people who don't even run to catch a bus buy expensive running shoes. This is the business that, through brilliant marketing, has millions of people walking around in fur-lined boots in the middle of summer.

To you doubters, let me remind you that during the disco era, people actually bought platform shoes with a see-through heel that contained live goldfish swimming around. If the shoe geniuses can convince the American public to wear little aquariums on their feet, surely they could bring about something as simple as a recession. I'm telling you, there's no business like shoe business.

Smart Dogs

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:18:02 PST

Just about everybody thinks their dog is very intelligent. I never felt that way about any of the dogs I have had. I found the dogs were lovable, cute, loyal, cuddly, and great company, but I never thought of them as that smart. I used to tell people that I never met a dog who could beat me at chess.

On the other hand, I had to admit that dogs did seem smarter than people in some ways: a dog would never bomb a country killing hundreds of thousands of people. A dog would never accidentally send out an e-mail to his boss, bad mouthing the boss. And a dog would never tell a woman that she "looks thinner in the other dress."

The New York Times recently reported that Stanley Coren, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia has done some interesting work with dogs and intelligence. He found that dogs can do pretty well on language learning and other tests devised for infants and toddlers. He went so far as to say that the average dog is about as intellectually advanced as a 2-to 21/2 year old child. That's where I feel he went too far.

A dog as smart as a toddler? Show me a dog who is smart enough to always spit up on his mother's outfit right before she's supposed to go out.

But all of this discussion of who's smarter, a dog or a human isn't looking at things right. I was guilty of the same thing until recently. Perhaps like most people, I was thinking of dogs' intelligence as the same kind of intelligence that humans have. It's like people who feel that if there is life on other planets, those beings will have the same kind of thoughts and feelings that we have. Dogs don't need to be smart the same way we are in order to be smart.

Service dogs have been demonstrating this more and more. Not only can they smell drugs in a suitcase -- or that salami you thought you'd be able to sneak in, but they help all kinds of people with various medical needs. We're all used to seeing dogs helping the blind. Lately, dogs have been paired with soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with posttraumatic stress disorder. Somehow, the dogs seem to know how to calm down these veterans when the vets need it most. Some small studies have even indicated that because of their good sniffers, dogs have been able to sniff out lung and other cancers before doctors can detect them.

Dogs also work with epileptics. They become anxious before their human buddy has a seizure. Then they bark and lick his or her face and arm. Nobody knows how a dog could know this in advance. Perhaps it's a kind of intelligence we just don't have.

Rather than just appreciating what wonderful minds dogs have, I fear that there will always be some people who compare their intelligence with ours. I used to be the same way, like when I'd say my wise guy line about dogs not being able to play chess. So I believe there will always be people who will mock their intelligence by saying that "obviously humans are smarter than dogs in every way." To them, I'd just like to present an image that most of us see every day. An owner and a dog are walking down the street. The dog does, well, what comes naturally, while the owner cleans it up. Which one is the smarter one?

Air Sickness

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:36:44 PDT

When I first heard about those two pilots who recently overshot the Minneapolis airport by over 100 miles, I was stunned. However, when they said the reason they weren't paying attention to flying was because they were looking at one of their personal laptops , I just nodded my head, knowingly. We've all seen people who get so absorbed in their computers or other electronic devices that they lose track of time and everything else. I've done it now and then. Of course, when I do it, I don't have 144 passengers sitting behind me.

For an hour and eighteen minutes, the pilots didn't respond to their radio. Air traffic controllers had no explanation for what was going on. Federal counterterrorism agencies were so alarmed by the plane's erratic actions that they put fighter jets on alert. The pilots claimed they were on the computer for the entire hour and eighteen minutes going over some new airline scheduling software. Come on. If these pilots are the kind of people who are on their laptops every chance they get and they were on it for an hour and eighteen minutes, do you really think they were just checking out some dull airline software the whole time?

During those seventy-eight minutes, if they got an email, don't you think they read it? Maybe they checked on how their stocks were doing. Perhaps they were playing "Tiger Woods' PGA Tour" or "Street Fighter IV." For all we know, they were looking at porn while the plane flew at 37,000 feet.

I'm sure they felt that they could be on the computer and still pay attention to flying the airplane. And why not? How hard can it be to fly an Airbus A-320?

We don't see something as serious as this every day, but we all know this mentality. It's the rationalization used by people who talk on their phones while they drive: "I can concentrate on the road while I talk." It's what people say when they're being electronically rude: "Don't worry, I can pay attention to what you're saying and send an e-mail at the same time." It's the same thought process used by all those people who text while they're making love. Well, I'm sure somebody does that.

The point is that, without realizing it, people get completely engrossed in their computers, Blackberrys, and iPhones. The New York Times recently reported a Western Washington University experiment that demonstrated this.

They surveyed some people walking around a campus square while a unicyclist in a clown suit pedaled around the same square. After stopping the walkers, the researchers asked, "Did you see anything unusual?" One third of the people who were listening to music while they walked and nearly 60% of the people who were walking with a friend mentioned the clown. But of those people who were walking while they talked on their cell phones, only 8% remembered the clown. 8%! How can they drive or pay attention at a meeting while they're on their phones if they can't spot a clown right in front of them? On a unicycle!

The researchers refer to this phenomenon as "inattentional blindness." Maybe that's what the pilots had. Maybe that's what your kid has as she talks on her cell phone and you're waving your arms in front of her. Maybe that's what that guy in the elevator has as he ignores everyone else and shouts into that ridiculous thing on his ear.

So I guess some people aren't as good at multitasking as they think they are. They should stick to doing one thing at a time – especially if they're flying a plane. There's just one thing about those pilots that I can't get out of my mind: I hope they weren't using that computer to play, "Flight Simulator."

Good Neighbor Policy

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:04:16 PDT

There is a "Neighboring Gap" going on in our country. As opposed to previous generations, many people don't know their neighbors. They'll almost brag that they don't know the people who live next door. I wonder if this is a "trickling down" of the philosophy over the past several years that our country didn't need other countries. Now most people are seeing that we do need other countries, and we are part of the world community. We are also part of our local communities and can't just ignore our neighbors.

Recently, neighbors saw a Halloween decoration of an imitation man on a porch in Marina del Rey, California. They walked past this decoration for five days before it was discovered that it wasn't a Halloween decoration, but was actually their neighbor who had died on his porch. I might not be the most observant person in the world, but I think after at least a couple of days of walking by, I'd be able to tell the difference between a Halloween display and my neighbor.

One of the neighbors said, "He looked fake. It looked like somebody had thrown a dummy over the back of a chair." So this guy who lived nearby was so unfamiliar with his neighbor that he thought he looked like a dummy? He couldn't tell the difference between him and a bunch of rags stuffed into some clothes? I think that the reason he didn't look real to this neighbor and the reason other neighbors ignored what they saw is that they didn't slow down to look. It's a case of "social isolationism," or "I don't know my neighbors, it's none of my business, and I don't want to get involved."

I don't claim to be a perfect citizen or expect anyone else to be perfect, but you've got to admit this incident is pretty shocking. What would have to happen on that block for neighbors to pay attention? In the summer, would they think, "Oh, that's just a Fourth of July display" if they walked past an exploding car? Would they say to themselves, "I don't want to get involved" if they saw the guy down the block loading a missile launcher with a SCUD? Would they stop if they saw their neighbor giving a shower to his new pet elephant?

We've all heard other stories of neighbors not getting involved. People step over bodies on the sidewalk, ignore screams, and drive past accidents. Are they really so busy that they can't stop? What's the difference if they get to Starbucks a few minutes later? They'll still be able to get their Grande Mocha Soy Latte or whatever. Maybe they think they don't have the time to go to the police station. They've got the time. They can always TiVo "America's Biggest Loser." It has nothing to do with how busy they are. They just don't want to get involved.

There are plenty of reasons to get to know your neighbors. They can water your plants and take in the newspaper when you're out of town. They can use the key you gave them to let your kid in your house when he's lost his. They can recommend a plumber that they've used when your bathroom is flooded with 2 feet of water. They can give you all kinds of juicy gossip, which you can choose to listen to or ignore. If they're older, young neighbors can look in on them. If you're young, older neighbors can babysit for your kids. Neighbors can watch each other's houses and call the police if they see something suspicious. You can discuss local schools with them or why that car has been parked around the corner since 1992.

But the biggest reason to get to know your neighbors is because they are your neighbors. We live in a community just as the United States exists in a community of nations. So the next time you see her, smile at that woman who lives down the block. Bring over some cookies to the people next door. Pretend that you like that garage door that the people across the street just painted orange. It really doesn't take that much of an effort to be a good neighbor. Besides, would you really like to be mistaken for a dummy?

Where Some Babies Come From

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:01:34 PDT

A lot of banks are in trouble these days, but at least one seems to be doing fine. It's a sperm bank. Years ago, when we first heard about sperm banks, people speculated that women would want to have the fathers of their babies be geniuses, or financial wizards, or great athletes. Some thought that the most talented and famous men in the world would be the most desirable donors. But sperm banks never saw people like Bill Gates or Placido Domingo banging down their doors.

However, now at least one of these banks has come up with what it feels is a solution: celebrity look-alike donors. If you would like to have a baby with George Clooney but can't get past his security guards, now you can have a baby with someone who looks like George Clooney.

Southern California's Cryobank has a list of look-alikes that someone considering artificial insemination can check out on their computer. The woman scrolls down the list and finds the name of a celebrity she likes. Next, all she has to do is click and then she'll learn a bit about this look-alike. This information might include his hobbies, his build, and maybe his favorite color. This reminds me of the typical old Playboy Centerfold's info in which we learned that the young lady's "pet peeve" was "sometimes in the sun, I freckle," and her favorite thing was "to shop for shoes." But nobody was signing up to have a child with them.

In our example, the prospective recipient doesn't even get to see a picture of the Clooney look-alike along with his info. That would be a breach of anonymity. All she sees is a picture of the actual George Clooney and an I.D. number that represents the donor.

It would be weird and superficial enough if a woman would choose a donor based on his looks. But these women are choosing a donor because he looks like somebody whose looks they like!

And how closely do these donors really resemble the celebrities? Cryobank's Scott Brown puts it like this: "It's not that our donors look like celebrities, it's that celebrities look like our donors." In other words, there might be some resemblance.

Despite all of the obvious negatives, I have to say that there is one aspect of this process that piqued my interest: I never expected to see Clay Aiken, Errol Flynn, and Prince William on the same list. Yet those names, as well as Harry Belafonte, Jeremy Piven and Manny Ramirez are all on Cryobank's look-alike list. If you want your baby to look like somebody famous who's short, you're out of luck. Donors must be at least 5'9". This leaves me out, so I guess all those women who find columnists attractive will just have to look elsewhere.

There is another feature that is no surprise in these economic times: if you can't pay cash for getting pregnant in this manner, payment plans are available. This gives a whole new meaning to buying on "layaway." I can just imagine the difficult decision at bill-paying time: should I pay off some of my car insurance or my preggy plan?

I get nervous that I won't get what I really want when ordering a pair of running shoes online. How can anyone feel comfortable planning their family by using the internet? Wouldn't you worry for the whole nine months that if you ordered a "Joe Montana" you might end up with a "Joe Mantegna?" What are you going to do then, send the baby back in a postage paid box?

However, as I looked further into Cryobank's services, I found that choosing a donor in this fashion is not as strange, not as casual, and not as foolish as it may seem at first blush. I learned that those women in the look-alike program don't have to choose a donor based solely on his looks. There's something else that can help them make this big decision. It's an intelligent, scientific way for them to learn everything they could possibly want about "their man." You see, for an extra $25, Cryobank will provide you with an analysis of your donor's handwriting.

The French Love Us

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:03:38 PDT

I always try to embrace the difficult and the easy writing assignments with the same gusto. If I have a hard job, I stare at that job and make sure that I don't blink first. Keeping this absurd mixed metaphor in mind, I went to France recently on an arduous research trip to find out everything I could about the French. Those of you who have been reading my columns for a while, know that this was not my first trip there. However, I vow to go back as many times as necessary to bring my readers the facts about France. I spent three weeks studying the French on the beaches of the Riviera, in the lavender and sunflower fields of Provence, and outside the cafes of Paris solely for the purpose of gathering information. The following is a survey which I conducted. Whether you're a casual reader or happen to be someone from the IRS, I'm sure you'll see that my business trip was worthwhile.

We’ve all heard that the French are cold and snobby and aren't nice to Americans. Supposedly, food is what they take most seriously in life, and they spend more time in museums than at work. I wanted to learn what were false stereotypes and what was the truth. Above all, I wanted to learn how they really feel about Americans these days. For my research, I tried to blend in with the French. In fact, on the beach, I went topless.

For the survey, I tried to get a cross section of people in terms of age, but it was hard to know if I was accomplishing this in a country in which there are more anti-wrinkle creams than ice cubes.

T he Garver Survey, 2009

My first question was whether they felt that since Barack Obama became President, had relations between France and the United States gotten better or worse? About 96% replied that our relationship had gotten better. And only a small percentage of these people were trying to sell me something when they made this reply. The people I talked to seemed to love our President. In fact, 75% of those who filled out my survey feel that Obama is a better president than their own Sarkozy.

80% feel that someday France will have a woman President. Only 48% of those surveyed feel that someday France will elect a black President. My guess is that if this question had been asked in America a year ago, the results might have been similar – that more people felt that we would have a woman President before we elected a black one.

Those who filled out my questionnaire are not all that optimistic about the economy. Only 12% feel that it will recover by the end of 2010, and a gloomy 32% don't feel that it will recover in our lifetime. Seems to me if my wife and I make just one more trip to France, their economy should be just fine.

Since it was France, I couldn't resist asking a couple of questions about sex. Not surprisingly, those questioned felt that French women and men are sexier than Americans. However, I should point out that this was before I got my haircut.

Of all the things that France is known for, including their history, their architecture, their art, a surprising 20% said that the French thing they were most proud of was... the cheese. The cheese! Forget Notre Dame, Impressionism, and the French Revolution. Just pass the Brie.

In at least one way, the French aren't all that different from us. We've all heard about the New Yorker who's never been to the top of the Empire State building. Well, about a third of those surveyed have never been to the top of the Eiffel Tower. And in this country known for its culture and museums, 36% say they "almost never" go to a museum. They're probably too busy eating cheese.

I realized that it was an imposition for me to interrupt people's busy day and ask them to fill out a questionnaire. So my final question was whether they thought a journalist who stopped them to ask some questions was the most annoying man they had encountered all day or the most handsome and distinguished one. 91% replied that the guy with the clipboard who stopped them to get their opinions was the most distinguished man they had seen all day. Who says the French aren't nice to Americans?

They'd Rather Text Than Eat

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:54:58 PDT

We all know people who act like they would rather text or check the internet than eat. The airlines have noticed this, too. A new survey suggests that more business travelers would choose an airline with WiFi service over flights with meals, free movies, or even convenient arrival times. I understand that when it comes to airplane food, nobody ever asked for "seconds." But to choose the internet over a snack? The survey didn't ask them if they'd rather have WiFi or a promise that their luggage wouldn't get lost, but I have a feeling that they would have gone with the Web. If their luggage gets lost, they'll probably just shrug and buy new stuff on the internet.

76% of the people interviewed would choose an airline based on the availability of in-flight internet service. I tend to choose an airline based on which is the cheapest and then which is the most convenient.

Among others, Southwest Airlines, Delta, and American either already have WiFi on their flights or they will soon. So those people who can't go for more than a few minutes without using their computers or "smart" phones, will be able to fly and check on the weather in Trinidad-Tobago, find out which football players got arrested today, and learn who Jennifer Aniston went out with last night.

I'm not a computer addict, but some people are. It's no joke. In fact, the first American live-in treatment center for internet addiction opened recently. There are many such centers in China, South Korea, and Taiwan where Web addiction is taken more seriously. These are people who spend almost every waking hour playing video games, watching porn, or talking to their virtual friends rather than eating, sleeping, working, or spending time with their families. These folks have fallen on hard times, so it's appropriate that the treatment center is in Fall City, Washington.

Let's move away from the serious to the merely annoying. Like most people, I've had to put up with someone next to me who types away on his computer the whole flight. Intellectually, I understand that a flight is a good opportunity to get some work done, but I usually find it irritating. I almost always think that these people are showing off how important and busy they are. Of course, the corollary to this is the thought, "If you're so important, why are you with me in coach?"

But once in-flight WiFi becomes commonplace, we will have to put up with all kinds of new things. Do you really want to sit next to a teenager who is "Facebooking" for 2000 miles? Can you imagine how important those missives will be? "OMG, we just passed another cloud."

And what will the airlines' policy be on porn? Is there even a way they could ban it? I don’t see how. So forget worrying about what movies the airline will show in front of your kids. Now you'll have to worry about what the guy next to them is viewing on his computer screen. I don't think an airplane is an appropriate place to watch something like, "Julie and Julia...and Jack."

Then there are those who need to check their stocks every few minutes. That's not a good idea for an in-flight activity, either. If the stock shoots way up and your neighbor shouts in celebration, aren't you going to feel a bit jealous that you didn't have that stock? On the other hand, if someone's stock tanks during the flight and they yell in despair, he or she might become a danger to other passengers.

Admit it. If someone next to you is using their computer for the entire flight, it's probably impossible not to glance over there every once in a while to see what's on their screen. In the past, it's been nothing special. Usually, it's business stuff like charts or graphs. Now things may be quite different.

For all I know, the person next to me might be having "internet sex." I'm only human so I'm likely to try to casually look over at my neighbor's screen as he or she is smirking and typing and then smirking lasciviously again. Then I'll be shocked as I read something like: "There is a really annoying guy who keeps peeking at what I'm typing."

Sexual Equality Where It Counts

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:46:16 PDT

A woman almost won the nomination for President recently, women are heads of universities, CEOs of corporations, and astronauts. The overwhelming majority of Americans are perfectly comfortable with this development in sexual equality. However, there is still a bastion of sexism that plagues our country. Few people bring up this topic, especially in "polite company," but I think our society is ready to deal with it. I'm talking, of course, about public bathrooms.

At sports events, the line for the women's bathroom is often two or three times as long as the men's. This isn't right. Something should be done to fix this situation,
especially since the world of sports purports to be dedicated to fairness.

This isn't the only area where gender issues are involved with public bathrooms. They are the source of much anxiety. For example, when I'm at a restaurant for the first time and I enter the bathroom, there is often a moment as I step inside when I panic and say to myself, "Did I go into the right bathroom?" I can't be the only person who experiences this. Fortunately, this is only a momentary fear, because you quickly notice other people of your gender or you see that symbol of masculinity -- the urinal.

Some restaurants try to be clever with the way they identify the Men's and Women's rooms. Instead of just writing the word "Men" or "Women" on the door, they may have figures that supposedly depict men and women. The restaurateurs might think these drawings are perfectly clear, but often they're not. If I'm in a dark hallway, how am I supposed to tell the difference between a male and a female elk? Sometimes restaurants use symbols that are supposed to represent men and women. They look like some sort of scientific drawings, and I can spend several minutes trying to sort them out. Some restaurants have what they think are clever synonyms for "men" and "women" on the doors like "Ballerinas" and "Danseurs." Yeah, that's really helpful. And of course, if you go to an ethnic restaurant, there's a good chance that they will have the words for "men" and "women" in a foreign language on the doors. They might think this is cute, but the rest of us aren't sure which door is which.

This anxiety about "Men's" and "Women's" rooms brings up the relatively new concept of unisex bathrooms. I'm all for them. Okay, maybe they aren't a good idea at ballparks where, well, things are just too public. But when it comes to those in restaurants and office buildings, why not?

I doubt that you have separate bathrooms for men and women in your house. No, I'm not suggesting that people of different genders use the facilities at the same time. But if it's a public bathroom with just one toilet and a sink, why should someone have to wait for the one that has their gender on the door if nobody is in the other one?

What is it that those who set up separate bathrooms fear that a man or woman will experience if he or she is in the "wrong" one? Are people going to write some graffiti in there, claiming that their gender is better than the other one? "We're Number One At Number One?" I don't think so. My theory is that some of it has to do with the aforementioned plumbing fixture, the venerable urinal. I have the feeling that some women just don't want to be in the same room with a urinal. It's like that annoying cousin whom you avoid at all costs. Some women would rather wait twenty minutes for a room that has flowers and a little couch in it than go into a room immediately if it has a dreaded urinal.

There are two solutions to this problem: the first would be to get rid of these plumbing fixtures, and the second would be for women to just get over their urinal-phobia.

Designing and building more unisex bathrooms would solve so much of this sexual anxiety and politics. No longer would we have to worry that we were in the wrong place. We wouldn't have to try to decipher symbols while we're really in a hurry. And we'd never have to push open another door marked, "Caballeros," "Cheerleaders," or "Wahines." Obviously, the unisex bathroom is the way to go.

Health Care Plan For Doctors

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:11:24 PDT

There are geriatric programs now that encourage medical students to spend 10 days or so in a nursing home -- as patients. They are given a "pretend" disease and diagnosis, and if that means living in a wheelchair and eating a special diet, that's what they do. One student who was at a VA hospital, smeared petroleum jelly on his glasses and put cotton in his ears to replicate a patient with failing eyesight and hearing. I think this is a great idea and will give these men and women more empathy for their patients once they become doctors. But I don't think it goes far enough, and I believe all doctors should learn what it's like to be a patient in their specialty before they get a license to put on their white coats and ask us to take off our clothes.

Obstetricians should have to have some sort of uncomfortable pillow bulging from their stomachs. Then they should be subjected to perfect strangers touching their bellies and saying things like, "In my day, the doctors didn't let us gain so much weight." Of course, the male future obstetricians will get some different kinds of comments, but they must just smile at the skeptic who doesn't believe a man can get pregnant.

Pediatricians should have to go through everything that babies endure. Their cheeks should be pinched, and people they don't know should pat their bottoms affectionately. When the male students' diapers are changed, they can't say a word when whoever's changing them makes a comment about the size of their genitals. On the other hand, since they will be pretending to be babies, the students will be allowed to try to pee on the person changing their diaper.

Those prospective doctors who plan on treating adolescents will have huge false pimples placed all over their bodies. Then in the waiting room, they'll have to sit next to young people with perfect skin who look at them with disgust. When they see the doctor, they'll sit there calmly as he tells them, "They're just pimples. Nothing to worry about. Nobody will even notice."

Medical students pretending to be adult patients will have to wait up to two hours before seeing their "doctor." Then after he or she deigns to see the student, the doctor will have the wrong file, take personal calls, and forget why the patient is there. After that, the medical student/patient will be presented with a bill whose total will be slightly more than the Gross National Product of Brazil.

Getting back to the geriatric patients, as I said, I think it's a good idea, but it's just a start. Those posing as senior citizens should be ignored by people in the gift shop, pushed out of the way by younger people, and spoken to by almost everyone in a condescending tone of voice.

To give the prospective doctors an even greater idea of the frame of mind of some seniors, they should have to participate in a little play. The students should be seated at the kitchen table while those pretending to be their kids are off to the side. The kids talk about the senior citizen as if he or she isn't there. They don't even bother to whisper. It would go something like this:

DAUGHTER: "We've got to do something about Dad."

SON: "What are you talking about? He's fine."

DAUGHTER: "He's not fine. Just look at him."

At this point, the son and daughter look at the medical student/older person who continues to eat his or her breakfast cereal. The son and daughter shake their heads glumly, and the student is supposed to act as if he doesn't know they are talking about and staring at him or her.

SON: "Well, he can't live with us. We don't have the room."

DAUGHTER: "I knew you were going to say that. Okay, he can stay with us, but I get Mom's jewelry."

At this point, the medical student/senior has the right to pretend to be choking, and to spit the cereal all over the kitchen table.

I definitely think this kind of program will make doctors more compassionate towards older patients. And it might make them think a little longer about how much they should leave their kids in their wills.

Government Wants To Dine With You

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:11:27 PDT

The public debate over health care has become increasingly contentious. There is a group of people that doesn't want the government to be involved in anything having to do with their health. They seem to conveniently forget about Medicare, but that's their right. I recently learned that there is a proposed provision in the health care bill called The Affordable Health Choices Act. This has to do with insisting that restaurants put on their menus caloric and other nutritional information about the food they serve. Why haven't I seen crazed people (some with their precious legal guns), screaming their opposition to the government telling them what to eat? I'm surprised I haven't seen angry signs, saying things like, "I'll be Unhealthy If I Want To," or "Feds: Keep Your Hands Off My Fat."

The proposal is not as simple as one would hope. As of now, the bill only applies to chains with twenty or more restaurants. These restaurants must post calories on their menus and provide other information such as fat and sodium content if customers request it. Small restaurants claim the new menus would cause too much of a hardship for them. Needless to say, the chain restaurants don't think this is fair. So we have the weird situation in which Domino's Pizza, Del Taco, and Jack in the Box, among similar places, are calling for a plan that would give more nutritional information to more people. This is like the tobacco companies saying, "No, those warnings on the packs aren't scary enough. Let's just say these things cause cancer, and you'd be a fool to smoke them."

Let's assume that they work out the details and come up with a menu labeling bill that makes sense to all of the restaurant owners. If it helps people lose weight and avoid things like diabetes and obesity – which is the purpose– I think it's a great idea. There's nothing wrong with educating people about food.

But I'm concerned about how this is going to change the American dining experience.

Let's say you and your spouse go out to dinner for your anniversary. You go to that special, favorite restaurant of yours. Do you really want to see how many calories are in that item that you've dreamt of for weeks? Will the two of you have a good time if, after the waiter describes a delicious dinner, you stop him and ask, "How many grams of sodium are in it?" Will you skip that special dessert if you see that it contains more calories than a marathon runner burns? Will the two of you end up just ordering salads, and then uttering those words that have become part of our modern vocabulary – "and I'd like the dressing on the side, please."

This may take some of the fun and all of the romance out of eating. Maybe the restaurants should print up two sets of menus: one for those who want the information and one for those who don't. Of course, it's quite possible that those who don't want to know how many calories are in the Chocolate Surprise are those who need this information the most.

Maybe they should add an "every once in a while clause." This would entitle us to go out to dinner every once in a while, and order from old-fashioned menus without the nutritional information. This would apply to holidays, birthdays, and anniversaries. And I guess it should apply to days when you're feeling really good. Of course, you might also want to enjoy food when you're feeling really bad. And then there's... Okay, okay, maybe the "every once in a while clause" isn't such a practical idea.

Obviously, when I think about the statistics about how unhealthy we eat and what the costs are both in terms of health and money, I'm for this plan. These harsh realities outweigh my concerns about fun no longer being part of eating.

But I am concerned that this kind of thing can get out of hand. Food regulations are a greasy slope. This bill may lead to people ordering without even mentioning the food, and just saying things like: "I'll have the 13.28 grams of fat, 453 milligrams of sodium, and 28 grams of carbohydrates." If we ever get to that point, I'll rebel and work to repeal the bill. Or at least, I'll ask for a side order of 39 grams of sugar.

The Porn Business Is Sagging

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:46:53 PDT

Like many businesses, porn has fallen on hard times. Sales of sexy DVDs have dropped drastically, and the porn producers aren't making it up on the internet. Big porn actresses – most of whom seem to be named Savanna or Savannah – are being paid less to have more sex. Before you jokingly suggest that the government bail out smut, "Hustler's" Larry Flynt was way ahead of you. He and "Girls Gone Wild's" Joe Francis said they were going to ask Congress for $5 billion back in January. Of course, Flynt's motives were purely altruistic. He said, "With all this economic misery and people losing all that money,... it's time for Congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."

So far, Congress has not responded to the suggestion. In one way, that's surprising. Over and over again, in scandal after scandal, we've seen how important sex is to our Senators and Representatives. Maybe they'd vote for a porn bailout if they could use a phony name, like when they check into a motel with someone they're not supposed to be with. If they voted on it by secret ballot, it would probably pass faster than you can say, "I'm the new delivery boy. Are you home alone, Mrs. Jones?"

Considering that we get so many spam emails about porn, how could the porn industry be losing its shirt... and pants? Almost every day, I'm invited, courtesy of the internet, to watch videos of men and women doing things that I never even thought were possible. It turns out that porn is not a recession proof business. It makes sense that some fans of the genre have decided that their money should go elsewhere these days, even if the videos are shot in High Definition.

And ironically, the internet, that porn-filled swamp, is killing the professional porn industry. People can see all kinds of porn on the internet for free. Much of the sex on the net is allegedly pirated from "legitimate" porn companies. Other offerings are videos that people take of themselves or their friends and then put them on the web. I'm not sure who these people are or why they don't worry about what their grandparents – or grandchildren – will think, but there is no shortage of folks who are willing to have video sex. Even if these home videos are not of professional quality, the porn companies can't compete with those who are giving it away for free.

There's also a theory that in recent years, the American attention span has shrunk. We are used to short snippets, rather than long stories. Steven Hirsh, co-chairman of Vivid Entertainment says, "On the internet, the average attention span is three to five minutes," not an hour and a half. Even though porn was never known for its compelling storylines, people don't seem to want to have any story with their porn anymore. They just want the sex scenes. In a recent article in the "New York Times," sex actress Savanna Samson commented on this development, "I used to have dialogue," the frustrated thespian bemoaned. (Or maybe she moaned).

She's not the only porn star who is hurting these days (and not from leather whips). In a recent story in the "Los Angeles Times," Savannah Stern (see? Another Savannah) said she has had to replace her Mercedes with a used Chevy Trailblazer. She got the Trailblazer from her parents. It's nice to see them being supportive of their daughter's career choice, isn't it?

So is this the end of porn? Don't bet on it. Porn has been in the vanguard of technology before. Now the sex industry is talking about putting its product on mobile devices. Great -- as if people aren't staring at their IPhones and Blackberrys enough. The theory is that mobile devices are more personal, more intimate than regular computers. People would be able to take them anywhere they want to view porn. But is there actually an audience who will pay to watch adult movies on those itsy-bitsy screens? I guess we'll finally find out if size really doesn't matter.

Will "Clunkers" Save The Economy?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:42:05 PDT

Even those who thought it up were surprised by how successful the "Cash for Clunkers" program was. Not me. I knew it would be huge. This wasn't because I thought it would be so easy for people to take advantage of it. In fact, it wasn't. There are rules. For example, the "clunker" has to have at least 80,000 miles on it. Some people probably drove their cars around the block over and over again to try to get the mileage up (I'm still 39,206 miles short). But I'm sure they were in the minority. The reason I was so certain that it would be a success is because it's just so American.

Americans like new things. We're not like people in other countries who boast that they live in a building that's hundreds of years old. Americans brag that they live in the newest house on the block. We look down upon older things. Notice that the program was not named, "Cash for Classics Cars." In music, an "oldie" might have been recorded in the 90's. Ballplayers are traded when they become "old" – like when they're thirty. So I knew that Americans would jump at the chance if a program helped them get something new.

Because of the positive response of the program, it wasn't surprising that the House of Representatives quickly passed a bill to extend it. And politics being politics, it wasn't surprising that the Senate balked at the extension despite the country's enthusiasm for it.

Of course, not everyone in the House was for it. Texas' Jeb Hensarling mocked it, saying, "Maybe we should have a ‘Cash for Cluckers’ program and pay people to eat chicken." Since I like chicken, I wouldn't necessarily be against that idea. On the other hand, I'd oppose "Cash for Brussels sprouts."

I understand what the witty Congressman was saying. In this program, we taxpayers are basically giving money to people to buy cars. For some reason, that doesn't bother me. I'm a lot happier with this deal than with our giving money to the people who helped our economy collapse. Congressman Hensarling opposed those earlier bailouts, too, but I guess he didn't make the national news since he didn't come up with a "clever" slogan as he did this time. I guess he just couldn't think of "Bucks for Brokers."

I like "Cash for Clunkers." It has put new, fuel-efficient cars on the streets, and infused the economy with much-needed money. It hasn't only helped the car industry and related businesses. People who work at car dealerships shop just like everybody else. So that woman who bought a new Chevy last week might be responsible for the guy across the country selling more fancy dog food. When future students study this phenomenon in college, it might be known as the Camaro-Kibble Effect.

Equally importantly, "Cash for Clunkers" has been a positive symbol. It says to America, "Hey, some programs actually work. Maybe we really can get out of this recession." And there's got to be the feeling that if the ailing auto industry can be helped, there's bound to be hope for Joe's Hardware store.

It's a big opportunity for the American auto industry. More than half of the cars purchased under this plan have been American makes. If these shiny new fuel-efficient cars turn out to be great, more people will buy them even without the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Of course, if they turn out to be junk in a year or so, the industry will be hurt even more, and those who bought these cars will feel that all they got was a newer clunker.

But if the economic experts do all their analyses of "Cash for Clunkers" and come up with positive results, watch for copycat programs. The big one will be "Cash for Firetraps." If people want to get rid of their old, falling-apart houses and buy new ones, the government would help them out. The housing industry won't say "no" to that idea.

Yes, "Cash for Clunkers" tapped into the very American love of getting rid of the old and acquiring the new. I just hope that its success won't make people go overboard. If so, I'm really in danger of my wife trading in her clunker of a husband for a new model. And believe me, I've got more than 80,000 miles on my odometer.

Obama: Illegal President?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:31:18 PDT

Generally, the main reason that a conspiracy theory exists is that it's difficult to disprove. So you may think it strange that this year's big one has been able to survive. I'm talking about the notion that Barack Obama was not really born in the United States and that there has been a conspiracy to cover that up. Obviously, if he wasn't born in this country, then he couldn't legally be President. Even though this has been disproved over and over again, that hasn't stopped a small but vocal minority from passionately buying into it. This week, Congress took time out from avoiding the health care issue, and declared that Obama was, indeed, born in the United States. I'm sure this won't be enough to satisfy the birth doubters. These people are out there. They probably don't just believe that there was a conspiracy to kill Michael Jackson so that his music would sell more CDs; they believe there was a conspiracy to kill Walter Cronkite so his music would sell more CDs.

The President has provided a copy of his birth certificate indicating that he was born in Hawaii. The conspiracy folks responded, "Yeah, but it's just a copy." Well, who has the original of their birth certificate? Almost a year ago, Hawaii's state health director, Dr.Chiyome Fukino, and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, personally verified that Hawaii's health department has Obama's original birth certificate as it should.

Remember the acrimonious Democratic primary? If the Clintons thought this story had been even the least bit credible, don't you think they would have brought it up? And then there was the general election. Are we to believe that John McCain and Sarah Palin were also part of the grand conspiracy to conceal where Obama was really born?

And yet, some TV and radio talkers, along with a handful of Republican officials have kept this thing alive. So finally, when Congress passed a resolution ostensibly celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming the 50th state, there was a clause in there that read, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." It was passed unanimously, but that doesn't mean this thing is over.

It probably won't be over until everyone in the world believes that we really sent astronauts to the moon, and the whole thing was not staged on a movie lot. It will be over when nobody believes that people met with extraterrestrials in Roswell, New Mexico. It may not even be over until nobody believes that John Dillinger's penis is in the Smithsonian, but they aren't allowed to show it to anyone.

In other words, this ridiculous story has become part of urban legend. However, there is an ugly side to it. There has been so much anger, so much venom behind this contention that I can't help thinking that hatred and intolerance are involved. It seems that those who just cannot accept that an African American is their President have to find reasons to reject his legitimate right to have that position. They can't believe that someone other than a white guy was elected President, so they conclude that he must have cheated.

It would have been nice if more Republicans hadn't been just passive about this. It would have served them – and us – well if they had stepped up and said, "Let's end this nonsense now. We have more important things to deal with. Of course, Obama was born in the United States." It's like during the campaign when John McCain famously told that woman at the town meeting that Barack Obama was not a Muslim. Maybe it wasn't the best thing for him to do politically, but it was the right thing to do.

While we're on the subject of conspiracy theories and Obama, here's a message to those who see a plot wherever they look: the "beer summit" involving Henry Louis Gates, Police Sergeant James Crowley, and the President was not secretly put together by Budweiser to increase beer sales. Of course, I can't prove that.

Air Travel, Gone To The Dogs

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:30:48 PDT

It had to happen. In the last several years, Americans have spent more and more money on luxuries – for pets. We've seen the arrival of gourmet foods for pets, hotels for pets, and even bikinis for pets. So I shouldn't have been s0urprised the other day when I learned that there is now an airline for pets. That's right, all of Pet Airways' passengers are animals – and not the kind that sit next to you and snore or spill their drinks on you. I'm talking about the kind that you feed and take for walks.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to put their pets in a crate that goes with cargo or luggage. I wouldn't want our dog to travel like that. But somehow, we've all gotten along for many years without asking our pets if they want a window or an aisle seat.

Americans will spend an estimated $45.4 billion on their pets this year. That's more than the gross domestic product of all but 64 countries in the world. That's more than we spend on movies, video games, and music combined. I don't think we're going to hear about the pet industry asking for a bailout.

Of course, in these tough economic times, there are people who can't afford to have pets. But there are still others who will pay over $900 for their dogs to have testicular implants so they can still look "macho" after they've been neutered.

We spend more than twice as much on our pets as we did a decade ago. There are probably all kinds of reasons why this is so. More people work at home, so maybe they want the company of a pet. Maybe more single people have decided they don't need to be alone. And maybe as our world gets more mechanized, there's a desire to have something that's actually alive – something that you don't have to plug in 0or reboot.

For whatever reason, pets have increasingly become part of the family. More than half of all dog owners say they consider their pet's comfort when they buy a car. (I wonder what percentage considers their in-laws' comfort when they buy a car). People buy clothing for their pets, celebrate their birthdays, and put braces on their teeth. That's a bit over the top, don't you think? Sure, I leave the TV on for our dog, but I can't help it if he likes sports.

Having your pet fly as a passenger on Pet Airways isn't any more expensive than putting him or her on a regular airline. It falls into the coddling "let's have him be more comfortable category" like the car a pet owner might buy. The seats have been removed from the plane's cabin, and pets travel in air-conditioned comfort in their own private kennel crates. A veterinary technician checks on them throughout the flight. When the plane lands on an in-between location, a flight attendant takes them for a walk, looking for the most convenient patch of grass. For their in-flight entertainment, they probably get to watch something like "Milo and Otis" or "Old Yeller." It all sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

But I worry about what problems might develop, and I wonder if the owners of Pet Airways have thought this whole thing through. Of course, there is no first class and coach distinction on these flights. But how long will it take for some ritzy pet owners to request that their fancy cats or dogs fly up front, away from those that came from the pound?

I'm also concerned about the possibility of "ethnic profiling." With concerns about security so high, will an American spaniel or an Irish setter be waved right onto the plane, while people in uniform stop and search a Russian wolfhound or an Afghan? And you know they're going to be suspicious of a cat who happens to be a Persian.

There are bound to be some civil rights, anti-discrimination lawsuits brought against this pets-only airline. They'll be brought by people who want to get on that plane along with the pets. Here's why: the passengers travel comfortably, there's no line for the bathroom, and every 15 minutes, the airline's president walks down the aisle with kind words and snacks. When was the last time you were treated like that on a regular airline?

Was Bush Right About Iraq?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:57:10 PDT

Some of the criticism George W. Bush and his administration received when they began the war against Iraq was that they were trying to force our culture on the Iraqi people. President Bush might not have even disagreed with this, since he seemed to preach that our culture was the best culture in the world. However, many people felt that our value system just wouldn't work in Iraq. They said that the Iraqi people would never adopt Western values and customs. Some were very condescending about it, and said that Iraqis "weren't ready" for Western ways. In at least one area, these critics were wrong. Our country's policy can probably take credit for the fact that something Western has definitely been embraced by the Iraqi people: nose jobs.

In today's Iraq, cosmetic surgery is "in." It wasn't that long ago that Iraq's plastic surgeons were busy trying to repair the ravages of war. Now that things have calmed down somewhat in certain areas, these doctors also spend some time lifting rear ends, performing liposuction, and "fixing" noses. In fact, the most popular cosmetic surgery in Iraq is the nose job. The cost, as cited in the "Los Angeles Times" is between $600 and $1,000. I don't know what accounts for the $400 cost range. I hope the doctors aren't charging by the inch.

It's ironic that cosmetic surgery is on the rise while Iraq has become so religiously conservative. While this type of surgery is not condemned by Iraq's clerics, surgeons are instructed to adhere to religious law. That means the doctors are not supposed to look at the "forbidden" parts of the female anatomy, even while they perform surgery. So if a woman is having a breast reduction or enlargement, the doctor is supposed to abide by the principle, "You can touch, but you can't look." Obviously, in this area, they haven't quite adopted Western ways, since what men in our society often hear is the exact opposite.

So how are we, how is the United States, how is President Bush responsible for all this cosmetic surgery? Before the war, Iraq was a much more insulated country. However, since 2003, Iraqis have had the opportunity to watch satellite TV. And what have they seen on satellite TV? I'm not talking about ""Becker." They've seen Egyptian and Lebanese celebrities who apparently look like they go to plastic surgeons about as often as you and I go to the bathroom. Hard to believe that celebrities would use artificial means to enhance their looks, isn't it? And just like in our country, there is a frenzy in Iraq to have phony looks that imitate these phony looks.

Iraqis are also able to watch Western-style music videos on their TVs now. Some people in Iraq feel that the desire to change their looks is the result of Iraqis seeing beautiful people, dancing and singing on the tube. One Iraqi woman, a 45-year-old mother of two, said that she hoped her liposuction would make her look more like Beyonce´. So look what our culture has given them: an obsession with looks and celebrities. And you didn't think the Bush policy was working.

Most of the Iraqis who want cosmetic surgery say that it is because they think it will help them get married. See? They've adopted the notion from our culture that plastic surgery will lead to love. And some of you didn't think they were ready for Western values.

When the war in Iraq started, the pro-war folks said that we wanted to give the Iraqi people things that all the people in the world were entitled to. What they really meant was that we wanted the Iraqis to have the right to remake themselves in our image. And that's what they're doing. Kind of. They're not imitating the way we look, they're imitating the way we imitate the way people look.

It is pretty amazing. Here's a culture that refused to wilt for thousands of years despite the sandstorms of the winds of change, but they can't resist breast jobs and tummy tucks. I guess the war's been a success.

Virtual Rejection

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:06:57 PDT

For the past couple of months, I've been feeling a great deal of shame and embarrassment. Now it's gotten too difficult for me to hold those feelings inside, so I'm going to spill my guts: a woman on Facebook unfriended me.

You've all heard of Facebook and its brothers and sisters – MySpace, Linkedin, Twitter, etc. Fans of these social networking sites point out that it's a way for more and more people to connect to each other. In this day and age in which people apparently don't have time to leave their many screens and meet actual humans, they can make virtual friends and have a cyber social life. The thing these enthusiasts don't talk about is the possibility of rejection. I know all about it, and it hurts, virtually.

To the few of you who are not on one of these sites, let me explain how this friend thing works on them. The object is much like that which some children have -- to have as many friends as possible. So you search and find people that you know and ask them to be your "friend." It doesn't stop there. You can ask a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend to be your friend. They almost always say, "yes." They're very friendly. So you end up being friends with a John Smith who lives in Guam whom you have never met and whom you can't remember what the connection to you is. Then when your real-life friends look at your list of Facebook friends, they may become friends of John Smith from Guam, too.

To be more accurate, in the vernacular of these sites, you don't "become friends" with someone. You "friend" them. That's right. They use "friend" as a verb. This aspect of virtual grammar is really annoying. However, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised by this linguistic evolution. All kinds of words are used as verbs these days. I think this whole thing started when somebody decided that it was okay to use "parenting" as a verb (as in, "I was up all night, parenting my kids"). That opened the floodgates. Soon, after spending the night on the sofa, people will be saying," I couched last night." There's no use fighting it. Too many people are languageing it to go back to the way things were.

Anyway, these people friend you, and you friend others, and everybody is supposed to be happy with their new friends. I thought all of my virtual friends were happy with me, until one day a woman wrote me that she no longer wanted anything to do with me, and she was "unfriending" me. Until then, I didn't know you could be unfriended. I didn't even know the word existed. But, alas, it had happened. My relationship with a woman I had never met had come to an unhappy and an ugly ending. That's the way unfriendings are.

It seemed so abrupt, so cruel. There was no, "I like you, but not in the way you like me." There was no, "I'm the one who has the problem, not you." And there was certainly no, "I'm sorry, but I'm tired of just having an amazing physical relationship with you."

What had I done to anger this woman that drove her to unfriend me? I'll tell you what I did: I had asked her – along with my other friends – to check out my latest column. She said that she was offended that I used Facebook to promote my writing.

I couldn't believe it. Most people use these sites to promote themselves. They'll talk about a job they have, or one they want, a concert they're giving, or one they want to go to. But she thought I was crossing the line by asking people to check out my latest column.

On Facebook, people will tell you important things like, "I think I'm getting a headache," "I had a great weekend," "I miss Jay Leno," "I spilled salad dressing on my skirt," and "I really hate traffic." But asking her to read my column offended her?!

So I had my virtual heart broken. For a while after that, I didn't friend anyone. I just wasn't ready. But now I'm back in the cyber saddle again, friending people left and right. As for my "Unfriend," I don't know if things will ever be the same with us again. But I do hope at least that someday we'll unenemy each other.

A Straight-Shooting Pastor

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:07:07 PDT

Whenever I write a column about guns, I get at least a few responses from people who don't call me names, who use proper grammar, and present their arguments in a reasonable manner. So when I heard that a pastor in Louisville, Kentucky had a "Bring Your Gun To Church Day" last Saturday (June 27th) I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't easy.

(Before you start firing your angry emails at me, let me make a few things clear: I'm not saying this was illegal, and I'm not calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. I'm trying to understand why a pastor would want guns in church, because well, it seems a tad inappropriate to me).

I spoke to Pastor Ken Pagano of the New Bethel Church, and he seemed like a nice, intelligent guy who just happens to think guns are a very important American tradition, an excellent means of self-defense, and are not out of place in a church.

He pointed out to me that you could see paintings of ancient, medieval, and Revolutionary times in which people who were at church had weapons with them. I reminded him that there were many things that were done hundreds of years ago that aren't done today – like sacrificing goats, having slaves, and avoiding baths.

I had read that people were supposed to bring unloaded guns to the church. He clarified this. If you didn't have a license to carry a concealed weapon, you could bring a "cold" (unloaded and holstered) gun. If you legally could carry a concealed weapon, of course, you could bring that gun.

Pastor Pagano said that since concealed weapons are concealed, he had no idea how many people in church were armed.

And all these guns make the pastor feel safer for his congregation. Obviously, it's an individual thing, but would you feel the calm and peace that you want in a house of worship, knowing that some of the people around you might be carrying hidden guns?

A house of worship is not just a building like any other, as Pagano implied before the gun gala. That's one of the reasons why when there is violence in a church, a synagogue, or a mosque that it may seem that much more disturbing to us than when it happens on the street or in a bar. A sanctuary is a special place. That's why they call it a sanctuary.

I'm no expert on Christianity, but I believe Jesus was known as the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Carrying A Piece.

One of the purposes of the event was to celebrate the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. The pastor feels the church was an appropriate place to do that. I pointed out that since he loved the Constitution and American traditions so much, what about the "separation of church and state?" Is a church really an appropriate place for making a political statement about weapons?

Here's another thought: How would people have reacted if an Imam at an American mosque asked people to bring guns to a service? In fact, how would those same people who went to Pagano's church have reacted? Would they have said, "Good for those Second Amendment-loving Muslims. America needs more Muslims to be carrying guns?" Uh, probably not all of them would have said that. Some would have condemned the act: "You see what a violent people they are? Muslims even bring guns into their house of worship!"

But if it takes place in the New Bethel Church in Louisville, Kentucky, it's okay?

I had my Bar Mitzvah in a temple in Chicago which, coincidentally, was also called Beth El. Perhaps it's a geographic or a cultural thing, but I can't imagine anyone bringing guns to a service at the Beth El I went to. Maybe some people might sneak in half a sandwich, maybe someone would carry in a picture of that good-looking guy their daughter's engaged to, but a gun? No way.

So I guess for me it comes back to inappropriateness. In Hebrew, "Beth El" means, "House of God." It doesn't mean, "House of Guns" in any language.

Obama's Smokescreen

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:48:57 PDT

What's the biggest secret that the President and his Administration tried to keep from us? Was it about health care? Did it deal with foreign-policy? Was it where he hides the key to the front door at Camp David? No, it's about whether the President still smokes cigarettes.

The other day, President Obama signed an historic tobacco bill. It was aimed primarily at protecting kids by discouraging tobacco companies from targeting young people. The President said that he knows what it was like to get hooked early. "I was one of those teenagers. I know how difficult it can be to break this habit once you've started." What he didn't say was, "Even though it's difficult, it can be done. I'm proud to say that I did it."

This omission led at least one reporter to ask the President about it. However, he ducked the question like George Bush ducking a shoe. When Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked the question, he didn't want to answer either. Finally, Gibbs said that it's something that the President "continues to struggle with... like millions of Americans have."

I guess in Nixonian terms, you could call that a non--confirmation confirmation. Apparently, the press thought the inhale-and-puff issue was important enough to continue to press the President for details. Finally, the next day, Obama admitted, while he "is 95% cured," sometimes he has "fallen off the wagon." He said he doesn't smoke in front of his kids, and obviously he avoids being photographed with a cigarette in his mouth.

With this admission, Tabloid TV and papers will probably send reporters to dive into the White House dumpster to look for cigarette butts. The Obama's drycleaner will be grilled about any cigarette odors. Disgruntled former generals will give interviews about alleged smoking.

That's why he should make his struggle with smoking public. Very public. First of all, think of the millions of people who can identify with a person who is trying to juggle a high-pressured job with family obligations while trying to stop smoking. It would also demonstrate just how hard it is to quit -- as if more evidence is still needed. If such a determined man who has overcome so many obstacles has a hard time quitting, that stuff must really be addictive. Finally, those who view him derisively as "Mr. Perfect" would see him walking around with a flaw. Actually, puffing on a flaw.

The White House should give out daily bulletins on how he's doing with giving up smoking. The whole country would get involved. It would be bigger than "America's Pet Makeovers" or whatever the latest reality show is called.

I can see the television newscasts beginning with, "Today, the President signed a trillion dollar education bill, warned against nuclear attacks, and threw away half a pack of Marlboros." And then, every day, the evening news would begin with how many days Obama has been without cigarettes. "Today was the President's seventh tobacco-free day," or "One month and still counting," or "Obama falls off wagon but will start stopping again tomorrow."

Instead of pretending that he doesn't hear difficult questions or saying he can't answer them because of national security, whenever Obama doesn't want to deal with something tricky, all he'd have to do is shift the conversation over to his non-smoking: "The struggle in Iran reminds me of another struggle – my struggle with tobacco. It all started when I was a teenager, lured by advertising that made smoking look cool,..."

So if he's still smoking, why does he feel he has to hide it like a teenager who's afraid of being punished? Is it because he went on television during the campaign and pledged that he was stopping? Is he afraid of going back on a campaign promise?

Nah, that can't be it. Presidents break campaign promises more often than roided-out athletes break baseball records. So what is it, you ask? If you remember, he didn't make his "I'll give up smoking" pledge to the nation. He made it to his wife, Michelle. A President can go back on his word to the country and the public will probably yawn. But if he goes back on a promise to his wife, he's in big trouble.

Now that it's out in the open, he'll have to come up with something more clever than, "Michelle, I know Bo just went for a walk, but I think I'll take him for another one. Alone. And the Bidens are barbecuing again, so my jacket might smell smoky when I get back."

Obama's Food Problem

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:19:38 PDT

It's been over a month since President Obama and Vice President Biden snuck out from the White House to have some burgers for lunch. However, we haven't heard the last word about this controversial act. It has been pushed off the front page because the headlines have been hogged by pesky things like the economy, Iran, and Miss USA. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the burger story is toast. I assume that people on all sides are just marshalling their forces before they carefully articulate their responses. The first salvos will probably be from the vegetarians. Expect things like, "How can a President who presents himself as caring about living things eat cow for lunch?"

Barack Obama is not just the President of the United States; he is also the top politician of America. As such, he is careful to please as many people as possible and to offend as few. Presidents always have to balance what they do in public. That's why they rarely choose one sports team over another. Obama has broken with this tradition, openly rooting for some silly baseball team on the South Side of Chicago. So maybe his area for trying to please all the people all the time will be culinary.

Since he went to a place for a hamburger, we can assume that he was appealing to those who feel he is a namby-pamby, recycling, hybrid driving, book reading, yogurt eating liberal. He was showing them that he eats Red Meat. After the polls indicate that he has won over these critics, look for him and Biden to be photographed having lunch at a place like "Mike's Metaphysical Meatless Mart." He'll be biting into an avocado and sprouts sandwich, drinking a carrot and kelp cocktail, and slapping Biden on his hemp shirt.

There will be those who oppose his hamburger consumption on the basis of health. "The President and First Lady talk about healthy eating all the time, and he has lunch at Ray's Hell Burgers!" It wasn't an accident. He may talk about eating more fruits and vegetables, but he doesn't want to be seen as hurting the cattle ranchers and everyone else in the meat industry. So he had a very public hamburger.

If he orders chicken in a restaurant, he'd better specify "free range" chicken or the PETA proponents will be all over him. (This "free range is more humane" thing is something I've never quite gotten. I understand that chickens that are kept in cages are ill-treated and have unhappy lives before they meet their demise and are eaten. But is it more humane to let chickens roam happily like the cast of an old Disney movie and let them think their lives are beautiful, and then surprise them with the axe before putting them on our plates? At least the caged chickens have no dashed expectations).

The next time he and Michelle go on a dinner date in New York, watch for the outcry if they go to a French restaurant. Even though an overwhelming number of Americans now feel that our invasion of Iraq was a mistake just as the French felt when it happened, Americans are always mad at France for something. So you can assume that if the First Couple dines on duck a l'orange, soon they'll be at Ye Olde Publick House, eating "bangers and mash."

Let's say Obama has a hankering for some Middle Eastern food and he goes out for falafel. Before the word gets out that he's soft on certain Arab countries, he'll have to stop off at a deli for some lox and bagels. If he eats Korean food, he'll make sure everyone knows he only likes South Korean food. If he orders a take-out Chinese dinner, he'll be certain that the rear bumper of the car picking it up will have a "Free Tibet" sticker on it.

No wonder Presidents eat most of their meals in the White House prepared by their chefs. It's less of a hassle, less of a chance of offending someone. At least that's the theory. But it seems to me that by doing so, the President runs the risk of offending a huge voting bloc of Americans – those of us who don't have chefs.

Even The Crooks Are Depressed

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:32:52 PDT

You may think that crime has gone up in these dark economic times when more and more people are out of work and fewer and fewer people have money. That hasn't been the case. Generally speaking, most types of crime have declined nationally during the past year. There are many theories about this. Not surprisingly, I have some of my own. I think this downturn in criminality is a result of lawbreakers feeling like most of us -- terribly discouraged about the economy. My guess is they have been thinking things like, "Why steal that money? It's not really worth very much anymore." Or, "By the time I pawn that watch, it'll be worth less than the one I bought at Walgreen's last year." Or, "If I get hurt while committing a violent crime, there's no way that my insurance company is going to pay the medical bills." So crooks have probably determined that committing crimes right now is just not worth the trouble.

For months, we've been hearing the expression, "Nobody has money these days." I think you can also say, "Nobody has money these days to buy stolen goods." So thieves are probably just staying home and watching daytime TV rather than getting off their butts and doing what they've done for years. The longer they stay home without earning money, the more depressed they get. Feeling down, they are less likely to go out, and their self-esteem suffers. It's hard to see an end to this spiral until the general economy goes up.

The only exception to the decrease in crimes has to do with small towns. Places with fewer than 10,000 residents have actually had an increase in illegal activity during this same period. That shouldn't be all that surprising. Sometimes it takes a while for trends to reach rural areas. If you are a student of history, you know this was the case when it came to foreign films, post-modern fiction, and the Macarena. I think that once smalltime crooks learn how their big-city brothers and sisters are comporting themselves during this period, they will start staying home from "work" as well.

In the meantime, one solution for residents of small towns who want to avoid crime is to go to New York. Those new FBI statistics rate New York as the safest city among the 25 largest cities in the United States. Soon you may be seeing an ad campaign for the "Big Apple." It may go something like this: "Tired of locking your doors after you feed the hogs? Angry about looking over your shoulder while you walk down Main Street? Afraid to go into the General Store with more than eight dollars in your pocket? Come to New York where you'll feel safer than a mare in a gelding corral."

Nationally, the type of crime that has gone down the most (while your IRA has suffered the same fate) has been auto theft. That activity has gone down slightly more than 13%. As if things weren't bad enough in the auto industry, now there's proof that you actually can't give cars away. Not even thieves want them.

The FBI didn't give statistics for specific makes or models in terms of which ones are being stolen the least. However, my guess is SUVs and any big car with a huge engine aren't on thieves' "to steal" lists. As we head closer to that time of year when gas prices always "mysteriously soar," car thieves will have a more and more difficult time unloading gas-guzzlers.

And maybe this whole thing with crime going down isn't just about money. Maybe car thieves have evolved just like the rest of us. Perhaps they say to each other, "I don't want my kids to be ashamed of me anymore. So I've gone green. Now, I only steal high-mileage vehicles."

Hummers To The Rescue?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:02:48 PDT

If I heard that someone had actually bought a Hummer in this day and age, I'd consider that big news. So when I heard that someone actually bought the entire company, the Hummer brand, I considered it enormous news. As you doubtlessly know by now, if the deal is approved, a Chinese company will buy the Hummer division from General Motors. This raises many questions, but the big one is WHY?

Last year, sales of Hummers fell 51%, and they are down 67% so far this year. Maybe the new owners think that those who weren't buying Hummers were saying to themselves, "What's holding me back is that they're a General Motors product. I'd buy one of those things if they were just owned by a Chinese company."

The prospective owner is Sicuan Tengzhong, a heavy machinery company. They say they plan to keep selling Hummers in America and all over the world, including China. In China, the Hummers would be subjected to a 40% tax that they impose on vehicles with big engines. So, good luck on that. The good news is that Sicuan Tengzhong says that they are going to continue to manufacture Hummers in this country. So at least for now, approximately 3,000 Americans will be able to keep their jobs. But if I were those workers, I'd keep one eye on the want ads, because I don't know how long they're going to keep making these simulated military vehicles.

It's interesting that General Motors was able to unload Hummer before it sold Pontiac, Saab, or Saturn, the other brands that it is dumping. I would've thought Hummer would've been a tougher sale. After all, the Hummer had come to symbolize many of the admitted negatives of the cars that the American auto industry has been making: It's too big, it's not fuel-efficient, and it looks silly in a nursery school parking lot.

I guess those Chinese businessmen see something in the Hummer that I don't. The parties won't disclose how much money the Chinese company is going to pay for Hummer, but I'm sure it was a bargain. And maybe they made one of those deals the car companies keep advertising on TV -- you know, if the Sicuan Tengzhong executive who agreed to this deal loses his job, G.M. will take back the cars and the Chinese company won't owe a penny.

Legend has it that Hummers came about because of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Apparently, while making the classic film, "Kindergarten Cop," he saw a convoy of military Humvees drive by. He loved the way they looked, so he persuaded the Humvee company to make a civilian version, which became the Hummer. Can you imagine having that kind of power? You'd like to have something, so you talk a company into manufacturing it? I wish Schwarzenegger would look at a commercial aircraft, and call the people who make it and persuade them to make one that's comfortable in coach and always on time.

The Hummer story is filled with irony. Since it looks like a military vehicle, the Hummer has always projected the image of a super-patriotic American car. Some of them are even painted with a camouflage design. The company that made the Humvees that Schwarzenegger admired was located in America's heartland – in Indiana. Now you'd have to go to China to talk to the head Hummer honcho.

It's possible that this arrangement won't end up making either side happy. Why do I say that? Guess who G.M.'s financial advisor is for this deal. It's Citigroup. I'm not kidding. That's the same Citigroup that was so mismanaged that the phrase "toxic assets" came into the vernacular. It's the same Citigroup that received billions of bailout bucks. And that's who G.M. went to for financial advice? That makes about as much sense as a military vehicle company taking business advice from an actor who someday would be governor of a state that goes billions of dollars in debt while he's in office.

Like I said, I'm happy that you Hummer workers won't be thrown out of work, but keep your options open. And don't let them pay you in stock.

Easy Money Is Just One Idea Away

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Sat, 30 May 2009 11:55:52 PDT

If necessity is the mother of invention, a bad economy is invention's annoying, but motivating brother-in-law. During the Great Depression, all kinds of important things were invented including the electric shaver, penicillin, and Monopoly. The 30s also spawned the first laundromat, baby food, and nylon stockings. The car radio came out during the Depression, and so did photocopiers and radar. And let's not forget one of the greatest inventions of all time: the chocolate chip cookie, also a child of the Depression.

Since so many people were out of work with plenty of time on their hands in the Depression, they could devote those non-working hours to dreaming of ways to make life better for others which they hoped would make a fortune for themselves.

Today's economic conditions are similarly ripe to bear the (organic) fruit of people's imagination. Maybe we won't come up with anything as great as the first roll-on deodorant or the non-leaking ballpoint pen, but I predict historians will look back at the end of the first decade of the Twenty-First Century as a time of some very creative inventions.

Apparently, a lot of people are trying to make that prediction come true. According to its Executive Director, Patrick Raymond, membership in the United Inventors Association has grown 20% in the last six months. Attendance at the Silicon Valley Inventors Alliance meetings has doubled lately.

People all over the country are sitting at their kitchen tables or pacing about their backyards, trying to think of The Next Big Thing. Some of them have probably enlisted their kids in this effort. They're saying things to their children like, "Sit down and tell me what kids your age would want. We can change your diaper later." Similarly, when a spouse asks, "Why don't you look for a job?" it may be answered, "Are you crazy? I don't have the time. I have to think of a great invention before everybody else does."

Thomas Edison had 1,093-patented inventions. How hard can it be to think of one? I'll prove it to you. Here are some things that I think would make great inventions, and I'm offering the ideas to you, free of charge. All you have to do is work out a few minor details:

SEX

Viag-bowow – is a sex drug and/or gadget that not only gets you in the mood, but also walks your dog while you're enjoying yourselves.

COMMUNICATION

Caller ID Switcherooni -- This device is for people who want to call their old boyfriend or girlfriend and then hang up once they hear his or her voice. (You know who you are). Nobody wants their old love to find out their identity by seeing their phone number on their Caller ID. No need to worry anymore. The Caller ID Switcherooni doesn't show your phone number; it shows the number of that good looking, but shallow, person who stole your love many years ago. And that's who gets questioned by the police for stalking.

COMMUTING

Wait No More -- An alarm clock that also automatically wakes up all the other people in your car pool so you won't have to wait for anybody.

HEALTH

The Food Predictor -- This looks like a meat thermometer. You stick it in your food, and it will tell you if the FDA is going to declare what you're about to eat unhealthy in the next five years.

THE WORKPLACE

Instant Porn -- A device for your computer when you're at work. So you won't get caught by your boss, it quickly changes your computer to a porn site from a job search site.

AIRLINE TRAVEL

Grand Canyon This -- enables you to talk to the pilot from your seat and tell him about what you're reading whenever you feel like interrupting his trip.

DIET

Mirrored Dessert Plates -- these plates show more of your chubby face as you eat, so you'll know when to stop.

You see how easy it is to think of inventions? Now, you try. Oh, I almost forgot. I have an idea for an invention for use after the economy recovers and people go back to investing the same way they used to. I call it the Yes It Can Machine: every time you look at your stocks and are about to put even more money in the market, you'll hear a recording that says, "Yes, it can happen again."

California For Sale

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:45:56 PDT

The fact that California is in bad shape financially does not make it unique. What makes it unique is Governor Schwarzenegger's suggestion to help get California back on its sandaled feet. He recently proposed that the state sell off some of its most famous properties: San Quentin Prison, the Los Angeles Coliseum, the Cow Palace, Del Mar Race Track, and various state buildings. He explained that it's just like some people in the current recession having to sell their homes or luxury items like boats, second cars, and motorcycles. He wants to have a big garage sale, and even sell the state's garages.

I'm not an economist. I have trouble balancing my checkbook. (You remember checkbooks. Those are things that everybody used to carry with them when people kept track of how much they were spending). However, even a layman like me can see a big problem with the Governor's proposed sale. The first thing they'd have to do is find folks to buy these properties. If the people down your block are putting off painting their fence because of the recession, I don't think they're going to plunk down $400 million for the Coliseum.

The state just had a "special election." California has a "special election" slightly more often than it has sunshine. The citizens of California vote on just about everything, while the legislators... actually, I have no idea what the legislators do. Anyway, -- surprise, surprise – - Californians didn't vote to raise their taxes or pay the state's bills in some other way. So that's one of the reasons why Schwarzenegger suggested selling off some of the state's most valuable real estate. California's in big trouble. Much more money is going out than coming in. And the state doesn't even have a charge account at The Gap.

The property that is most intriguing to me is San Quentin. It is located in Marin County on scenic waterfront property north of San Francisco. That's right. For years, prisoners at the Q have probably had a better view than you. So I guess the idea is that if someone bought the property and developed it, they could build some luxury housing that would be quite desirable. Who wouldn't want to live in a place called something like, "Death Row Duplexes?"

Or maybe some super rich person would buy San Quentin and keep it as is. They could use it as a place of business. I'll bet employees would be kept in line with such incentives as, "If you make your quota this month, you'll get an actual seat for your toilet."

Most people think the Governor's big sale won't really happen. He and the legislature will probably figure out a more reasonable way to get the state solvent again. Maybe they'll hold a giant car wash.

But even if the Cal-Sale doesn't happen, it's a provocative idea, and California's certainly not the only place with famous landmarks. So maybe other areas will entertain the "everything's for sale" idea. And it could work. You see, there's one factor that you might not have thought of. You can't overestimate the number of individuals who like to brag about their stuff. If that couple you know is hard to take now, talking about their new plasma TV or their front-loading washing machine, can you imagine what they'd be like if they owned the Statue of Liberty or Carlsbad Caverns?

The states or the federal government could set up rules so that, let's say, people couldn't buy the Golden Gate Bridge and turn it into a roller coaster. The government could set it up so that whoever buys the properties would have to lease them back to the government immediately. That way, the public would still get to use them as always, but Mr. or Mrs. Big Shot could still brag at parties. I can almost hear one of them saying, "Yes, we were going to buy a summer home, but instead we bought the Grand Canyon. It's so much easier to maintain. We don't have to dust."

Too Much Information

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:00:14 PDT

The good news about living in the Information Age is that just about everybody can express what is on his or her mind. In other eras, only writers wrote. Not today. Anybody can self-publish a book, send an email to someone thousands of miles away, or write a blog about whatever she or he wants. It's a wonderful thing that so many people can tell others anything they want about themselves. But why do they feel they have to tell everything about themselves?

When people first started buying cell phones, they did so primarily because they found these devices could be helpful in an emergency. Then they discovered that cell phones could help them keep in touch with work or home. So far, not so bad. But next, people became so addicted to talking and texting on cell phones that now many people feel they have to use them every few seconds. I was in a theater a few days ago, watching a children's dance recital when the guy behind me refused to stop texting and checking for messages once the show began. An usher soon told him that using a cell phone during the performance was not allowed. So, did the guy stop using it and watch the show? Nope. He left the auditorium so he could continue to use his cell phone rather than watch his kid dance.

Like the cell phone, the Internet seemed harmless enough when we first started using it. We could look up interesting facts, and we could tell our family and friends important things any time of the day. But then things started to get out of hand. My theory is that this deterioration began when people discovered that they could use e-mail to instantly send unfunny jokes to as many people as they desired.

Next came the personal blog, yet another mixed blessing. Good writers could tell about their daily lives in fascinating and creative ways. Of course, not so good writers could tell about their daily lives in totally boring ways.

Social networking sites followed. These are things like Facebook, MySpace, and whatever new one has become popular since I started typing this. The interesting thing about these sites is that you no longer are restricted to e-mailing your friends about your life. Now you can write to complete strangers and tell them whatever you want. And what are these strangers called on these sites? "Friends."

Twitter has fine-tuned the phenomenon of e-mailing people about one's own life. On Twitter, your "tweets" are limited to 140 typed characters. But don't worry. You can send as many of these short messages as you want.

We've all heard stories about lurid photographs and messages on these sites, but is most of the communication sexy or outrageous? No, it's dull, duller than you can imagine if you haven't been on the receiving end of this stuff.

Here is a sampling of the kind of things that those on Facebook and Twitter send out to other people:

"I'm getting thirsty."

"I'm thinking of trying a new toothpaste."

"I don't want to catch a cold."

"I just finished packing for tomorrow's trip."

"I really like the color blue."

I'm not kidding. These are the kind of messages that people spend hours and hours sending and receiving. (Well, I did change the color to "blue" to protect the identity of the sender).

Are people supposed to respond? If someone sends a message that says, "I'm really tired," does he expect people to write back advising whether he should go to sleep or not? Some people send running updates of their day: "On my way to work now" is followed by "Almost at work now" and "At work now." Am I supposed to respond, "Congratulations!"?

I don't think so. I have the feeling that people who send up-to-the-minute updates of their daily life don't care if we respond or not. My hunch is that the pleasure they derive is just from writing about changing their fish's water or finding a paper clip in the street.

That would make them just interested in pure self-expression, not the reaction of others. On the other hand, maybe they are interested in others' reactions, and those of us who haven't responded are letting them down. I'm sure I could devote much more time to thinking about this. But not now. I'm going to take a shower.

Barbie Gone Wild?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:43:40 PDT

I've been so distracted by minor but flashy news stories this year like the NCAA Finals, the nation's finances, and the new Obama administration, I missed the big story of 2009: to help celebrate Barbie's 50th birthday, Mattel came out with "Totally Stylin' Tattoo Barbie." She comes with a set of tattoos that kids can place on that iconic body. The doll also comes with a tattoo gun so children can stamp these washable stickers on themselves. Barbie with tattoos? I know what you're thinking: what's next? "Hooker Barbie?" "Pothead Barbie?" "Premarital Sex Barbie?"

Many parents had exactly this reaction when the doll came out a few months ago. They felt this would encourage kids to think prematurely about getting real tattoos for their real bodies. They thought that Barbie with tats was too slutty for their children. They were outraged that a "role model" like Barbie had sunk so low. Meanwhile, it became a big seller.

This wasn't the first time that some adults have objected to Barbie. Some have felt that her unrealistic figure has made young girls yearn for an unrealistic figure of their own. Some parents believe that tattoos for Barbie continues this obsession with one's body rather than other more important characteristics of a woman.

If you go to the archives of some universities, I'm sure you'll find more than one Ph.D. thesis called something like, "Barbie and Body Image: The Downfall of American Womanhood." I admit I was somewhat shocked when I heard about Barbie and body art. My first reaction was, "Now parents of seven-year-olds are going to have to deal with them wanting tattoos."

But then I did something uncharacteristic for me: I started thinking. Maybe anti-Barbie papers aren't the only theses in those dusty university archives. Maybe there are some with titles like, "Relax, Folks. Barbie Isn't a Role Model. It's Just a Toy." Or if there aren't any, there should be.

When you were a kid, weren't you able to tell the difference between a toy and something real? When you played "war" with a friend, didn't you know you were just playing? And did your putting on temporary tattoos make you get real ones? Besides, isn't it a bit ironic that the anti-Barbie-ites who feel that the doll puts too much emphasis on appearance are concerned with the appearance of tattoos?

So it's possible that the actual reason that Tattoo Barbie has some parents' (old-fashioned) underwear in a bunch is because this kind of thing wasn't around when they were kids. Maybe it's like adults in the '50's who were shocked by Elvis and convinced he would destroy our civilization. Or maybe they're like parents like me who, in the '90's, thought video and computer games would ruin children forever. (I'm still not sure I was wrong about that one).

Tattoos don't have the same connotations today that they had when I was a kid. Back then, it seemed like only sailors, truck drivers, and other "tough guys" had tattoos. Certainly, we never saw a woman with one. Today, your doctor or your kid's teacher is more likely to wear a tattoo than a hat.

I confess that I'm still getting used to looking at tattoos without making any kind of knee-jerk judgment about the wearer. Whenever I go on vacation where there's a swimming pool, I'm still a little surprised by the fact that the nice couple we sat next to at dinner the night before has more tattoos than a basketball team. And guess what? Barbie's the same age as that couple. She's fifty now. She might not look like it, but many 50-year-old women don't look their age these days. So maybe it's fitting that 50-year-old Barbie has broken out the tattoos.

I also realized that mothers who have real tattoos might be embracing Tattoo Barbie. Maybe the doll helps their children understand that their mother is someone who just found a way to express herself rather than someone who hangs out with a gang during their naptime.

As a fuddy-duddy, it's not easy for me to accept change, but I do -- eventually. I accept texting, cars that talk, and milk in cartons. So I can certainly accept Barbie wearing tattoos. But I do think you have to draw the line. Where? I'll tell you where, and this is a warning to the people at Mattel: Don't even think about making a Ken doll with pierced nipples.