Shrewd Operator?

We show up at Seasalt and Pepper (since renamed “Seaspice”), a trendy eatery on the Miami River, at noon on a Sunday, without a reservation.  Not surprisingly, the hostess laughs at us when we ask about a table for two.  No problem, we say, we’ll just eat at the bar.  Of course, the bar is as replete as the restaurant.  So we stand around, waiting for a couple of bar stools to open up.

A few minutes later, a busboy sidles up to me and says, sotto voce, “Forty bucks and you’ll have a table right away.  Twenty for me, twenty for the waiter.”  I hand him two twenties, unsuccessfully attempting to be inconspicuous about it.  Three minutes later we are seated in a waterfront table for two, Bloody Marys in hand.  Although a part of me feels thrilled to have “beaten the system,” so to speak, most of me feels somehow soiled, as I think about the parties of two with legitimate reservations waiting outside while we enjoy the fruits of my questionable transaction.

Am I a shrewd operator, or a douchebag?  Are the waiter and busboy corrupt racketeers, or enterprising individuals seizing the opportunity? A few Bloody Marys later I’ve temporarily forgotten all about the questionable provenance of our marvelous setting.  But to this day, months later, it haunts me.  And I realize exactly what bothers me about it, as I remember Joe’s.

Joe’s Stone Crab Restaurant is a Miami Beach institution.  They famously do not take reservations, and 2 to 3 hour waiting periods for tables at dinnertime are common.  However, it’s an open secret among locals that slipping the maître d' $100 will get you a table quicker.  Much quicker.  The problem here, as is the problem with the entrepreneurial wait staff a Seasalt and Pepper, is that most customers are not aware that the “fast track” exists.  Tourists wait for hours while experienced diners get right in, oblivious to the fact that there is another possibility.

If Joe’s would advise patrons that they can wait 2 hours, or, in the alternative, pay $100 and be seated in 15 minutes, they can make a conscious choice, sort of the way theme parks offer “fast track” passes these days.  And although “fast track” scenarios have their own issues, elitism and divisiveness among them, at least there is the semblance of fairness: everyone is aware of the alternatives available, and you get what you pay for.  What most bothers me about Joe’s and Seasalt and Pepper is that people are unaware of the alternatives, and are actually punished for playing by the nominal rules, oblivious to the existence of the de facto rules which lurk, like the second set of books of a shady enterprise, under the surface.

Of course, part of what makes those “hidden” opportunities desirable is precisely that they are generally unknown.   Knowing valuable things that most people don’t know, particularly things that can be leveraged to obtain an advantage, strokes our egos, especially when we can use them to impress a member of the opposite sex.  

Back to the Seasalt and Pepper episode.  Was I a shrewd operator or a douchebag?  Can you blame the waiter and busboy for taking advantage of an opportunity to supplement their presumably meager earnings?  What would have been the “right” thing to do?  

Before answering, let’s consider the story of an American businessman who visits a client in Finland.  The Finnish client picks the American up at the American’s hotel in the morning, and they arrive at the client’s office building early, so the parking lot is empty. The Finn parks at the furthest spot from the office building’s front door.  The American is puzzled.  “With the parking lot empty, why would you park all the way out here when you can park right next to the front door?” he asks the Finn.  “We are early,” replies the Finn, “so we have plenty of time to walk.  Let’s leave the parking spots close to the door to those who are running late and can’t spare the time.”

The same criteria that would consider me a shrewd operator back at Seasalt and Pepper would consider the Finn a fool.   We live in a world where, given the chance, most people will act like I did, not like the Finn did.  Finding opportunities and taking advantage of them for personal gain are part of what makes us human, and the reason why capitalism is the only economic system that actually works.  But is the Finn a fool, or does he simply live within a more evolved society?  A place where a multitude of circumstances allow its inhabitants to act less greedily, and more magnanimously?  Will selfless, generous acts continue to be rare exceptions, or will they become more commonplace as humanity evolves?  Is it simply a matter of resources, in that people will be generous as long as resources are plentiful, but descend into greed the moment resources are scarce?

If I consider myself a microcosm of humanity, I see a glimmer of hope.  Because although at Seasalt and Pepper I clearly descended into selfish greed when presented with a scarcity of resources, at least I felt like a douchebag about doing it.

Incoherent

Last Saturday, Matt “Megatoad” Stonie ate 62 HDB’s (Hot Dogs and Buns) in ten minutes, thus upsetting 8-time and defending champion Joey “Jaws” Chestnut and winning the 2015 edition of Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest.  The contest has been held in Coney Island on Independence Day since 1972, televised since 2003 (with a play-by-play announcer and color commentator) and is sanctioned by the International Federation of Competitive Eating.  As Gruber would say, I shit you not.

So, every year in Coney Island (and many other times at other IFOCE events) people actually hold officially sanctioned competitions where the objective is to consume as much food as possible during the allotted time.

Since the 16th century, the Festival of San Fermín has been held in Pamplona, Spain.  From an article today on time.com:

The festival’s most enduring legacy is the running of the bulls, or encierro, from the Spanish word for to corral or enclose. Held [beginning] on the second day of the festival, July 7 [and for the next 7 days], the encierro consists of letting loose a small number of bulls in the city streets while transporting them to the bullring for bullfighting.

But loose on the streets of Pamplona are not only the bulls, but also hundreds of men (and women, but mostly men) who take to the streets to run with the bulls, all the way from their corrals to the bullring where the bulls will ultimately die a horrific, painful death.   This despite the fact that each year between 200 and 300 people are injured during the run, and 15 people have been killed there since record keeping began in 1910.

From the same time.com article, quoting Tony Linck’s 1947 piece in Life magazine:

For a week gay blades [as the bull runners were known at the time] stay up all night dancing and drinking, then gather at 7 o’clock in the morning for the encierro, the bull run. Yelling and jostling, they lead the bulls in a mad dash through the street toward the bullring. Last month’s fiesta was such a gay affair that almost nobody noticed when two of the encierro runners were killed by the bulls.

So, beginning tomorrow (as I write this) and for eight days every year, defenseless animals are brutally tortured and slaughtered, while intoxicated humans risk their lives for no apparent reason in Pamplona.

Today I saw “Inside Out”, Pixar’s latest masterpiece.  As the title suggests, the movie takes us inside the mind of a young girl, portraying the emotions that guide her as distinct characters.  I can’t describe this movie nearly as well as A.O. Scott, film critic for the New York Times:

“Inside Out” is an absolute delight — funny and charming, fast-moving and full of surprises. It is also a defense of sorrow, an argument for the necessity of melancholy dressed in the bright colors of entertainment. The youngest viewers will have a blast, while those older than Riley are likely to find themselves in tears. Not of grief, but of gratitude and recognition.

So, this weekend I read about the hot dog eating contest and the running of the bulls.  Today, I saw “Inside Out.”  And I contemplated the incoherence.  Human beings concocted and hold the absurd contest.  Human beings sanction and participate in the unconscionable running.  But human beings also made the warm, sensitive, insightful and nuanced movie.  I’m ashamed and proud of my species at the same time.

Simply Marriage

Joshua Topolsky, in a pitch-perfect tweet yesterday reflecting on the Supreme Court’s historic ruling that gives same-sex couples the right to marry in all 50 states:

I guess I just feel like, deep down, if you don't think today is worth celebrating, you suck as a person.

A perfect example of one of those people: former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and was recently featured on these pages.  His reaction to the ruling:

If accepted by Congress and this president, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment.

No surprise there.  Politicians like Mr. Huckabee (also Marco Rubio, Jeb (Jeb!) Bush, Ted Cruz, and many others) are using religion and, more specifically, “religious liberty” to attack the SCOTUS ruling and thus justify senseless, shameful discrimination, just like their like-minded predecessors have, in the past, used similar arguments to justify slavery, racism, bans on interracial marriage, etc.

I find it shocking, though, that they don’t see the self-contradiction in their specious argument.

Religious liberty means that people should be free to live their lives as dictated by their faith (or lack thereof).  Mr. Huckabee is free to practice his religion, and follow his beliefs.  How is his freedom impacted if others are allowed to live their own lives in accordance to their own beliefs?  Obviously, it is not impacted at all.  Mr. Huckabee and those of his ilk are not content to “live and let live” as true religious liberty dictates.  They would rather impose their own religious beliefs on everyone else.  That is not religious freedom; it is the opposite.  And to use the guise of religious freedom to advocate its exact opposite is grossly hypocritical, and insulting to us all.

The problem is that people like Mr. Huckabee do not view their religious beliefs as such.  They view them as “the truth.”  Before the SCOTUS ruling, Mr. Huckabee said, “when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created.”  Not “what I happen to believe God has created.”  Just plain “what God has created.”  He states it not as a belief, but as a fact.  How can anyone who thinks his faith-based belief is fact be taken seriously when speaking the words “freedom of religion”?

To Mr. Huckabee, religious freedom is fine as long as everyone shares his particular beliefs.   And that applies to anyone else who speaks of “religious liberty” when attacking the Supreme Court ruling.  SCOTUS is not forcing you to marry another man, Mr. Huckabee.  No one is messing with your rights.  You’re the one that wants to mess with the rights of others.  You’re the one stunningly arrogant enough to advocate molding the laws of this nation around your own beliefs, Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers be damned.  You’re the one who would like the United States to become a Christian theocracy, in the tradition of Iran, an Islamist theocracy, with the only difference being which fairy tale its laws are based on.

From now on, Mr. Huckabee, your marriage is legally equivalent to any other marriage, same sex or otherwise. Because, in the words of lead plaintiff James Obergefell:

From this day forward, it will simply be marriage.

Assault on the Wall

Former Baptist pastor, former Arkansas governor, and potential 2016 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking at the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference in Houston last week, regarding the possibility that the Supreme Court legalize same-sex marriage nationwide:

I respect the courts, but the Supreme Court is only that -- the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God.  When it comes to prayer, when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created.

Let’s get this straight, Mr. Huckabee.  You, a Southern Baptist, believe in God.  You also apparently believe that God created marriage.  Therefore, if the only form of marriage recognized by your particular faith is between one man and one woman, then that should be its legal definition, regardless of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution and of the applicable laws.  Doesn’t that position, Mr. Huckabee, represent the “establishment of religion,” in clear violation of the 1st amendment?  Of course it does!  But then, in the words of  Michael Stone, your “good-natured manner masks a dangerous yearning for an America that never was, but could be: a Christian theocracy built on ignorance and religious superstition.”

But let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that we accept your absurd premise that a religion’s definition of marriage should determine its legal definition.  Why should it be your particular religion?  What would you say to the over 2 million members of the Episcopal Church, who believe that same sex marriage is well within their religion’s definition of marriage?  Would you tell them that your beliefs supercede theirs?  How about the 1 million members of the United Church of Christ?  Your fairy tale is better than theirs?  Or what would you say to non believers, such as myself?  Never mind, in your view we don’t really count for anything, since we don’t have a prayer, and should even be fired from working for the government.

So you see, Mr. Huckabee, the only way to truly respect our freedom, our diversity, and our religions (including yours), is to separate them from government.  Our founding fathers, men of vision and foresight, realized how dangerous you and your ilk were to the Republic.   Thomas Jefferson:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Mr. Huckabee, your assault on that precious wall of separation is stunningly offensive to all Americans.  Your statement was shockingly absurd, and richly deserving of outrage and ridicule.  And I believe (and fervently hope) that the reason it didn’t generate the storm of controversy that it should have is not that people didn’t find the statement objectionable, but that they did, but dismiss you as a charlatan with no shot as a candidate and whose pronouncements are not worthy of further discussion.

Fairy Tales

My views on lying to children about such things as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are well documented.  To present inane fabrication as fact is problematic on many levels.  Imparting preposterous notions that contradict children’s evolving worldview results in confusion.  Even worse, eventually children realize that the most important authority figures in their lives have been shamelessly lying to them.  What possible valid explanation can a parent have for a child who discovers she’s been lied to for years?

So at the time the lies are told, they are confusing.  And when they are revealed as such, trust issues ensue.

Ironically, the truth would be instructive and valuable.  Wouldn’t it be great for a child to understand that his parents know him well, and work hard all year to get him presents he will enjoy at Christmas time?  Or that her parents recognize that losing a tooth can be painful and traumatic, and take the time and expense to slip a few dollars under her pillow so she can feel better about the whole thing?  Instead, lies, confusion, and eventual betrayal.  Makes no sense at all.

But Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, as detrimental as they are to a child’s development, pale in comparison to other non-factual information commonly imparted as fact by parents to their children.  This information is not debunked over time, but is instead continually reinforced through adulthood by other authority figures.  And this information, when misrepresented as fact, only serves to differentiate people from each other and create a culture of division, exclusion and, in many cases, hatred.

The non-factual information I refer to, of course, is religious belief.

As I have mentioned before, I respect religious beliefs even though I don’t have any myself.  Everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose to, but your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins, or, in this context, your right to a belief ends when it disrespects, belittles, or in any way harms others.  If we all agree that when it comes to anything other than scientific fact, everything is an opinion, then any belief is as valid and worthy of respect as any other belief, and in that light beliefs become harmless.  When people hold up their beliefs as facts and truths, however, they are implicitly disrespecting all other beliefs, since other beliefs are, in their view, untrue and not worthy of respect. And if what you believe is not worthy of respect, well, then neither are you.

We live in a world where, for reasons I cannot possibly fathom, religious belief and even fervent devotion are considered positive traits.  But how can anyone fervently believe something that is not in evidence, and is instead a purely artificial construct?  The answer, of course, is faith.  And the more faith you have in what you happen to believe, the less you will respect what others believe.  The less you respect what others believe, the more likely you will be to consider yourself superior to them.  So you will want to foist your beliefs on others, and you will want your beliefs to become law.  The ludicrous notion that one religion is somehow superior to another spawns such things as religious fanaticism, terrorism, wars, and other horrific events that have plagued our history.

Religion is, no doubt, valuable and comforting for some.  Religions generally provide structure and guidance that many people find helpful, even critical, in their lives.  But if we would all keep in mind that, at their core, religions are nothing more than elaborate, glorified fairy tales, and that everyone has the right to believe in the fairy tale of their choosing, the one that works for them, then the swinging arms of belief would end far before others’ noses begin.

After all, one fairy tale cannot be “better” than another since neither purports to be the truth.  

No Matter How You Look At It

Consider the following events:

President Eisenhower severs diplomatic and consular relations with Cuba, as Fidel Castro announces that he is a Marxist-Leninist, and that Cuba would adopt socialism.

President Kennedy delivers the first ever live presidential news conference.

Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin becomes the first human in space.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba begins (and ends, in shambles, two days later).

Astronaut Alan Shepard becomes the first American in space.

President Kennedy announces to Congress his goal to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade.

Construction of the Berlin Wall begins.

New York Yankee Roger Maris hits his 61st home run on the last game of the season, beating Babe Ruth’s 34-year-old record.

Neil Armstrong, at the time an experimental research test pilot, records a new world record speed piloting an X-15 rocket plane.

Joseph Heller publishes Catch-22.  

All of those events took place the same year the following people were born:

Barack Obama, Meg Ryan,  Lea Thompson, Dan Marino, George Clooney, the late Princess Diana, Michael J. Fox,  Eddie Murphy,  Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Heather Locklear, Nadia Comaneci, the late James Gandolfini, Dennis Rodman, Ralph Macchio, Forest Whitaker, Wayne Gretzky, Ricky Gervais, Toby Keith, Woody Harrelson, yours truly.

The year: 1961.  But honored as I am to share my birth year with such luminaries, I will choose to brag about this:  as Mad Magazine pointed out on it’s cover in March of that year,  1961 was the first “upside-up” year (the number looks the same upside down as it does right side up) since 1881.  The next one will be 6009.  So, all of my living 1961 brethren and I can say, with absolute certainty, that we are the only human beings currently alive that were born during an “upside-up” year.

And no one else will be able to say that for the next 3,995 years.

The Bet

“OK, let’s go over the rules of our bet.  We each pick the species we think will last the longest.  We look in on the planet 100 million years from now.  If one of the species we picked is still around and the other isn’t, whoever picked the one that’s around wins.  If both species are gone, we figure out which one lasted longer, and whoever picked that one wins.  If both species are still around, we take a look in another 100 million years.”

“You’re on.  So, this time we’re using the third planet from that star in the Milky Way’s Orion arm, right?”

“Yeah.  That planet’s particularly interesting, since the species are so varied there.  There’s even a space-faring species, homo sapiens (Latin for “wise man”; a bit arrogant, don’t you think?)  They’ve done some exploration outside their planet, built habitats in planetary orbit, sent out probes, even landed on their moon a few times.  But they’ve only been around for about 200,000 years, and seem ill equipped for long term survival.  Mind you, there are animal species on that same planet that have been around for 580 million years!”

“I know.  I considered homo sapiens at first.  But after analyzing them a bit I agree with you.  They have no shot.  Even though their brain is relatively large, and in many cases species survival is correlated to brain size, in their specific case the size of their brain and their incrementally higher intelligence don’t compensate for their tendencies toward short-term thinking, aggressiveness and self-destruction.  Actually, it’s pretty amazing that they’ve lasted as long as they have.  They’ve come close to obliterating themselves on several occasions, but even if they don’t destroy themselves all at once, they are doing it gradually by making the planet inhospitable, at least to themselves.  It’s shocking how they continuously (and knowingly) take actions that reduce the ability of their own environment to support them, always thinking in the short term.  Homo sapiens is also a physically fragile species, not equipped to survive any external catastrophic event, should one of those occur.  There've been 5 of them in the last 450 million years.”  

“I know what you mean.  It’s difficult to understand their priorities.  The general well being of their species and its long-term survival are certainly not among them.  They kill each other for the most absurd reasons and are indifferent to the fact that so many of them live in deplorable conditions.  They seem to have evolved into a dead end.  They are intelligent enough to achieve limited space exploration, yet irrational enough to consistently allow short-term greed to trump long-term survival, both on an individual basis and in the collective.”

“Indeed.   Who knows, maybe in a few million years another species will evolve from homo sapiens that will use its intelligence in ways that will foster it’s long term survival.”

“If they make it that far!”

“Exactly.  So, let’s pick our species.  Which one would you like to bet on?”

“OK, I’m going with the Tardigrade.  It’s been around for 530 million years already, but, more importantly, it seems well equipped to survive almost any kind of planetary event, whether brought on by homo sapiens or external.”

“Good choice.  I’ll go with the Lingula, for similar reasons.  It’s also been around for a while, and survived various mass extinctions (like your Tardigrade).”

“OK, bet’s on.  By the way, it seems like the humans agree with us.  One of their websites lists the Tardigrade and Lingula as species number 1 and 2, respectively, as most likely to “survive the apocalypse”.  Of course, they foolishly list themselves as number 3, so that brings their credibility into serious question.”