Dancing Like A Dad

What follows is the text of a September 27th article written for The Des Moines Register (specifically for its young professional supplement, Juice) by Mike Draper, the fairly well-known owner of the Des Moines t-shirt store, Raygun.  (I would link to it, but their web site only allows so many non-subscription visits.)  This should be required reading for every Iowan, and maybe everybody else:

Governor Terry Branstad would be a lot more likeable if he just never opened his mouth. Whenever he starts to give his opinion, I feel like a high schooler whose dad has decided to show off his dance moves in front of you and all your friends.

Most of his infractions have been pretty minor. There was his declaration this past May that companies “want to get out of California as quick as they can. We welcome them to Iowa.” Unfortunately, the shirts we’ve been saving for Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page have been gathering dust in our store since spring.

That was just after he called for a congressional investigation into the “pink slime smear campaign” as well as state laws against filming inside food factories. The last thing we want people to know is what they’re eating.

All TB has done, though, pales in comparison to his wall-to-wall B.S. editorial in The Des Moines Register earlier this month: “Obama has worn out his welcome.” It reads like something the Republican National Committee jotted down on a couple cocktail napkins, then attached our governor’s name. But if Branstad actually did write it (and more frightening, believes it), this isn’t your uncoordinated dad just dancing for all your friends, this is your dad stepping onto the “American Idol” stage.

“In Iowa,” Terry writes, “we know a thing or two about building success with our own two hands. ... We don’t look at our farms or our factories or our businesses and say, ‘Look what the government built.’ ”

Good god. He writes this from the center of a state that is up to its hog-nuts in federally subsidized agriculture, federally subsidized ethanol, and federally subsidized wind energy. He writes this within days of giving the largest economic subsidy in Iowa history to a foreign fertilizer production company. He writes this from a state whose governor declared he’d create 200,000 jobs (how a governor would do this without “picking winners or losers” needs to be explained to me). He writes this from a state whose commemorative quarter depicts a public school building painted by our most famous artist, Grant Wood, whose livelihood during the Depression was sustained by the Federal Art Project.

As a business owner who has never used a federally backed loan, who has never had a government contract, who has never really had any direct aid to speak of, I’d be in a good spot to claim that “I built it” if I wanted to sound like more of an a-hole than I already am. But I still can’t. After all, I was born into a stable home, in a stable state, educated K-12 in a public community school, graduated from college debt-free because of my parents, and opened a business in a building that was constructed with the help of Tax Increment Financing.

From direct help like the mortgage interest deduction to peripheral help like roads, everyone in America has taken some form of government assistance. Everyone wants government assistance cut, but not their government assistance. I can forgive 24-hour news commentators for making brash, incorrect declarations, because their news model is built on B.S. But I worry when our elected officials start to sound like our 24-hour news commentators.

At least Barack Obama is in luck: Branstad declares that he’s “not resting until Mitt Romney gets the votes to send him to the White House.” If his promise for Mitt gets as far as his promise to not pick winners and losers, Obama is in great shape.

Facebook For The Over 40 Crowd

I've been on Facebook (or as the original creators and I call it, 'The Facebook') long enough now to have a pretty good idea of what is worthwhile, and what is a waste of time, for anyone older than 40.

[As an aside, it seems to me that Facebook usage begins to noticeably drop for people somewhere in their 30s.  It figures that once people's lives mature, they should get busier working on the relationships with their children and their careers, and have less time for social media.  Maybe this will change some as the Facebook generation matures, and the mobile technology further integrates.  As for the under-30 crowd on Facebook, I have no idea what's worthwhile - other than spending less time on it.]

Here are a few effective uses of Facebook for the over-40 crowd:

• Posting pictures and status of out-of-the-ordinary events, like football games or vacations.  No need to post pictures of your children or grandchildren (see below), with the possible exception of newborns in the form of a birth announcement.  And it's OK to post pictures of significant others, for others to creep on them.

• Re-connecting with old high school and college friends, ones who you liked well enough, but not well enough that you cared to keep in touch.  This comes with the added benefit of finding out what they look like, who they've become, and comparing that with what you thought they'd be.

• Sharing links to other interesting web-based material, especially video links.  Let me repeat - INTERESTING material.  Note that anything related to animals, especially cats, is not interesting.  Also note that contrary to what some say, politically-related info is perfectly acceptable, especially to those over 40.  Cute pictures or videos of pets don't affect your future, but political ideology does.

Here are a few ineffective uses of Facebook for the over-40 crowd:

• Posting pictures and status of children, especially older children.  Unless it's a big event, like prom or graduation, no one actually cares what your teenager is doing, as long as they aren't doing something illegal in my neighborhood.

• Liking statuses.  If you're over 40 years old, unless it's family, or unless you also have a pithy comment to attach to a someone else's status, don't simply 'like' it.  That super-cheesy, and it implicitly means you dislike status which you don't 'like.'  What's the point?

• Invitations to events.  Thanks for not calling, but this isn't going to work either.

One other thing for us oldsters - if you aren't going to check your Facebook page at least once every few days, why have you bothered to start one?  If your answer is to creep on your kids or their friends, that isn't good enough.

Cyclones, Hawkeyes, Elephants, Donkeys

Over the past two weeks, the Republicans and Democrats wrapped up their respective national conventions.  These things have really changed over the years.  Everything is so scripted and made-for-TV now, there is no potential for any surprise.  And the broadcast networks only show the last hour of each nigh - back in the day, it was the only thing on TV the entire evening, and since there was no cable TV then, you were stuck.

Over the past week, another big event soaked up media time in Iowa.  Specifically, the Iowa - Iowa State football game.  These games have also changed a lot over the years.  In the '80s and '90s, Iowa would routinely win big.  Now the game is more competitive, with Iowa State winning the last two, and 9 of the last 15.

Now, why write about these seemingly different things?  What do these events have in common?  Plenty:

• Each party/team has some passionate supporters.  People who will vocally and monetarily back their party/team regardless of how good the actual product is.

• Each party/team has some extremist supporters.  People who will take whatever action necessary they believe will help their party/team to win, including lies and even violence.

• Each event rarely lives up to the hype.  They are small parts of a longer effort to achieve a larger goal, and the event itself is forgotten in a few months or weeks.

Oh, and one more:  There is lots of partying before and during each event.

From Dope To Dopey

A new study released this week concluded that teens who routinely smoke marijuana risk a long-term drop in their IQ.  The study drew on survey data from more than 1,000 people in New Zealand.  (The study did not say why Kiwis were chosen for the study; maybe all of the Amsterdam folks were sleeping it off.)

If one reads the headlines on this study, the quick and easy takeaway is that smoking pot makes you dumber.  Therefore, it's bad for you, and young people should not smoke it.

Fine...but why be so limiting?  The whole truth is, teens would be adversely affected by using ANY mind-altering substances.

In America, and I suspect in New Zealand, wouldn't the outcome be the same if youngsters drank alcohol?  Or how about if they consistently took anti-anxiety or anti-depression medication?  Of course, the answer is yes, a conclusion I reached without using one taxpayer dime to study.

Yet it is completely legal (and prevalent) in this country for kids to take prescription medications that affect brain cells.  And while it is illegal for teens to buy / sell / drink alcohol in the U.S., they don't get thrown into jail if they do it, because it's socially acceptable and tolerated.

This is where the anti-marijuana folks get it all wrong.  Critical thinkers - like me! - aren't pro-pot; we're pro-decriminalizing pot.  We know from a combination of experience and god-given common sense that it isn't any worse, and maybe better for you, than the other legalized mind-altering substances I've mentioned.

Throw in how marijuana decriminalization will save billions in law enforcement, and help the economy in other ways (and I'm not just talking about Doritos consumption), and even a 'dumb' pot smoker can tell you this is a 'no-brainer.'