Delayed Post

Uneventful Thanksgiving, mostly: Wednesday I got to DC, stayed out til three dancing, got to Charlottesville early Thursday with a hangover, went out Friday with Nat and Peach and Joel and Savage.

I met some Charlottesville geek types who had actually heard of my book, which was cool: I was, as they say, “fanboyed” for the first time. Saturday, I saw Master and Commander, which was OK. They did show some relatively accurate moments: bad surgery, someone trying to take a dump in rough seas, and of course rum and lashing, but they skipped the sodomy.

And then, Sunday, the ride. Joel’s friend Will and Will’s father were going up to the Skins game and offered us a ride to the Metro in Vienna. They arrived at our house and we offered them coffee or snacks. Will’s father said, no, I’m havin’ the breakfast of champions, and pulls out a couple Bud Lights. So we drove off, Will (thank god) at the wheel. They had bourbon, soda, beer, wine, and no food. The father said he has his boots on and so they won’t need to buy booze inside the stadium either. He drank three or four bottles of beer and then started to pack a bowl. About five minutes before we get to Vienna he realized he’d forgotten the tickets, so they dropped us off and turn around to go get them– his wife was going to meet them halfway, in Warrenton.

Yeah, it was good to be back in Charlottesville for awhile.

Conservatives for Marriage

Some conservatives are in favor of marriage, while others seek to diminish it, put it on the defensive. If you are in favor of love, commitment, honor, and union, then you are in favor of marriage for all.

In a twist on my favorite rationale, people have begun to worry about details like who proposes to whom, and where do we hold the ceremony, and what do I wear, and will my in-laws hate me, and what kind of ring, and what kind of cake, DJ, reception, flowers?

It’s good to see, really, and I think it can make the uncomfortable heteros a little more comfortable, a little more aware that the major concerns of a lot of gay people are about the same as theirs: going on a date, falling in love, meeting the parents, planning a future. It’s the kind of feel-good view of humanity that wedding-related movies celebrate and feed on. Next up, “My Big Fat Gay Wedding.”

College

I remember the ridiculous angst in college. People agonized over the creation of a “safe space” and over whether the existence of fashion magazines made a bookstore or a home hostile towards women. I remember arguing about whether it was fair to grade class participation, because some of the students were too shy to speak up.

Toughen up. You give thinking a bad name.

Ethicist

The much-parodied Ethicist column in the NYT magazine is one of the few earnest advice columns not pitched to yesteryear’s frazzled hausfrau. That’s probably why the New Yorker keeps making fun of it– that earnest advice is just so difficult for someone with a more malignant sense of irony.

This week’s column was about a PR agency and whether it’s ethical to allow someone to draft letters for you which you then sign. The Ethicist says it isn’t, and that those letters should be presented as from the PR person or from your company, rather than from you. I wrote in:

Dear Ethicist:
I’m sure you’ll get more than a few letters disagreeing with your recent PR ethics letter. Context is all, but in a business context, hiring a PR person to put words in your mouth is simple delegation of tasks. Hiring a PR firm is hiring someone to do your speaking and letter-writing so you can run your business. Once you’re larger than a one-person shop, you can’t write all your own ads or all your own letters.
The PR person’s job is to write as you and speak as you: to represent you to the public eye. If the CEOs of companies wrote or spoke every word attributed to them, no business would ever get done. When you get a letter from the president of the cable company tellingyou about the exciting new Cable TV offerings, and signed with a signature stamp, the PR and marketing folk have written that letter. When you read a newspaper article about a business transaction, and the executives speak glowingly of other firms, those executives have never spoken those words, and probably have never even seen them before. They have been written and approved by PR and marketing staff. Hiring a PR person to put words in your mouth is merely delegation of the communications tasks that must be performed as part of a business.

Randy the Ethicist replied and said I’m an unethical person. I’m impressed with the fact that he actually responds to messages, and almost honored to receive an insult from him:

Thanks for the interesting note which was, as you suggest, one of manytaking issue with that column. I’m afraid we continue to disagree. That a practice is common does not make it right. I’m sure we can both name many things that happen a lot that we wish did not. Hiring a PR firm to help with corporate communications is legit, takingcredit for someone else’s work is not, and signing your name to a letter or article you didn’t write is simply lying. As I wrote, if your readers understand that you’re merely endorsing the views you’ve put your name to, no problem; but if the ordinary reader is deceived, then you’re out of line.

Out of line indeed. If my PR person writes a letter announcing a new product, and I sign it, that’s not lying. If my PR person writes a letter claiming that my new moisturizer will enlarge my, er, coalition, that’s a lie, and both I and the PR agency I selected are culpable for that deception.

Long run…

They say “in the long run, we are all dead.” It’s a grim statement, a warning that, while long-term planning is wise, you don’t want to plan for a future that will may not arrive. It can also be a false spur to non-planning. Hey man, in the long run, we’re all dead, so why worry?

The Economist has an article this week titled “In the long run, we are all broke.” It is a warning to plan for the aging of populations. I worry that the economy surrounding me will crumble. I try to behave responsibly and rationally but it’s difficult when I know that people around me are racking up long-term high-interest debt and buying high and selling low and loving it.

Yesterday, organizing and cleaning, I found an envelope of reciepts and expenses from the summer of 1996. I had a list of every tank of gas, every meal, and every hotel I stayed in, from Charlotteville to Tuscaloosa to Natchitoches to Eau Claire and back. When did I get so neurotic about money? Sometime before 1996, I guess.

Fog of War

Unfogged compares the gay marriage issue to one of my favorite objects of analogy: indie-rock snobbery. When your favorite band becomes popular, and all the teenyboppers like it, you feel that they’ve sold out. When marriage becomes popular, and all the queers start liking it, you feel that marriage is sullied, even though your relationship isn’t any different.

Now, reasonable people like my friend Mark say to me “I don’t get it. My marriage doesn’t need to be defended against anything. I’m married to a woman, she’s married to me, and how does anyone else’s marriage threaten that?” But we’re not dealing with reasonable people, now are we?

Slate suggests that the serious political strategy is not just to say “fair’s fair” or harp on the church/state issue, as I have been saying, but to promote marriage, and make it open to everyone. Say “we like marriage, marriage is the foundation of a stable society, let people get married. What, you’re opposed to stable relationships? You’re opposed to families?” But that slides perilously close to the stand-up comic’s line: “since people’s sex lives dry up after marriage (so goes the conventional wisdom), the right should support gay marriage, because you’ll end up with lots of sexless gay couples watching TV at night.” Har har har.

I still like my libertarian/economic rationale (‘deregulate the bridal industry’). Not because it’s serious– that might be a side-effect but it’s not a really good reason for supporting marriage. No, I repeat myself about this because I hope that it drives a point home: there’s a significant split between the ‘small-government’ right and the ‘religious-government’ right, which are unified only by dislike of the Democrats.

If the Dems can position themselves as the party of sensible commerce (Free trade, fairly!) and sensible morals (tricky– but remember Jesus was a liberal), they’ll be able to grab some moderate votes. More importantly, they’ll increase infighting in the GOP, which will give it less of a “coherent policy” image and more of a “disaster waiting to happen” image.

How to Pick Code Names

People choose code names for products when they are developing them and want to have a convenient, fun handle that doesn’t have to be released to the public. This is most convenient for products that have several versions planned, and where names are linked to dates. Most software products, particularly things like Windows, get code names, because the final names and dates and version change a lot.

A good series of code names will all have different-sounding names but a theme which ties them together. For example, various versions of Macintosh OS X were named after large cats: “Panther” and “Jaguar” and so forth. “European Cities” is a good theme, but you have to be careful that they don’t all sound the same. For example, Paris and Milan are good names, but once you have Milan you should not add Madrid or Malaga. If you choose “Japanese words,” don’t choose both Usagi and Unagi.

You also want to choose something exciting and evocative, that expresses your feelings for the product. Your positive feelings– if customers find out you have named your products “clusterfuck” and “timesink” they’ll be less interested in them. Unless you are a working at very small startup or a video game company, do not use the names of porn stars, illegal drugs, or cardinal sins. Unless you are writing religious software or designing church supplies, do not choose the names of saints, angels, or cardinal virtues.

Some examples of bad code names:

If you pick “Biotech companies,” you get names that sound too similar: Biogen, Amgen, Genetech, Genzyme…
With the theme “Failed dot-coms,” your names sound too similar and are also depressing: Navilant, Noviant, Taligent, Similant…
If you pick “Discontinued, ugly, or dangerous cars” you are an idiot: Edsel, Aztek, Corvair…

Some examples of reasonably good code names:

Sci-fi heroes: Tom Swift, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon…
Futuristic inventions: Jetpack, Hoverbike, Raygun, Rocketship…
Tropical fruit: Starfruit, Kiwi, Durian (maybe not- they smell funny), papaya, guava…
Extreme Sports:Skyboard, Motocross, Street Luge, Freestyle, Halfpipe…

Be aware that if you’ve read this far, you have already wasted too much effort on choosing a code name.