The Adventures of Accordion Guy in the 21st Century

Freshman Republican (why am I not surprised?) Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina ended his talk at the Bipartisan Policy Center yesterday in such a bizarre way that it sounds like a piece from The Onion. He started with an assertion that “you can get regulations to a point where you preserve the environment, you keep the workplace safe, you can do all that; we want to!” So far, so good.

That’s when things got weird. He told a story where he and a colleague were at a Starbucks in his district were discussing business regulations. “Maybe you should allow businesses to opt out. Let an industry or business opt out, as long as they indicate, through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment literature, through whatever else…there’s this level of regulations that maybe they’re on the books, but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to you.”

Around that point in the conversation, a Starbucks employee emerged from the restroom. The colleague asked if Tillis thought that the employee should be required by regulations to wash his hands after going to the bathroom.”

His response: “I don’t have any problem with Starbucks, if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that say ‘we don’t require our employees to wash their hands after using the restroom’…the market will take care of that!“

“That’s probably one [case] where every business that did that would go out of business, but I think it’s good to illustrate the point that that’s the sort of mentality we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country.”

In case what you just read sounds too unreal to be believed, here’s the video:

I have no quarrel with market-based solutions for market-based problems. I have a problem with market-based solutions for issues of health, safety, and proven science. The battle cry of “let the market decide” is often used to cover up the fact that a business is too cheap or too lazy to implement some measure that would protect its customers. Remember, the Invisible Hand is more than happy to give you the Invisible Finger; letting the market decide issues of health and safety may require people to get sick or die in order for the Hand to do its magic.

The market is also often quite dumb and pigheaded; consider the rash of anti-vaccine people, who’ve managed to ruin everything from school to Disneyland, or the people who insist on listening to Dr. Oz and buying his products, even though he’s been proven to be little more than a snake oil salesman.

Besides, what’s he’s doing is replacing one regulation (restaurant employees washing their hands after using the bathroom) with another (posting some kind of announcement that you can’t be bothered to clean up after taking a dump, and would you like fries with that?).

I know he’s using this edgy example to gain attention, but there are likely enough people who’ve too much Ayn Rand and think this would be a splendid idea. His idea is so bad that it’s positively Florida, and when I looked at his Wikipedia page, I found out why: he was born in Jacksonville.

Someone needs to borrow a page from Mallrats and give him…the stink palm:

Here’s a brief message that the NFL put on during last year’s Super Bowl, and there’s no doubt that they’ll air something similar this year:

Here’s a transcript of the voiceover:

This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent is prohibited.

Ars Technica points out that the second sentence is “bunk from a legal standpoint”. You can record the Super Bowl (your right to do so was pretty much locked in during the 1984 “Betamax” case) to watch later and skip the commercials, even though they’re often the best part. Fair use lets you use clips for commentary, criticism, and news reporting, and it is your right to give your own account of the game using the medium of your choice.

The NFL is working hard to make sure that you misunderstand copyright law, because they feel that any part of the pro football conversation that isn’t under their control means that they’re losing money that they believe is rightfully theirs. Thankfully, the folks at Ars Technica are making sure that you do understand it. Go and read their article, then feel free to record the game and post highlights on YouTube.

Cyrus Farivar asks if it’s worth $70 to get this piece of historical (hysterical?) memorabilia: a figurine featuring a shirtless Vladimir Putin riding a bear over Russia. If he’s smart, he’ll cough up the money, and years from now, he’ll smile smugly when an appraiser on Antiques Roadshow puts a five-figure value on it.

If you find that you must have this piece of history, point your browser at this site and marvel at its stark beauty:

Here’s their pitch. It’s a Google translation, which is why it sounds like Boris and Natasha plotting to “makink beeg trouble for Moose and Squirrel”:

Statuette “Putin said at Medvedev”

Luxurious Figurine as the head of state who tamed forest brown bear standing on a segment of a great country, symbolizes the victory, the heroic strength and power. Bear has long been considered a symbol of immense Russia, represents courage, strength, courage and rage directed against enemies – this beast could not be better reflects the position of the nation and its principles.

Perfectly executed souvenir – a symbol of Russian fatalism, a symbol of the Russian people, walking through history has always fiercely, bravely, boldly and steadfastly. Statuette reflects the political position of the country, emphasizes its prowess, demonstrating courage of the Russian people, his heroism, rage and desire for achievements, for the protection of its own territory. Sold the original statue in a presentable box inscribed with the colors of the Russian flag and the phrase, President Putin said on one of the forums.

Souvenir is the exclusive, can act as a present a wonderful public servant, military, historians, politicians, boss, collector, patriot of his country, or any strong-willed, imperious and rebellious man who knows how to achieve your goals. This representative will be proud to take the statuette from you on a regular holiday every person from your environment. It not only decorate the interior of your home or office, stately be placed on the table, but will be the subject of conversations and arguments in your circle of friends, which further unify and strengthen your company.

Miju Han: “I have a fiancé, a girlfriend and two boyfriends.”
Click the image to see the original story and video.

I just watched CNN Money’s filler-disguised-as-human-interest piece on polyamory, a.k.a. “four minutes of my life I’m not getting back.” By the end of the segment, I became convinced that polys are just furries who dress up in hipster clothes instead of animal costumes.

Instead of painting a sympathetic picture of people who prefer (or at least profess) to be able to spread romantic or sexual love with more than one partner — I myself like to limit it to disappointing one woman at a time — the story presents caricatures from The Social Network trying to fit the square peg of love into the round hole of technology and tech marketing with talk of “optimizing” and “disrupting” love (with the requisite Uber reference — not necessarily a good thing), “Cinderella 2.0” and looking at long-term relationships as a product that fails 50% of its user base. Microsoft should take comfort; marriage has been making its customers unhappy for far longer than Windows has, and it’s still going strong.

To people who prefer a monogamous approach and are still single and looking, especially those in the Silicon Valley sausage party, these good-looking multitaskers must look like the greedy suits, who already are the “haves” and just want to have more for the sake of having more. Working class San Franciscans who saw the piece must be asking themselves “These are the entitled, privileged douchebags who made me move out of my home?”

Click the image to see the original story and video.

I know that at least one of the people in the piece is a decent person: Chris Messina, whom I know personally. The way he presented himself, or perhaps the way he got presented through the framing and editing process, doesn’t show this, and that’s a shame.

The bright spot (or at least non-annoyingly smug and hipster-y one) in the piece is Dr. Helen Fisher, the anthropologist and human behavior researcher. She says that “eventually, [polyamorous relationships] will probably almost all fail, because the human brain is just simply not built to share. We are not good at sharing.”

In case you were curious about her research, here’s her 2008 TED talk, The Brain in Love:

I now find myself agreeing with The Onion’s take on polyamory:

Click the image to see the original story and video.