In the doghouse

This JCPenney ad reveals what really happens when you anger your significant other and end up in the doghouse.

[Via VideoSift]

Don’t be embarassed to negotiate

Yes, you can negotiate when buying big-ticket electronics like that 42″ flat panel television you’ve had your eye on for a while.  This advice comes from an electronics salesperson, and he should know.

[Via Consumerist]

Vegetable museum

Classic works of art reinterpreted in vegetables by artist Ju Duoqi.  Tasty stuff!

[Via Neatorama]

What would Mother Nature do?

The Biomimicry Institute has developed an online database of design ideas inspired by nature called Ask Nature.  The concept behind the database is that many modern design problems have precedent in biology, and that Mother Nature’s solutions, crafted and honed over millions of years, are often the best inspiration for architects and engineers to tackle those problems.  The site defines biomimicry as

a design discipline that seeks sustainable solutions by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies, e.g., a solar cell inspired by a leaf.  The core idea is that Nature, imaginative by necessity, has already solved many of the problems we are grappling with: energy, food production, climate control, non-toxic chemistry, transportation, packaging, and a whole lot more.

Man has spent thousands of years trying to tame and tackle nature, but biomimicry may be the more effective approach, and ultimately more sustainable.

[Via Inhabitat]

“I no longer recognize marriage.”

Tom Ackerman outlines a new approach to raising awareness about marriage equality: he simply does not recognize anyone else’s marriage.

I no longer recognize marriage. It’s a new thing I’m trying.

Turns out it’s fun.

Yesterday I called a woman’s spouse her boyfriend.

She says, correcting me, “He’s my husband,”
“Oh,” I say, “I no longer recognize marriage.”

The impact is obvious. I tried it on a man who has been in a relationship for years,

“How’s your longtime companion, Jill?”
“She’s my wife!”
“Yeah, well, my beliefs don’t recognize marriage.”

Fun. And instant, eyebrow-raising recognition. Suddenly the majority gets to feel what the minority feels. In a moment they feel what it’s like to have their relationship downgraded, and to have a much taken-for-granted right called into question because of another’s beliefs.

I may have to try this.  It certainly drives the point home to folks who take marriage for granted and who don’t stop to think exactly what it means to deny this most basic of human rights to gays and lesbians.

[Via Andrew Sullivan]

James Lee Witt to return to FEMA?

Word is that FEMA may become an independent agency once again, and it’s possible that former director James Lee Witt could be tapped to return and run the agency, at least for a while.  I have enormous respect for Witt, whom I met on several occasions when I worked for the agency in the 90s.  He rightly receives accolades for transforming FEMA into a first-class government agency that effectively managed disaster operations and implemented programs to reduce disaster losses.

However, this seems an odd choice for both the Obama administration as well as for Mr. Witt himself.  Given the significant work that his company James Lee Witt Associates has done for the government, including $40 million in post-Katrina services in Louisiana (which is unlikely to be paying for the work without some level of funding from DHS), it’s a tad unseemly for him to come back and manage FEMA.  There’s also professional risk involved for Witt to roll the dice on a second turnaround of the agency, when one overwhelming disaster could permanently tarnish his reputation in public service.

A year is unlikely to be enough time to usher in the rebirth of the FEMA that once was, if that’s even possible.  What the agency needs is continuity of leadership.  It’s been on a bureaucratic roller coaster since it was folded into DHS, and I’m not convinced that bringing on an interim director, even one with Witt’s experience and clout, is the way forward.

I’m particularly concerned about the prospect of Mark Merritt, one of the associates in James Lee’s firm, being groomed for the position to succeed Witt.  Merritt has a solid background in managing disaster bureaucracy, but he lacks the experience of running an entire emergency management agency at any level of government.  A party to the same business dealings as Witt, Merritt would also raise eyebrows by taking the helm of a major client an agency that indirectly funds some of the firm’s work.

If FEMA is about to start with a clean slate once again as an independent agency, why not find an experienced state emergency management director (or even a talented local director) who can stick around and see the agency through what hopefully will be its last major transition for a while.  That formula seemed to work fairly well when Witt, then a little known state emergency management director from Arkansas, was brought in to aid the new Clinton administration.  But FEMA is not the same agency it was in 1993, or even in 2001 when Witt left the agency after eight years of service.  While it’s tempting to think of what might have been had the Bush administration retained Witt, I prefer to focus on what needs to be, and that is a FEMA that is up to the task of managing 21st century disasters.  James Lee Witt is likely the best director the agency has ever had, but it’s time for new blood in FEMA.

[Via Kevin Drum]

The sharpest image

This photo from the American Physics Institute shows individual atoms making up the tip of a very sharp tungsten needle.

[Via Dark Roasted Blend]

What’s that sound?

It’s silence.  Beautiful silence.  It seems Ann Coulter, the shrill wingnut harpy, broke her jaw and had to have it wired shut.  I don’t wish harm on Madame Coulter and I hope she recovers without complications, but can we leave the wires on just in case?

Taxpayer Field

I love this idea: two New York City council members are proposing to rename the new Mets ballpark from just Citi Field to Citi/Taxpayer Field in recognition that Citigroup is the recent benefactor of federal bailout money.  I suppose that the public funds that already subsidized more than 50% of construction costs didn’t matter, but better late than never.

This whole arrangement epitomizes what is wrong with our economy.  I’ve always thought that selling naming rights to support stadium construction and operation is just stupid.  If revenues combined with substantial public subsidy are still inadequate to run your business, then perhaps your business model is flawed.  Just as with executive pay, the advertising costs of sponsoring a stadium or ballpark are insanely overinflated and of dubious sustainability.  Citigroup is slated to pay $400 million over 20 years for the honor of having its logo emblazoned on the Mets’ field.  Oh wait, you and I will end up paying for some of that through the bailout.

So how stupid is that?  We’re bailing out Citi to pay the Mets an exorbitant sum of money so we can be charged an outrageous ticket fee to sit in the ballpark we already paid for, at least in part, with public funds.  Somehow we have collectively come to value this arrangement, even though it clearly makes no sense.  I don’t favor the use of private funds for this sort of use, so it’s doubly difficult for me to justify using up to $20 million each year in public funds to cover naming rights for a company whose survival is dependent on a federal bailout.  The least Citi could do is share naming rights with us; the best course of action is to void the contract altogether and name the field after Jackie Robinson.  If the Mets can’t afford to do that, then I guess we can bail them out, too.  But really, how many times do we have to pay for this ballpark?

Sharing a meal

The old man ordered one hamburger, one order of French fries and one drink. He unwrapped the plain hamburger and carefully cut it in half. He placed one half in front of his wife. He then carefully counted out the French fries, dividing them into two piles and neatly placed one pile in front of his wife.

He took a sip of the drink, his wife took a sip and then set the cup down between them. As he began to eat his few bites of hamburger, the people around them kept looking over and whispering. You could tell they were thinking, “That poor old couple – all they can afford is one meal for the two of them.”

As the man began to eat his fries a young man came to the table. He politely offered to buy another meal for the old couple. The old man said they were just fine. They were used to sharing everything.

The surrounding people noticed the little old lady hadn’t eaten a bite. She sat there watching her husband eat and occasionally taking turns sipping the drink. Again the young man came over and begged them to let him buy another meal for them. This time the old woman said “No, thank you, we are used to sharing everything.”

As the old man finished and was wiping his face neatly with the napkin, the young man again came over to the little old lady who had yet to eat a single bite of food and asked “What is it you are waiting for?”

The woman looked the young man straight in the eye and replied, “The teeth.”

[From enjoy your life]