Matthew Dicks's Blog, page 302

If you ever wanted to be a receptionist, perhaps you should think again.

This was an actual sign posted above the toilet in the men's room at my doctor's office.

It sent shivers down my spine on behalf of receptionists everywhere.

If you have strong feelings about cargo shorts, then you are probably an infantile jackass.

I was surprised to see that a junior high school newspaper editorial staff apparently took over The Wall Street Journal last week, publishing a infantile piece on cargo shorts in their esteemed pages.

The thesis of the piece is this:

Cargo shorts are ugly, and men who wear them are stupid and ugly. 

Seriously. That's the thesis. It's also the type of sentiment expressed by junior high school cretins who think that their classmate's choice of clothing is reason for ridicule.

This piece was paragraph after paragraph of petty, cruel nonsense, reported as if this matters in any way and absent of the condemnation for the critics of cargo shorts, which is all this piece should really be. 

Note: 

“Relationships around the country are being tested by cargo shorts, loosely cut shorts with large pockets sewn onto the sides. Men who love them say they’re comfortable and practical for summer. Detractor say they’ve been out of style for years, deriding them as bulky, uncool and just flat-out ugly.”

Detractors? You mean snobby jackasses who think that everyone should dress like them or be derided for their alternative views regarding fashion? These people aren't detractors. They're disgusting, small minded, useless people who clearly loathe themselves and their life.  

Or how about this paragraph?

“Fashion guru Tim Gunn said in a 2007 interview with Reuters that cargo shorts were the least fashionable item of clothing in his closet. British tabloid Daily Express called cargo shorts “a humiliation for any man over 21 and should be sold only after proof of age has been presented.”

Humiliation? A person's choice of shorts is capable of making someone feel humiliated? I think that declaring any item of clothing to be humiliating should be the real cause for humiliation. 

This is not junior high. This is real life, where people get to wear whatever they want without the self-professed popular kids saying mean things. 

This might be my favorite part of the piece (which means that it's the part I hate the most): 

“Jen Anderson, a 45-year-old freelance writer in Brooklyn, N.Y., said she used to tease her husband gently about his fashion choices, until he made a purchase that crossed the line: denim cargo shorts. That was “just too far,” she said.

Through what Ms. Anderson described as “strong mocking,” she convinced him to return the shorts. She said she doesn’t like the idea of being seen in public with her husband when he’s wearing cargo shorts, which make him look like “a misshapen lump.”

“It’s a reflection on me, like ‘How did she let him out the door like that?’ ” she said.”

Despite Jen Anderson's age, she has apparently not advanced in terms of maturity since junior high. 

Her husband's appearance is a reflection of her? Does she really believe that people determine her worth as a human based in part on her husband's choice of shorts?

If so, who is she spending time with? Reality television celebrities? Fictional characters John Hughes' films? Victims of traumatic brain injuries? 

Did Jen Anderson marry a toy poodle? An online avatar of some sort? What kind of sick and twisted lunatic looks at a person's clothing and makes any kind of assumption about that person's spouse?

People like Jen Anderson, apparently.

She 's worried that people will wonder "How did she let (her husband) out the door like that?"

Did Jen Anderson marry a toddler? Does her husband have no backbone? Is he tied up on a leash? Must he scratch the door or ask permission to exit the home? Does she dress him everyday in the same way I choose my four year-old son's outfit on a given day? 

Is she really that worried about what people will think of her based upon her husband's cargo shorts?

Actually, I think she is. I also think that is a fairly pathetic way of living beyond high school. 

Last bit of awfulness from the piece:

“GQ magazine last summer wrote that cargo shorts with slim pockets are acceptable, but not if “they look anything like the ones you picked up at the mall when you were trying to dress like a cool kid in middle school.”

I was so happy that GQ took the time to inform us about what is acceptable and what is not. Why they are the arbiters of what people can wear without being ridiculed by the likes of Jen Anderson, Tim Gunn, and Daily Express is beyond me. I suspect that few people give a damn about what GQ finds acceptable, and those that do aren't worth the pages that the magazine is printed on. 

I would like to propose a few alternatives to the idea that cargo shorts should be an item of ridicule: 

Why not let people wear whatever the hell they want and leave them the hell alone?Why don't we all grow up past our infantile junior high school sensibilities and let our fellow human beings look and feel they way they want without comment?How about finding a real problem to worry about other than a man's decision to wear shorts with large pockets?Why don't we all stop worrying about what the likes of Jen Anderson think of us when we leave the house?How about we embrace and perhaps even celebrate diversity of appearance in all its forms? Even if that diversity comes in the form of cargo shorts?

I don't own any cargo shorts, and therefore, I don't wear any cargo shorts, but if you do, happy news!

I don't care.

If you wear pink and green cargo shorts with three dozen pockets and an upside-down No Parking sign woven on the ass, I don't care. And if Tim Gunn or Jen Anderson or GQ anyone else tells you that your cargo shorts look dumb or ugly or are a humiliation, you can tell them to go to hell. Or tell them to go back to high school, where we were supposed to leave that nonsense behind.

Here is an idea: Just as you are about to open your mouth in criticism of another person's clothing choices, stuff an apple in your mouth and silence yourself, because you are more akin to a pig than a decent human being.  

My son meditates. Seriously. How did this happen?

I thought I heard Charlie calling me from his bedroom. It was about 6:30 AM, earlier than he usually wakes up, but not impossibly early for him.

Charlie is four year-old, but he still sleeps in his crib. We keep our kids in their crib as long as possible because it makes our lives easier, but we'll have to transition him to a bed soon. Until then, he calls me every morning and I pluck him from the crib.

Then he snuggles with Elysha or Clara.

It's one of my favorite moments of every day.

I open his door, and I find Charlie sitting in his crib with his legs crossed. He's looking down at his lap.

"Did you call me?" I ask him.

"No," he says. "My light isn't green yet."

Charlie has a traffic light alarm clock. We set it on red at night as we put him to bed, and when it switches to green at 6:45 AM, he's allowed to call for me. He doesn't always adhere to it, but he almost always does.

"Oh," I say. "I thought I heard you. You ready to get up?"

"No," he says.

"No? What are you doing?"

"I'm thinking about my dreams and my life," Charlie says. "Until the green light comes on."

I couldn't believe it. My boy is meditating in his crib.

Later on, after he was out of his crib, I asked him if he thinks about his dreams and his life everyday. He said no. He told me he only thinks like that if he wakes up before the light changes green. 

"Do you like to think about your dreams and your life?" I asked

"Yeah!" he said. "It's important!"

It took me 42 years to begin meditating. Charlie figured it out while still sleeping in a crib. 

I was a muffin who believed in miracles.

This is going to sound ridiculous, I know. Forgive me. 

But when I was in jail, homeless, unemployed, parentless, awaiting trial for a crime I didn't commit, too poor to buy enough to eat on some days, burdened by tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills that seemed impossible to ever pay, with no viable way of ever making it to college or doing anything with my life, I always believed in my heart that I was more than the failure I seemed to be. 

I always believed in the possibility that I might do something better with my life someday.

I wasn't sure if it would happen, and I honestly doubted that I ever would on many days, but I always knew that there was more inside me than people could see.

I never thought I was a muffin. I always thought I was a cupcake.

This is a stupid little aphorism, but when I saw it for the first time, it sang to me. 

It still does. It might bring tears to my eyes if I think about it hard enough, but I would never admit that to you.  

When I work with my students, I try to convince them that they are cupcakes, too.

It's what I want my own children to believe with every ounce of their being. 

My wife, too. She is such a cupcake. I'm not sure that she always believes this. She should. I try to make her believe it every day.  

I hope you believe this, too.

It's a stupid little aphorism that I'm slightly embarrassed to embrace to the degree that I have here, but it's also belief saved my life. It brought me to this place in my life - this impossibly perfect place - where I get to be a husband, a father, a teacher, a writer, a storyteller, and more. 

This belief in myself allowed me to become the person who I always thought I could be but doubted that I would ever be.

I was a muffin who believed in miracles. That belief made those miracles happen.

I know I sound ridiculous. 

The Universal Comeback (I think)

I am a self-professed master of the verbal comeback.

I once offered Twitter followers my services. Follow me on Twitter, and If someone says something mean, insulting, scathing or passive-aggressively cruel to you, send me the remark via Twitter and I will send you the ideal comeback.

I wrote an entire novel about the perfect comeback.
You should read it. Or just buy it and stare at it for a while.  
It comes out in paperback in March. 

I've offered lessons in verbal sparring on this blog. Search "Verbal sparring" and you'll find them.

But today, I offer what I think my be a universally effective comeback. An assemblage of words that can be used in any situation in which a verbal comeback is required. I've tested it in dozens of comeback-required scenarios, and I have yet to find one in which it will not work. 

It works in public situations (when profanity oftentimes is not allowed) and in private equally. 

And it's simple.

Someone says something mean to you. Cruel. Passive-aggressive. Condescending.   

Your response:

"Life didn't turn out the way you hoped. Huh?"

This is a brilliant comeback. The perfect comeback, I think. Others may be better in certain circumstances, but this works every time (I think). 

It's brilliant, for a number of reasons.

First, it immediately forces your opponent on the defensive. Rather than continuing to insult, malign, or belittle you, your opponent is forced to defend their entire life. 

Second, if your opponent has any guilt or regret about an aspect of their life (which so many of us do), this comeback is going to be especially painful. It will strike a dissonant chord. It is a dagger to their heart.

When the person defends their life, arguing in its favor or attempting to compare it to your own success, you merely say something like:

"Oh, so this is really how you envisioned your life? Okay.""So you're the victim of low standards then?""I guess you're the example of if you dream small, you can make your dreams come true.""Your dream was to reach the point where someday you could be here, offering me these small, meaningless insults?""Really? I didn't expect someone whose life turned out exactly the way they wanted to be here, speaking things that comes from a place of obvious self-loathing."

There's a million ways to point out that every single thing that has taken place in your opponent's life has brought then here, to this moment, insulting you, and how out of a place this seems to someone whose life turned out how they envisioned. 

"Life didn't turn out the way you hoped. Huh?"

It's also an unexpected comeback. It comes from out of the blue. It's verbal sparring's version of a surprise attack. Your opponent says something mean or cruel or insulting to you, and your response is a question of sorts. A question full of supposition and requiring unexpected introspection. 

This is always an excellent strategy in verbal warfare. When your opponent is hitting you head on, outflank them. Hit them where they don't expect it. 

"Life didn't turn out the way you hoped. Huh?"

Try it. Let me know how it goes. I think you might just find it to be perfect.

 

Seeking submissions for my annual list of shortcomings and flaw

A reader once accused me of being materialistic after I wrote about my lack of a favorite number, specifically criticizing me for saying that when it comes to my salary, my favorite number is the largest number possible.

After refuting the charges of materialism, I acknowledged that I had plenty of other shortcomings and flaws and offered to list them in order to appease my angry reader. Then I did. Then I added to the list when friends suggested that I had forgotten a few.

Nice friends. Huh?

So began an annual tradition of posting my list of shortcomings and flaws, starting first in 2011, and continuing in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.

The time has come to assemble my list for 2016, which means I will be reviewing the 2015 list carefully, hoping that I might be able to remove a few and looking to add any that I think might be missing. 

As always, I offer you the opportunity to add to the list as well. If you know me personally or through this blog or my books or my storytelling or my podcast and have detected a shortcoming or flaw to add to the list, please let me know. I will be finalizing and publishing my list in about a week, so don't delay. 

I look forward to hearing about all the ways in which you think I suck. 

I spent a week backing into parking spots to see if it made any sense. Here is what I discovered.

Years ago, I worked with a woman who would back into a parking spot every morning when she arrived to work. 

It would often take her at least half a dozen tries before getting it right. Watching this process was both hilarious and tragic. You'd think that after years of backing her car into a parking spot, she would have mastered the skill, but no. 

Not even close.

So I asked her one day why she backs her car into parking spots, and she said, "At the end of the day, I just want to get the hell out of here as quickly as possible."

Perhaps she should've just found a better job or retired sooner.

I have always thought that backing a car into a parking spot was ridiculous. Not only does it take longer than simply pulling forward into a spot, but logically, I never thought it made any sense. 

First, we must acknowledge that regardless of how skillful you might be at backing up a car, driving forward is always easier than driving in reverse. You can see more when driving forward because your seat is positioned to allow you greater vision of the road. You also spend almost all of your time in a car driving forward, so you're far more accustomed to operating the car in this direction. 

A driver is always more adept at operating a vehicle that is moving forward. 

Therefore, when parking a car between two other cars, it only makes sense to pull forward. Placing your car between two other cars in a space just a few feet wider than the car (while also trying to park equidistant from the adjacent cars) means that you are driving your car into one of the narrowest spaces that you will ever drive.

The width of the average American sedan is 6 feet. Compact cars are slightly less wide and SUVs can be considerably wider. 

In America, the width of a parking spot is 7.5 to 8.5 feet depending upon the municipality. 

The width of a lane of highway, by contrast, is 12 feet, and the width of secondary roads are usually 10.5 feet, which are downright roomy compared with a parking spot.  

It only makes sense that you should be driving with every advantage possible when pulling into a space as narrow as a parking spot, and this means driving forward. 

Conversely, when exiting a parking spot, you have an entire lane to pull into. You have a vast, empty space in which to maneuver, and it doesn't matter how sharp or shallow you turn your vehicle as you exit the parking spot. There is no predetermined landing space. 

Therefore, you should enter parking spots while driving forward and exit in reverse.

I have heard from people who back into parking spots that they do so because of fear of backing into a lane and hitting a child. They argue that since it is far more likely for a little one might be wandering in the lane of a parking lot rather than an actual parking spot, it is far safer to be able to drive forward out of a parking spot.

I have always thought that this argument is nonsense. While it may be true that it's more likely for a person to be walking in the lane of a parking lot than an actual spot, cautious driving should eliminate the possibility of hitting someone, and these types of accidents are rare. 

In 2010, for example, there were approximately 2,000 reported accidents involving a car driving in reverse striking a pedestrian in a parking lot, leading to 99 fatalities. 

By contrast, there were approximately 3,000 reported accidents involving a car driving forward forward and striking a pedestrian in a parking lot, leading to 106 fatalities.

More people are hit and killed by cars moving forward in a parking lot than moving in reverse. And while these fatalities are tragedies, more people are injured and killed by lawnmowers each year than by automobiles in parking lots. 

Hitting a pedestrian is an exceptionally rare occurrence, and with the advent of back-up cameras, automobile safety experts expect these numbers to plummet in the coming years.  

Routinely backing your car into a parking spot for safety reasons makes no sense. 

This is what I have always thought. In an effort to keep an open mind, I decided to spend a week backing into parking spots wherever I went.

Here is what I discovered:

1. I am much more adept at backing into parking spots than my former colleague. Only three times over the course of the week did I need to pull out of the parking spot to readjust my car. Backing into a parking spot requires considerably more attention on my part than simply driving forward, and it is a much slower process, but it can be done effectively without much effort. 

2. Drivers who park close to the edge of their parking spot create enormous problems for people backing into parking spots, particularly if you want your car to be equidistant from the adjacent cars. You quickly learn to hate these people.

3. It's actually more challenging to back your car into a spot without vehicles on either side. When there are vehicles to your left and right, you are able to use them as guides when backing into your spot. Without these vehicles, you only have the lines on the pavement to guide you, and these are considerably harder to see when driving in reverse. Two of the three times that I had to readjust my car occurred when backing into a spot with empty spots on either side. 

4. I never felt safer about driving forward when leaving the parking spot. Whether I am driving forward or reverse when exiting a parking spot, I am driving slowly and cautiously at all times. I am checking to ensure that there are no vehicles or pedestrians in the lane. Frankly, I just don't think it's very difficult to drive in forward or reverse from a parking spot, and even if there was a toddler in the parking lot, wandering around with supervision (something I have never seen in my life), I think I would see that child regardless of the direction that I am driving.

Honestly, if I continued to back into parking spots for the rest of my life, I think there is a much greater chance of me hitting an adjacent car while parking than ever hitting a person, and statistics back up this claim. 

5. I don't see why it's any less likely for a child to be wandering into or through the parking spot that I am backing into than than the lane. If a toddler has escaped the attention of a parent, who is to say that this child would remain in the lane. In fact, if there is a small child wandering between the parked cars, it would be much more difficult to see that child, since he or she could be obscured by the vehicles on either side of me. If the child is wandering in the lane, at least there is nothing for him or her to hide behind. There are longer and clearer sight lines. There is no danger of that child suddenly popping out from behind another car.  

6. The biggest drawback to backing into a parking spot, and the reason I will not be backing into parking spots in the future, is time. Not only do I sacrifice my own time by backing into a spot (which always takes longer), but I discovered that if there is a vehicle following you in a parking lot, backing into a parking spot delays that vehicle considerably from moving forward and finding their own parking spot. Rather than pulling forward into a spot, I must instead drive past the desired parking spot, stop the car, turn my body so it's in position to drive in reverse, shift into reverse, and then begin the slow process of backing into the spot. 

If I'm backing out of a parking spot, I can do all these things without delaying anyone. I can take my time because I am safely tucked away into my own spot. When I'm in the middle of the lane with other vehicles waiting to find a spot, this process becomes a serious delay for others. 

In two instances, the driver behind me pulled close enough to me that part of their vehicle was blocking the spot that I planned on backing into, and in both cases, I didn't blame them. They had no idea that I was preparing to engage in this ridiculous maneuver and simply continued moving forward until I could no longer access the desired spot. In both cases, I instead drove forward to a new spot, feeling foolish while doing so. 

If everyone backed into their parking spots, I am convinced that parking lots would become nightmares to drive through. Vehicles would constantly be delayed as drivers executed the required steps to back into a parking spot. 

After a week of backing into parking spot, I am happy to say that the week is over. Other than the times when I back into a parking spot at a Patriots game or a concert, knowing that pulling into the lane sometimes requires aggressive driving and speed, I will be pulling forward into my parking spots like all sane people should.

Backing into a parking spot is time consuming, and it is not safer.   

In fact, if you want to be safer in a parking lot, experts advise that you park farther away from the entrance, where pedestrian and vehicular traffic is less congested. This is the single best way to avoid an accident in a parking lot. 

But I don't see the drivers who are backing into parking spots for safety reasons doing this anytime soon. While they are perfectly willing to waste their time and ours while backing into a parking spot, I suspect that they are far less willing to park an extra 100 steps from the entrance to the grocery store for the sake of safety.

In the end, my former colleague was right. The only good reason to back into a parking spot is to get the hell out of the parking spot a little faster. While you will ultimately lose more time backing into the spot than you will save driving forward when you leave, it guess it makes sense if you're a bank robber in need of a quick getaway, a Patriots fan hoping to exit the parking lot in less than an hour, or a woman who really, really hates her job.  

Otherwise, stop backing into parking spots. It makes no sense. 

The Peter Principle: Understand it.

I know many people who are unhappy in their jobs. There was a time when they were happy, but then they ascended to a position that is both joyless and without satisfaction. 

I also know many people who are ineffective in their jobs. There was a time when they were effective, but they have now risen to a position where their skill set or aptitude no longer matches the demands of their daily work. 

In many of these situations, I believe that the problem relates directly to something called The Peter Principle, and if the employee had only been more cognizant of this principle, he or she would be happier and more effective in the workplace today. 

Three important things to understand about The Peter Principle:

1. The definition:
The Peter Principle states that employees will invariably be promoted to their level of incompetence. This occurs because selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and therefore they will ultimately find themselves in a position in which they cannot succeed. 

2. The responsibility of your employer:
None. If you are excellent at your job, you will eventually be promoted to the level of incompetence unless you are one of the less than 1% of people who are capable of ascended to the highest rank in an organization and occupying the corner office (and you're not).

3. Your responsibility:
Constantly reflect upon your skill set, current position, and possible future positions. Be honest about your strengths and especially your weaknesses. Don't accept a promotion simply because it's offered. Don't pursue a promotion simply because it's the next step on the ladder. Ruthlessly compare your current level of happiness against future earnings.

It is always better to be earn less money and be happy and effective in your position. You may not believe this today, but your future self will despise you for trading happiness and effectiveness for money. Your future self will rue the day you surrendered respect, appreciation, admiration, and joy for a bump in pay, no matter how large that bump may be.

People who understand The Peter Principle - in name or in theory - are happy, productive employees. They settle into positions in which they excel. As a result, they remain happy, respected, and appreciated throughout their careers. They are the difference makers. The high achievers. The role models for future employees in similar positions.

Find the thing you you do best and embrace it. Hold onto it with all of your might. Know thyself, and you will be a happier, more effective employee with enormous job security and the respect we all deserve.

My children don't understand the purpose or use of a sofa

I stepped into the room. They were both watching television.

Like this.

I'm raising a couple of lunatics. 

The Moth: A Mop Sink and Maybe God

In March of 2016 I told the story of my interrogation and arrest for a crime I did not commit at a Moth GrandSLAM at The Somerville Theater. The theme of the night was Now or Never.  

I won the GrandSLAM that night.

I've since told this story for Speak Up and other shows and found kernels of improvement, so once again, this isn't my best. Eventually I'll tell the story of my post-arrest jailing and arraignment and my trial, but those are hard stories for another day.