Volunteering at Heroes And Villains Chicago

It’s been a couple of weeks since the Chicago event, and I am just now getting around to writing about my experience. I went to Chicago expecting to be more comfortable volunteering, but Chicago was an entirely different beast. Because Chicago is so much closer to Cincinnati than New York, we decided to leave early on Friday morning. This meant leaving at 5 AM, and doing setup upon arrival. We walked into the convention center thinking that we would start assembling booths, and discovered that in Chicago, this was a union job. This meant the primary focus of the volunteer force would be assembling the merch booth.

The merch booth is a large 5-piece structure that ships in dozens of pieces. The experience is not unlike assembling Lego. The primary differences are that the merch booth weighs close to a half-ton when assembled, and unlike a Lego kit, there are absolutely no instructions. Not only are there no instructions, there is no one who recalls seeing a successfully assembled merch booth onsite, so the experience is something like assembling a puzzle, which may or may not be missing pieces, with no picture on the box to guide you. It’s like a logic puzzle and a jigsaw puzzle had some sort of psychotic baby. Assembly was fraught with peril. Thankfully I had the foresight to bring a multi-tool with me, which made things go a little more smoothly.

We determined that there were two essential tasks: first, to figure out what the various pieces did, then to ascertain some sort of idea of the finished product. Chrisha set about trying to find a picture of the finished booth via Google. I worked with some dudes to deduce the functions of the various pieces, Sherlock Holmes style. After about an hour, we had the three major sections assembled, but the overall picture was still a mystery. All Chrisha had been able to find on Google was pictures of Esty’s boobs. Chrisha was eventually able to locate a picture, and we kind of saw how the sections came together, after zooming in on a grainy picture. No matter how many times I said “ENHANCE!” I just couldn’t get a crystal clear pic. I think that maybe the IT on CSI is BS.

So once the merch booth situation was handled, Chrisha and I finished the day working in ticketing. I enjoy working there because I can clown around with the attendees and volunteers. I especially love finding a volunteer who is very serious about the job, or stressed out, and playing little good-natured pranks. Like saying that an error message on the TicketLeap app means we need to call the police, or telling the attendees the password to get into the con was “cantaloupe”. I also put together all the gold badges for the event, and had a bit of fun with them. One volunteer was sick or something, and wore one of those mask things that Japanese people wear on the subway. I made sure to address her using my best impersonation of Bane, every single time I talked to her. By Sunday she was probably ready to kill me.

The next day was the first day of the con, and I guess the number of volunteers was short. I was supposed to work at the merch booth, which I did for a couple of hours, but then I was diverted to work line control for Brian Tee. I had never worked line control before, so I was sort of making it up as I went along. Brian was really nice, and spent lots of time with his fans, a lot of whom were kids because he’s playing Shredder in the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film. I screwed it up pretty badly on Sunday when I got bored and waved a few people over to go through the line, but other that I think I did OK. I am definitely not cut out for line control, it takes a kind of attention to detail that I just don’t have. I am much better suited for jobs that require interacting with people.

Saturday night was the Nocking Point party. These events are always awesome. This particular party had Brother Sal and The Devil May Care on stage. It was great fun dancing with Chrisha. I don’t dance so much as get drunk and sway back and forth, but at many events that is good enough. Brother Sal complimented our dancing, and my kilt. I was not aware that Neal McDonough was a Blues musician and played an amazing harmonica. Well, he played a number of songs, sang, and did a tremendous job of making the night amazing. At one point he decided to dive off the stage, and wanted some men up front to catch him. I and some other big dudes made our way up front and caught him. It was insane. His wife also got on the piano and danced, and Neal tried to get her to jump off as well. I am half disappointed and half relieved that she didn’t jump of the piano and into our waiting arms. A highlight of the evening was getting to shake hands with Neal and tell him what a huge fan I was of Band of Brothers. It was a short interaction, like many that I have had with celebrities, that I assumed he forgot about.

I guess maybe he doesn’t get a lot of recognition for Band of Brothers, maybe? I don’t really know why, but the next day I came up to Neal at his booth and he remembered me. It started when I saw a guy in full Easy Company cosplay. He was dressed head to toe in vintage WWII gear, down to the steel pot helmet and brown jump boots. His costume was amazing. I managed to get a picture with him, and he was really excited that I liked his costume. We chatted for a minute, and I told him the brief tragic tale of my short stint as a U.S. Army Paratrooper. A bit later, when Neal arrived at his booth, I ran up to to tell him about this Easy Company guy.

When I get up to Neal, he asks me where my kilt was. I was taken completely off guard by that. I just sort of went “Uhh…” but in my mind I was like “Not now Neal McDonough, we don’t have time!” I showed him my picture of The Easy Company Guy and asked him if it was OK to bring him up to see him. Neal said he had to see this guy, so I went back to my post at Brian Tee’s line and hoped to spot The Easy Company Guy again. In a little bit, I spotted him, and took off to get him.

I am sure The Easy Company Guy was startled and confused when I ran up to him and was like “Yo Easy Company! You gotta come with me!” and I grabbed his arm. On the way to Neal’s booth I explained that I showed Neal my pic of his costume, and that Neal was eager to see him. I ran him up the VIP line and explained that while I can get him through the line, I couldn’t get him past the manager. When I turned to explain, The Easy Company Guy was totally in shock that this was happening. Again, I had to return to my post, so I didn’t get to see what happened after that.

Apparently it went very well, because The Easy Company Guy came to find me. Turns out his name is Dustin, and he was absolutely pumped that he got to meet Neal 🙂 I got a hand shake and a big “THANK YOU!” which was easily he highlight of that day. As the con was closing down, I went back to get Neal to sign my shirt. I said to Neal, “How excited was that guy?” Neal said The Guy was visibly shaking and Neal gave him a moment to collect himself, which I thought was just awesome of Neal. Neal shook my hand, thanked me, and said “You’re a good man, Chris.”

I had no idea that was on my bucket list, but it was, and I got to cross it off 🙂

Election Year Economics Are Stupid

I am no economist, but elections aren’t about economics, they are about rhetoric, which I know a little bit about. Political rhetoric is about narratives. In an election year, the narrative of fiscal policy is about reinterpreting the basic principles of macroeconomics in order to garner votes. The problem, as I see it, is that these narratives, these talking points, are passed off as solid leadership. All politicians lie, but this is different. These are carefully crafted messages that people follow. Messages that people believe.

Both liberals and conservatives are establishing the same narrative: that their side has all of the answers, and the other side is ignorantly wrecking the country. Both sides do this, make no mistake. This is why I don’t care for either. It doesn’t matter which side you fall on politically. If you give that premise one ounce of rational thought, you can see that that idea is -in a word- stupid. Why would a group, backed [presumably] by half the country, back a plan that would doom the very nation that they want to control? This isn’t about good vs. evil, or smart vs. stupid. This is about two essential pieces of a natural process: the need for business to make profits, and the need for a social safety net. Not only are these great ideas, they are also essential components of a healthy economy. They may actually help each other in the process: good social safety nets could mean more freedom for businesses.

Conservatives are pushing tax cuts at every turn in order to stimulate private industry. Liberals are looking to implement government programs to help people that they believe are being ignored by private industry. LOL/JK they’re just lining the pockets of their corporate cronies 🙂

Private industry and social stability are both good ideas; there is nothing wrong with either idea. The problem is that both ideas are postured in such a way as to appear mutually exclusive. Tax cuts are inherently plutocratic, while programs to help those who need it are the fast track to communism. This has nothing to do with actual plutocracy or communism and everything to do with political posturing.

Presenting your set of goals, however noble, as superior to those of the other side is deliberately ignoring half of the problems that our nation faces. We face a need for employment, which comes from businesses, and a need for a strong social safety net, which comes from taxes. People need to work so that they can pay taxes. Businesses need to profit so that they can employ workers and pay taxes. What’s more, pitting the interests of business against the interests of the population is at best a waste of already finite resources, and at worst a recipe for societal collapse.

Economies rely on two forces: supply and demand. These forces are often represented in the political narrative as business and consumers. The problem with this narrative is that consumers are also labor. The market is actually made up of two interdependent cycles where businesses and consumers fulfill the roles of supply and demand at various stages. These cycles depend on each other to keep repeating. The people who participate in these processes perform different functions in the cycle. Even if you own a company, you still have to go home and buy things. Even if you earn only minimum wage, you are still selling your time and energy for a wage.

In the graphic above, you can see where businesses and consumers are both buying and selling to each other. There are different markets where consumers supply and businesses demand, only to have the roles reverse. This is a good representation of the interdependence of these two cycles. If you are a business, you are working to turn your resources (raw materials, production capacity, energy) into profits. If you are a consumer, you are looking to turn resources (land, labor and capital) into income. If consumers don’t have income, they can’t buy stuff from businesses and they cannot invest in businesses. If businesses cannot make profits, they cannot make products and employ people. If this balance is upset, no one can pay taxes. Conservatives would have you believe that Americans sacrificing in order to keep private industry going is the way to keep the country going. Liberals would have you believe that government programs financed by corporate taxes will keep the country going. Both parties are right at some point in the economic cycle, and they’re both wrong at the opposite end.

Capitalism works when everyone acts in their own rational self interest. Political rhetoric focuses on “self interest” at the expense of rationality. Election Year Economics is the antithesis of rationality. Pitting consumers against businesses is irrational. Businesses are employers. Employees are customers. If people can’t work, they can’t buy your crap. If you aren’t buying crap, there are no jobs. Expecting the government to care for you is irrational. Subverting the democratic process to avoid taxes is irrational. The politics of fiscal policy is the politics of irrationality.

You see, while markets cycle clockwise and counterclockwise, the economy itself cycles up and down. Things go well, the economy grows, and then it runs out of steam and contracts. This is natural. The contraction not often pleasant, but it is natural. Expansion and contraction is unavoidable. The purpose of the government in this process is not to keep the cycle perpetually expanding. That is impossible, and believing it to be possible is irrational.

The role of government in the business cycle is to even out these natural ups and downs. This is where Monetary Policy should come into effect. It should keep things from expanding out of control, and then soften the blow of recession. The government does this during expansion by limiting the money supply (Federal Reserve conspiracies notwithstanding) and during contraction by providing a social safety net. During times of recession, the government increases spending, cuts taxes, and programs like unemployment benefits and other forms of assistance keep people buying until things pick up again. These are good things that get people votes on both sides.

During times of expansion, however, conflict arises. At the other end of the business cycle, the government needs to control the supply of money to keep the economy from overheating and then crashing. It does this by raising interest rates, raising taxes, and by reducing government spending. Higher interest rates encourage saving and discourage risky investing, lending, and borrowing. Higher taxes create a budget surplus that can later be used for benefits programs. Reduced government spending encourages maximum employment in the private sector and efficient allocation of funds. These are good economic decisions, but they are bad political moves. High taxes and interest rates draw the ire of Wall Street and its conservative votes. Reduced spending affects public institutions and their liberal votes. The goal is for the government should be to create a budget surplus and then use it to jumpstart the economy during downturns. This is politically painful for both the left and the right, and it costs votes. That means no one on either side wants to do it. When you run a business one fiscal quarter at a time, and when you run a nation one election at a time, good fiscal  and monetary policy become a sort of leaky roof problem. You can’t raise the funds you need when everyone is unemployed and broke, but you don’t need social safety nets when everyone is employed.

All-tax-cuts-all-the-time is bad fiscal policy. All-government-spending-all-the-time is also bad fiscal policy. If the government can’t raise funds by taxing, it has to raise them by borrowing (from China!) which is also bad fiscal policy. In this process, we as the electorate have to understand where we are -as a nation- in the economic cycle. I guess this would be a good place for the media or the education system to help the process, but media is a private industry where celeb gossip is more profitable than macroeconomics, and education is a money pit for taxpayers.

Unfortunately, you can’t fit that message on a bumper sticker, and my Facebook feed seems to only have enough attention span for clicktivism.

Am I a Feminist?

During a discussion with my wife, I said to her that I am not a feminist, and therefore “I don’t speak feminist” meaning that I lack the emotional and/or intellectual sophistication to understand some of the issues that I read about. My wife disagreed with me. Her argument was essentially that because I believe that women are equal to men, that I meet the minimal criteria for being a feminist. While that is flattering, I think that there is way more to feminism than equality. Yet, it is a conversation that I am not really invited to participate in. Her counterpoint was that I was only listening to the extremists. While she certainly has a point, that the extremists certainly derail the conversation, it is my opinion that her position is predicated on a definition of feminism that has become outdated.

By outdated, I mean that equality between the sexes is a goal from a different time. My mother is an old-school 80’s feminist. She was a healthcare exec, until she changed careers to education where she moved up from professor to chair of her department. She did her best to balance being my mom with being executive director of… whatever it was. When my mom was working on her Doctorate while I was in High School, sometimes I had to make my own dinner and/or find my own rides to things like Karate class. Sometimes my dad made dinner and picked me up from Karate, his work schedule permitting. I understood that my mom was way more than just a wife or mother. Her career was a big deal, same as my dad’s, maybe even more so.

I have done my best to treat my wife’s career and education with that same respect, and to support it where ever possible. I shuttle the kids around when she needs me to, I cook dinner, and that sort of thing, work schedules permitting. I don’t help around the house as much as I should because even though it’s a responsibility that we both share equally, housework sucks and I hate doing it.

While I might qualify as a feminist by my mom’s definition from the 80’s, this isn’t the 80’s. There are many more women’s issues being discussed today that go way beyond the workplace or family roles. These are issues that my mother probably dealt with, but they weren’t part of the mainstream discussion on women’s issues that I was exposed to. Today the national discussion is more of a debate, and I seem to be on the other side. Maybe that has to do with changes in the media landscape (since broadcast media has taken a back seat to the Internet) but I guess it also has to do with the advancement of the cause of feminism. Getting women the vote is a done deal, a lot of progress has been made in the workplace (the wage gap notwithstanding), and so the leading edge has been directed at additional issues.

The debate, as I understand it, breaks down like this:

• One the one side you have modern feminists, advocating for various forms of positivity, speaking out against various forms of shaming, and trying to expose deep cultural problems in our society. There are also some, the extremists that my wife was referring to, who want men to basically be quiet and let the the feminists do their thing. They want men to “stay in their own lane” so to speak.
• On the the other side, you have men. There are neckbeards who are trying to join the conversation, presumably so that they can get laid, the “nice guys” who can’t get laid, and the Men’s Rights Activists who think that all feminists are just man-hating lesbians who are trying to take away their… freedom I guess? Or maybe their dicks? I don’t really know. Those dudes sound like a bunch of whiny bitches to me 🙂
• For the most part, I try to stay in my lane, but sometimes I feel like that is being silently complicit with the extremists on either side. Maybe that is the problem with the whole debate: there isn’t a place in it for a fairly rational guy.

In her blog post defending Stephen Amell, Chrisha raised a brilliant point, which is that there is no social justice equivalent of a GLBT Ally. In that conversation, straight people don’t have to “stay in their lane.” They are invited to be part of that conversation, but outside of GLBT issues, terms like “white knight”, “mansplaining”, and “cultural appropriation” keep the conversation limited to those who are oppressed. Personally, I think that does little to educate would-be oppressors, but that’s really none of my business 🙂

In the social justice/oppression food chain, I am basically an apex predator. I understand why marginalized people probably don’t care what I have to say, but hey, this is my blog, so I get to do the talking. So my question is this: what -if anything- qualifies a straight male as a feminist? And, if nothing qualifies him to be a feminist, then why doesn’t feminism have its own version of the ‘ally’ designation?