A fun office game

Trying to use the words euphonious and eponymous in an office game of "increase your vocabulary," we decided that "Mike Hammer: the Book" is an eponymous book title but not euphonious. It is, however, onomatopoetic.

Pretty soon it will be illegal to *own* a business

There was a story recently in the news about a man who claimed he was thrown out of a bar for refusing to buy alcohol, although his wife and friends bought alcohol and food. The bartender says the man was evicted because he was falling asleep. The man ran to his local lawmaker and complained. The lawmaker now proposes to pass legislation forbidding a bar from kicking a patron out who does not buy alcohol.

There is no telling what really happened that evening, but it is not the job of the legislature to micromanage the operation of a private business. If an owner is in fact dumb enough to alienate apparently good customers like that (they had evidently been patronizing the place for some time), then his business will suffer. That is what happens in a free market. Enter the legislative interference, and now you have the costs of compliance and monitoring, which taxpayers bear, to the benefit of a few individuals. We do not need the government to protect individuals from annoying but harmless behaviour. This sort of complainant just wants government heft on his side of a private argument. And we all pay. Pretty soon, the government will decide it would be easier just to own the bars outright, and down the slippery slope it goes.

No room for sexpots in our feminist orthodoxy?

I am having trouble figuring out what seems wrong about the following quote from highly respected columnist Susan Estrich:

"Marilyn Monroe, everyone kept saying. But Marilyn Monroe was a real actress. And Marilyn Monroe lived at a time when women had few choices other that to use their sexuality as their most important source of power. Marilyn Monroe was an icon when being beautiful was the only way for women to get close to powerful men. Marilyn Monroe was a role model when there were no powerful women to look up to.

Anna Nicole Smith wasn’t a throwback. She was a failure. If she were a flat-chested brunette, she might be alive today. She wasn’t made by her looks, but done in by them."

Several issues seem to be wrapped up in this short statement: MM was a "real actress" - but ANSmith only aspired to be one and probably never would have succeeded at that. So what? She succeeded at making money and becoming famous as a beautiful and sexy female. Then Susan Estrich says that only back in MM's day was it acceptable to gain fame and fortune by being beautiful because that was one of only a few avenues for a woman to acquire power. Now that there are more options, must women give up that one? Why should anyone surrender a natural advantage? Just because some orthodoxy doesn't think it is sophisticated enough?

ANSmith was unable to take enough control of her life to keep the problems from overwhelming the advantages she enjoyed. That is what did her in, just as too much money, or fame too young, or an IQ of 200 can wreck a life if mishandled. But saying "her looks [did her in]" is saying it is unacceptable to succeed on looks alone. Sounds a little like jealousy to me.