A Matter of Perspective

During the Olympics, I was awed by Nastia Liukin's elegant lines as she towered over the tiny Chinese gymnasts and her own teammate Shawn Johnson. However, I read in today's paper that the 18 year old Texan is only 5' 3", the same height as my daughter.

Last night, Kristen attended a Quinceanera for her friend Erica. Erica stands a good two inches taller than her own father, making Kristen appear slight next to her. So, you have two girls the same size and about the same age, one of whom appears tall and willowy and one of whom seems diminiutive. However, it is just a matter of perspective, since they are both the same size.

An Unfortunate Turn of Phrase

On Friday, I commented on former President Bill Clinton's elegant turn of phrase at the Democratic National Convention. However, another Democrat, fomer Rep. Charlie Wilson from Texas gets the award for the Convention's biggest gaffe:

We should be led by Osama bin Laden. I mean Obama and Biden.

No doubt the red meat conservative commentators will jump on this as proof of the Democratic Party's true convictions. However, sometimes a slip of the tongue is just a flub and not a window into the hidden psyche.

I recently finised a nine day trial which involved three appraisers: Mr. Coleman, Mr. Powell and Mr. Smith. By the end of the trial, both laywers (myself included) were repeatedly getting the three appraisers confused, even though each of them have simple, distinctive names.

I hope that my liberal friends will remember this the next time a Republican gets their words crossed.

Nice Turn of Phrase

I missed most of the Democratic National Convention because it coincided with the first week of school and soccer practice. However, I came across a quote in the newspaper that bears repeating:

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

--Bill Clinton

In one sentence former President Clinton managed to frame the Democratic view of what America should be in a positive manner, while offering an implied rebuke to the Republicans. Admittedly, it is an example of rhetorical overstatement, since Clinton himself used the example of our power in Bosnia and Kosovo. However, as someone who appreciates a nice turn of phrase, I note that it is economical in its use of words, it is symmetrical, it is positive rather than negative and it uses subtlety rather than a blunt instrument for its critique. Hats off to the author and to former President Clinton for delivering the line.

Talking Past Each Other

Recently I had a conversation with a friend about the presidential race. We come from different perspectives. She grew up in the 60s and is a long-time Democractic activist. I grew up in the 70s and am more conservative. I respect the fact that she continues to ask me to vote for liberal, pro-choice candidates even though she knows that I will probably say no. However, a recent conversation that we had shows how difficult it is for persons with different perspectives to have a meaningful conversation.

First, she politely asked if I planned to watch the Democratic Convention. I politely said no, but didn't explain why. The reason was that with trying to balance my childrens' school activities, soccer practice and work, it is unlikely that I will be watching television again until November. However, my unexplained answer could be taken as apathy or disrespect.

Next, she asked me if I planned to vote for Barack Obama. When I said no, she pressed her case. She told me that she had been hearing lots of negative things about John McCain. However, I hear a constant stream of negative information about Barack Obama, most of which I filter out.

After that, she told me that the Childrens' Defense Fund had given John McCain its lowest ranking. I don't know what a Childrens' Defense Fund is or what positions it advocates. As a result, the intended message--that John McCain doesn't care about children--was received by me as--some liberal advocacy group is unhappy with John McCain. Without a context, the information was not very useful.

Finally, she told me that John McCain had graduated fourth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, while Barack Obama had been editor of the Harvard Law Review. The intended message was that John McCain was a slacker who got by on his family connections, while Barack Obama had earned his position through merit. However, there was some context that my friend didn't have. I had very good grades in college and a high LSAT score. I was offered admission to every law school I applied to, except for Harvard Law School. Therefore, I tend to see Harvard Law School as a bastion of Eastern elitism rather than a meritocracy. (Please don't tell any of my friends who went to Harvard). On top of that, despite an excellent law school education and good grades, the most formative years of my legal education were when I was practicing during my 30s and 40s. As a result, the fact that John McCain barely skated by when he was 21 years old doesn't mean much to me. (Especially since the same could be said about John Kerry and Al Gore as well).

At this point, we ended the conversation. Our brief exchange didn't change my mind. As a matter of fact, we really didn't communicate that much as all. What seemed blatantly obvious to my friend struck me as largely irrelevant. If two people start from the assumption that George W. Bush is the worst president in history and that John McCain is just like him, then a discussion of Sen. McCain's flaws might seem very persuasive. (Personally, I think James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce were worse). However, making the same argument to someone who respects Sen. McCain's integrity and independence will come off as partisan and shrill. What would have been more interesting would have been to find something positive about Sen. Obama which would appeal to someone right of center. For example, how would Sen. Obama be good for small business? How will Sen. Obama reach out to people of faith? What will Sen. Obama do to reduce gas prices?

I hope that my friend doesn't think that I am picking on her here. However, the failure of two intelligent people to communicate with each other has gotten me thinking.

More YouTube Silliness

Here are some more videos that we found on You Tube.

When I did my last posting on YouTube videos, Stephanie was very indignant that I uploaded the wrong Johnny Depp remix. Her favorite was "I've Got a Jar of Dirt" and not "Why is the Rum Gone?" as I previously stated. It is Kristen who likes "Why is the Rum Gone?" To remedy my previous confusion, here is "I've Got a Jar of Dirt."



A few years ago, the radio station that I listen to caused a minor sensation when they began playing a German children's song called Schnappi Das Kleine Krokodil. I have now found the video to Schnappi and have uploaded it for your pleasure. It is just so darn cute.



When Kristen took French in middle school, her teacher used Pigloo the French penguin as a teaching device. Even if you don't understand the French, it is very catchy.

Chinese Cheating?

Prior to the Beijing Olympics, I read an interesting article about cheating at the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Because the United States boycotted these olympics, few American journalists covered them. However, one reporter did go and was shocked to find the Russian officials twisting the results to favor their countrymen. James Dunaway, "In 1980, the Russians turned the olympics into the gams of shame," Austin American Statesman, July 20, 2008. Now there are at least two stories about the Chinese government manipulating the games, one silly and one serious.

The opening ceremonies of the games last Friday were spectacular, at least on TV. Viewers at the stadium witnessed only a modest fireworks display, while television watchers saw a spectacular one. It turns out that the Chinese digitally added more fireworks to the TV picture because the real ones couldn't be seen through the smog. They also mechanically enhanced the Chinese flags to flap in the non-existent breeze. Finally, they had a cute kid lip sync to the "Ode to the Motherland" because the actual singer had chubby cheeks and crooked teeth. According to music director, "The reason for this is that we must put our country's interests first. The girl appearing on the picture must be flawless in terms of her facial expressions and the great feeling she can give to the people."



More serious are the allegations that the Chinese government rigged official documents to allow underage gymnasts to compete. In order to compete, gymnasts must turn 16 in the year of the olympics. The Chinese government provided passports showing that the girls were the required age. However, online records for two of the girls indicate that they are only 14 years old, while a profile posted by state television indicated that a third gymnast was 14 as well. Size matters in gymnastics. The American girls who won the silver were an average of three inches taller and 30 pounds heavier than their Chinese counterparts. Since the government issues passports, it would be easy for the government to verify whatever age it wanted to.

The Olympics are a matter of national pride. Totalitarian governments from Nazi Germany in 1936 to the Soviet Union in 1980 to the present Olympics in Beijing have tried to shade the games to their favor. Perhaps it is not a good idea to let these nations act as host.

Why I Like to Watch Shakespeare in the August Heat: UT's Shakespeare at Winedale Program

Every summer, we spend a weekend enjoying Shakespeare at Winedale. The University of Texas sponsors this program where students perform a trio of Shakespeare plays in a converted barn at the Winedale Historical Center near Round Top, Texas. So, why would we spend nine hours listening to Elizabethan English in a sweltering barn in the Texas August heat? What’s more, why would my wife and 13 year old daughter willingly accompany me on this excursion? It is hard to explain the attraction of these 400 year old plays, but I will try.



The Stories

Shakespeare’s plays break down into categories of comedy (no one dies, lots of people get married), tragedy (no one gets married, everyone dies) and history (battles, betrayals and inspiring speeches). This year’s plays were the Merchant of Venice (comedy), Romeo & Juliet (tragedy) and Antony & Cleopatra (history). However, the plays don’t always fall into neat categories.

The Merchant of Venice is a dark comedy with themes of religious hatred, law versus mercy, friendship, romance and women disguised as men. The play has more subplots than a soap opera. Its central conflict involves the Jewish moneylender Shylock who seeks retribution against the Christian merchant Antonio for his insults and abuse and for cutting into his business by lending money without interest. The climax of the play is a trial in which Shylock seeks to enforce a contract entitling him to carve off a pound of Antonio’s flesh. For a comedy, this play explores some very dark themes. However, in the end no one dies and three couples (including Shylock’s daughter) get married.



The plot of Romeo & Juliet is very familiar. However, what is compelling for me on seeing it again is the story of Fr. Lawrence. Fr. Lawrence is the Catholic priest who is Romeo & Juliet’s co-conspirator who marries them in secret and then fakes Juliet’s death to keep her from having to marry Count Paris. When everything ends in disaster, the guilt falls on the well-intentioned Fr. Lawrence as heavily as upon Romeo & Juliet’s parents.

Antony & Cleopatra is another tragic love story. Marc Antony was on top of the world as one of the three rulers of the Roman Empire after the death of Julius Caesar. However, his romance with Cleopatra causes him to make one impetuous decision after another until the title characters and a lot of other people are dead.

The stories are also a bit subversive. In Elizabethan England, Jews and Catholics were seriously out of favor. The Jews had been expelled from England in 1290 and being a Catholic was punishable by death.

Although Shakespeare’s treatment of Shylock may seem harsh by today’s standards, it was remarkably sympathetic for his times. While Jews were commonly portrayed as fiends and devils (as in the Jew of Malta, a play which running at the same time), Shakespeare made Shylock more complex. The Christian characters are blatantly abusive toward him, but still seek to borrow money from him. Shylock’s speech containing the lines “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” forces the audience to look at the Jewish character as a human being rather than a caricature.

Similarly, Shakespeare makes the Catholic priest, Fr. Lawrence, one of his most sympathetic characters. Some have suspected that Shakespeare himself was Catholic. However, at the time, England had swung violently from Catholic to Protestant to Catholic and back to Protestant with massive loss of life each time. Being Catholic did not just mean that you went to a different church than your neighbor. It meant that you identified with the enemies of England, Catholic France and Spain. It would have been considered treasonous for Shakespeare to show a Catholic favorably in his current time. However, by setting the story in the past, he could get away with it.



The Language

Some of the speeches get a bit long and the language can be somewhat difficult; however, there is no denying that Shakespeare wrote some of the most beautiful and moving words in the English language. Romeo and Juliet contributed such expressions as star-crossed lovers, a rose by any other name and a plague on both your houses. The Merchant of Venice originated a pound of flesh as term for an over-reaching bargain.

The Merchant of Venice has some incredible speeches in it. Shylock’s “I am a Jew” speech is remarkably complex and challenges the audience to see him as an individual. Portia’s “The quality of mercy is not strained” speech focuses on the conflict between law and mercy.

In Romeo & Juliet, Juliet’s “a rose by any other name” speech echoes Shylock in asking whether we are bound by our family or free to act as individuals.

The Theater Experience

There is also something to be said for the theater experience. Although the Winedale barn is hot and the seats are uncomfortable, there is nothing quite like seeing a play up close. A play is more interactive than a mere movie. The players make their entrances and exits through the audience. When Romeo climbs the orchard wall, the actor climbs over a beam in the barn and jumps down into the aisle. When Bassanio solves the riddle of the chests, he runs across the stage, slapping the hands of the audience members in the front row. Occasionally actors will hand props to members of the audience to hold for them. Theater is something which is actively experienced rather than passively watched.

Getting Away



It is also nice just to get away for a little while. Although Round Top, Texas has a population of 77 (at least according to the sign), you can’t go ten yards without finding a bed and breakfast. One of the pleasures for us has been watching two plays on Saturday and then spending the night at a bed and breakfast and returning for the third play on Sunday afternoon. This year we stayed at a farmhouse built in 1852 and enjoyed a leisurely breakfast after sleeping in.

McCain Upstaged by Paris Hilton

It is a good day in America when people still have a sense of humor. John McCain recently released an ad against Barack Obama which straddled the line between being irreverent and ugly. In the ad, Sen. Obama is compared to empty-headed celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. However, Paris responded with an ad of her own making fun of McCain's age and offering her own energy plan. The funny thing is that Paris's plan is one of the more sensible proposals offered in this campaign season.

Here is the McCain ad:



Here is the Paris Hilton reply (be patient, it takes a little while to load):

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

The competing videos pretty much speak for themselves. However, I'll say something anyway. McCain's ad made him look mean-spirited and took away from his message about Obama's policies. Paris's rejoinder was just plain funny and had more content than the typical campaign ad. It just goes to show that sometimes humor is the best response.

Florida Case Upholds Free Speech Rights of Students

In 1969 in Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent County School District, the Supreme Court stated that, “It can hardly be argued that students or teachers shed the constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Despite this clear statement of the law, schools have been trying to prevent students from expressing incorrect thoughts ever since. Frequently, this takes the form of mandatory political correctness. In one recent case, a school in suburban Chicago allowed a gay tolerance day but prohibited a student from wearing a shirt which said “Be Happy, Not Gay.” However, a recent court case from Florida shows that censorship of student speech is alive and well on both sides of the ideological divide.

The Gay Pride Crisis at Ponce De Leon High School

In Gillman vs. School Board for Holmes County, Florida, a crisis was triggered when a female student reported being harassed by other students for being lesbian. The school’s principal passed on the opportunity to teach a lesson about civility and respect and instead chastised the victim. He very firmly told her that it was not “right” to be lesbian and called her parents to inform them of their daughter’s sexual orientation. The principal also ordered the student to stay away from the students who had harassed her or else he would suspend her. The student left the principal’s office in tears.

The next day, the student was absent from school for reasons unrelated to the confrontation with the principal. However, a rumor circulated that the principal had suspended her for being gay. Students showed their support for their classmate by writing “GP” or “Gay Pride on their bodies, wearing t-shirts with messages supportive of gay rights and shouting “Gay Pride” in the hallways. Things took a turn for the stranger when the school announced a “morality assembly” to be held by a local clergyman. Students discussed the possibility of walking out of the assembly if the preacher denounced their classmate. However, when the preacher did not discuss issues related to homosexuality, no one walked out.

At this point, the principal decided that he had a problem and took action. According to the court’s opinion:

Following the assembly, (the principal) began investigating what had come to be known as the “Gay Pride” movement at the school. He interviewed approximately thirty students, interrogated them about their sexual orientations, and questioned them about their involvement in the planned walk-out of the assembly, and their activities in relation to the movement. During those meetings, (the principal) instructed students who were homosexual not to discuss their sexual orientations. He also prohibited students from wearing rainbow belts or writing “Gay Pride” or “GP” on their arms and notebooks. He required students to wash “GP” or “Gay Pride” from their arms and hands and lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies.

The principal eventually suspended eleven students as punishment for their involvement in the “Gay Pride” movement. “As grounds for the suspensions, Davis explained that the students belonged to a “secret society” or “illegal organization” forbidden by school board policy; had threatened to walk out of an assembly; and had disrupted the school.” He also told the mother of one of the students that he could have her daughter secretly shipped off to a Christian school or to the juvenile detention center and that “if there was a man in your house, your children were in church, you wouldn’t be having any of these gay issues.”

Litigation Ensues

At this point Heather Gillman, a heterosexual student whose gay cousin had been suspended approached the school board for permission to display rainbows, pink triangles and eleven slogans, including “I Support My Gay Friends” and "I Vote Pro-Gay." The school board ruled that none of these expressions could be allowed. According to the opinion, “The School Board justified its censorship on the ground that the expressions indicated membership in an ‘illegal organization’ prohibited by School Board policy and were disruptive of the educational process.” Ms. Gillman then filed suit against the School Board and the principal for violating her rights of free speech and political expression and for engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination.

The Role of the Court

In deciding the case, the judge did a good job of defining his role. He stated:

The issues of homosexuality and its social implications are topics that have engendered intense feelings and debate throughout this nation and its communities. My task in this case is not to judicially determine which side—supporters or opponents of gay rights—is correct. Nor is my proper role to mandate a social norm for Holmes County or its schools. Indeed, the students and citizens of Holmes County are qualified to make that decision themselves. Instead, my duty is to apply the Constitution and the law to the facts of this case.

Students’ Free Speech Rights

The Court has a good discussion on students’ free speech rights. This case fell within the category of pure student speech. Pure student speech can be subject to limitations. For example, a student could be punished for speech involving elaborate, graphic and explicit sexual metaphors and school officials could confiscate a banner advocating illegal drug use. Schools can also adopt reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulations as to the time, place and manner of student expressions and demonstrations.

The Supreme Court has held that student speech may only be censored when it would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” or “collid[e] with the rights of others.” Under this test, students could not be prohibited from wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam War based on the possibility of conflict between students of opposing viewpoints. The armbands were allowed because they were a “silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance.” On the other hand, a school could ban “freedom buttons” advocating an end to segregation where students’ conduct in skipping classes, ignoring teachers, pinning buttons on other students without their permission and throwing buttons through school windows “constituted a complete breakdown in school discipline.”

With some understatement, the judge in this case stated that “(T)he facts in this case are extraordinary. The Holmes County School Board has imposed an outright ban on speech by students that is not vulgar, lewd, obscene, plainly offensive or violent, but which is pure, political, and expresses tolerance, acceptance, fairness, and support for not only a marginalized group, but more importantly, for a fellow student at Ponce de Leon.”

The Court rejected the contention that the School Board had to censor the student speech to avoid disruption at the school.

The vast majority of episodes involving the speech at issue were indistinguishable from the typical background noise of high school. Students testified that they whispered and passed notes in class, occasionally shouted “Gay Pride” in the hallways, write “GP” and “Gay Pride” on their bodies, created signs and posters supporting gay rights, circulated petitions, and debated and argued about gay rights. One student testified that students’ conversations about gay rights were even quieter than normal conversations because the students were interested in the topic. These activities, which the School Board contends were disruptive—whispering, note-passing, shouting in hallways, writing on bodies, drawing and creating signs, circulating petitions, and debating issues—occur on a daily basis at Ponce de Leon and are divorced from the speech as issue.

In other words, the speech about gay issues was no different from discussions of sports, music, television shows and other things which teenagers talk about. The only thing disruptive was that the school officials did not agree with what was being said. Thus, the Court found that the School Board had violated the free speech rights of the students.

Viewpoint Discrimination

The Court also found that the School Board had engaged in viewpoint discrimination. Under the Constitution, the government cannot ban speech based on its content. The Supreme Court has stated that “Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional.”

In this case, the principal’s attempts to justify his actions were somewhat laughable. He claimed that allowing students to express a pro-gay message amounted to imposing a certain view on others who might find that view offensive. However, the principal had no problem telling students that homosexuality was wrong. Thus, it was acceptable for him to impose his views on others, but not the other way around.

The principal also claimed that any mention of homosexuality was sexually suggestive and would cause students to think about sexual acts. However, the principal did not have similar qualms about heterosexual speech. When a female student complained that a boy had dared another boy to offer her five dollars to “get into her pants,” he did not bother to investigate. He did not prohibit students from discussing heterosexual issues and would not prevent a boy from telling a girl that she was cute or that he wanted to date her. However, he would ban the slogan “I Vote Pro-Gay.” Similarly, the School banned rainbows, but not swastikas or the Confederate flag. Thus, it was fairly obvious that the Principal and the School Board set out to ban speech solely because they disagreed with its content.

The End Result

Because of their campaign to suppress student speech, the School Board was ordered to pay $1 to Heather Gillman (which was all that she had asked for) and to pay her attorneys $325,000. Thus, although Ms. Gillman did not benefit from the litigation, it was very costly to the School District. Money which could have been spent on education went to pay for the School Board to be educated on the meaning of the Constitution.

What Does It All Mean?

This was a case where a student courageously stood up for her right to free speech. The facts of this case are shocking. A principal who lifts up girls’ shirts to make sure that they are not writing slogans on their bodies, who calls parents to report their child’s sexual orientation and who threatens to have a child sent off to a Christian school against her will has crossed a line from being an educator to an enforcer. The School Board also failed in its duty when it approved censorship of rainbows, triangles and any expression showing sympathy for gay rights. No doubt the principal and the School Board felt that they were standing up for the values of their community. However, once you start down the road of censoring student speech to impose community values, you are just as likely to end up with political correctness as Christian morality. The ruling in this case which allowed students to express “Gay Pride” would also apply to protect a student who asserted “Straight Pride” (see Chambers v. Babbitt, 145 F. Supp.2d 1068 (D. Minn. 2001)) or “Be Happy, Not Gay” (see Nuxoll v. Indian Prarie School District, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. 2008)).

The Judge in this case got it exactly right when he said that it was not his job to mandate a social norm for the community, but rather to apply the Constitution to the facts.

What Does the Hamdan Verdict Mean?

Today a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay delivered a verdict in the case of Salim Hamdan, who was Osama Bin Laden's driver. The tribunal delivered a split verdict, finding him guilty of providing material support to terrorists, but acquitted of conspiring to participate in terrorism. Under the rules of the tribunal, there will be an automatic appeal.

The question is: what does all this mean? Prior to the verdict, defense lawyers said that a guilty verdict was inevitable based on the way that the tribunal was set up. Hamdan was tried before a military judge with a jury of military officers and was defended by military lawyers. The judge excluded some evidence obtained through coercion, but allowed other statements in. The military defense lawyers appear to have waged an aggressive defense going so far as to challenge the very legality of the military tribunal.

Despite the flaws in the system, the verdict may be defensible. At the time that he was detained, Hamdan was driving a vehicle carrying missiles. As long as he knew what his cargo was, this could have been sufficient to sustain a conviction for providing material support to terrorists. Thus, the question will be whether the process was so tainted that the verdict should be thrown out regardless of its reasonableness.

Hamdan's case has already been up to the Supreme Court once and it may go there again. In this case, the highest sentence possible was life in prison. In later trials, the death penalty will be an option. The Hamdan case will likely set the stage for whether future cases will be legitimate or not.

The Story of the New Beds

I have two teenage daughters, both of whom are too young to drive. At this age, dads exist for two main reasons: to buy them stuff and to drive them places. However, I have recently discovered that one of my daughters is much better at getting me to buy her things than the other. To avoid embarassment (to them and to me), I will refer to them as Daughter 1 and Daughter 2.

Daughter 1 tends to demand things. Dad, take me to the movies! Dad buy me a video game! Usually her requests involve driving her someplace with at least one girlfriend in tow. Daughter 2 is more subtle. She will research what she wants on the internet and either call me over to the laptop in a sweet voice or send me a link. All I have to do for her is fill in my credit card number and her wants magically appear.

The new beds are a case in point. Back when my girls were younger, they always wanted to sleep in our room. To get around this, we bought them bunk beds so that they could sleep in the same room and leave us alone. As they grew older, this arrangement came to an end and the bunk beds were taken apart and placed in separate rooms.

However, the bunk beds were not conducive to The Never-Ending Sleepover. On any given weekend, the girls have one or more friends sleeping over. If both girls had friends over, they would fight over who got to use the guest room, which has a queen-sized bed and a futon. Both girls asked for new, larger beds that would allow friends to sleep over in their bedrooms. I had to admit that they probably had outgrown the old beds.

Daughter 1 started demanding a new bed around Christmas. I told her that beds cost money and that I didn't want to make the investment Also, you couldn't walk into her room for all of the clothes, magazines and stray pieces of paper on the floor. It didn't seem like there would be any way to get a larger bed into the disaster area. However, by the end of school, she had enlisted one of her friends for the cleaning job and several trash bags later, the room was in much better shape. However, there was still the problem of the clothes. Her clothes far exceeded her meager dresser space, so that meant a trip to the Room Store to get her a new dresser. It also meant a trip across town to pick it up. At this point, I was shopped out.

Enter Daughter 2. She went onto the internet and found the bed of her dreams. Of course it was outrageously expensive. When I said no, she did some more research and found another one for half the price. She smiled so sweetly that I gave in and placed the order. Afterward,I realized that I had spent more than I had planned. However, I figured out that it was for a good cause.

At this point, I was now committed to buying a bed for Daughter 1. I had been putting her off for six months and had now bought a bed for her sister on the first request. We trooped back to the Room Store with a friend to help her make the decision, let her roam all over the store and try every bed in the place, then negotiated downward as I vetoed the more expensive options. Finally, a choice was made and the order was placed.

Within a week of each other, the two beds arrived. Since Daughter 1's bed was ordered from a store, it was delivered and set up for us with no problem. Daughter 2's bed showed up on a pallet with a bunch of boxes. To their credit, my wife and Daughter 2 hauled the boxes upstairs and spent about a week assembling the bed without any help from me. Now both daughters have new beds and The Never-Ending Sleepover can continue with a minimum of warfare between the two sisters.



However, I have come to a realization. A teenager with a lapop is a lot more dangerous than a teenager who has to be taken to stores. I can always put off a trip to the store. However, the internet is always out there, full and shiny new things which can be delivered to your door.