Wednesday evening ramble and roundup

Remember that article I posted a week or so ago, in response to which I actually took the parents' side? I still do--I don't think children should be confined to certain sections of a park, and I don't think dogs that tend to jump people, including children, should be let loose to do so. Nonetheless, I agreed with some of the sentiments about how some parents go on as if it's everyone else's job to accommodate them. On that note, (1) this is a great article that echoes what I've been saying all along about kids on planes: focus on, and if need be, ban, the parents who let their kids terrorize fellow travelers; (2) I had a run in on the metro escalator today on the way home from work, not with a parent, but on account of a parent.

A mother and her two small children had just taken up the entire row of the escalator. Now, even if you don't live in DC, if you read this blog, you are aware that the Metro has a walk-on-the-left/stand-on-the-right policy. Unlike, for example, the London Underground, the Metro hardly goes out of its way to point this out to passengers, so you almost can't blame them for not figuring it out. But it's still annoying.

Just before I got to the escalator, another woman, on her cell phone, cut me off. She proceeded to take the little boy's hand, and held it for a good fifteen seconds--which is an eon during rush hour, so I thought she maybe knew them or something. I said, "excuse me." She snapped at me. She said, "I AM TRYING TO STEP AROUND THIS LITTLE BOY, AND YOU SAID 'EXCUSE ME'?" I said I had no idea that that's what she was doing. She said I should pay attention. I said, I just thought I'd ask.

In reverse order: when I said I had no idea what she was doing, it's because she gave no indication of what she was doing. How was I supposed to know that she was carefully sidestepping this child, whose mother should have gotten him out of the way in the first place? And second, I said, "excuse me." I did not say, "get out of my way, bitch!" Ergo, her response was unnecessary.

Now, I mentioned that it was rush hour, but even during rush hour in DC, you can still wait a while for a train. (And if you're going to bring your small kids on the metro and have them take up the entire escalator, prepare to incur the wrath of your fellow travelers). Anyway, I got down to the platform and thought I'd just missed my train, but luckily, the doors were kept open for a little longer, and I just managed to slip in. Which was really good; I really wanted to be on my way home, and not waiting on a grimy platform. Point being, a few seconds on the escalator can cost you five-ten minutes of wait time. Now, sometimes, that's just the way it is. If someone genuinely needed to take up the escalator--I am not one of those people who rams into blind people or those on crutches--so be it. But if someone's just being clueless, I am perfectly within my rights to say, "excuse me."

***
Speaking of people ramming into you on the metrorail system, I was standing on a train when someone rammed into me and then said 'excuse me.' What you actually want to do is say that beforehand, so the person can perhaps adjust her position, in case you are so large that you cannot navigate a train without ramming into people. That is not other people's problem; it is yours.

***
I thought about posting Ruth Marcus's column about SP this morning and decided not to, until this companion piece came out. They're both worth a read.

***
This subscription-required New Yorker piece on the empirical science of development is a must-read for those interested in the field. I was thinking about it today when I got an e-mail from Mint telling me I'd gone over my grocery budget. I anticipate another telling me that I've exceeded my entertainment budget. What does this have to do with the economics of development? Esther Duflo, the economist profiled in that article, sets out to measure things and question assumptions. A common assumption among economists is that people make rational choices, i.e., they choose what is to their benefit. Well, Ms. Duflo argues that the very poor have a more limited set of choices; they often cannot choose to their benefit. It often makes sense to buy more of something for a lower price per unit, but if you only have enough money for one unit, you can't do that.

But I'm not poor (much less extremely poor); nor am I as broke as I was a year and a half ago when I bought this house. However, I'm not wealthy enough to pass up great opportunities, so when I get a chance to go to the ballet for $20, I do it. For that reason, blowing my entertainment budget--to the extent that I have--is an achievement to be proud of. In the last couple of weeks, I saw an excellent play (The Liar) and awesome ballet (Genius 3). In the coming weeks, I'll see "Hamlet," Second City, and Mrs. Warren's Profession. And go to Trivia with some friends. And to an event on Jewish women in comedy (that one's free, but I bring it up for another reason--see below). My point, while we're still on this topic, is that budgeting is necessary and I'm glad that I've Mint to point out that I'm spending more than I'd anticipated in one category or another. I'm also grateful to have the financial freedom to be somewhat flexible with that, and to be able to spend more when it's worth it. You only live once, and performances are unique. When you have the chance to go, especially for a great price, you have to go.

Anyway, with regard to Jewish women in comedy: the actual topic is, when is it okay to laugh at ethnic stereotypes? This piece on Tina Fey echoes the wisdom in the zine article: there's something funny about things that are inappropriate. Consider Dave Chapelle, whom I consider a master social commentator as well as comedic genius (and I'd say the same about Tina Fey). What better way to address thorny social topics than through humor?