Why do I ever get a haircut?

When you see me, you probably never think “good haircut” unless it follows “damn, why can’t he get a.” I think that exact same thing when I look in the mirror. Why can’t I get a good haircut? The reason may be my overdeveloped sense of injustice or my possibly unlucky hair.

My sense of injustice is probably more appropriately called “cheapness”. A haircut shouldn’t make me broke. I want something stupidly simple. I’m not asking to look like a bad-ass anime character or have the pompadour of Elvis. I just want my hair shortened. That’s it! Don’t make me look stupid or sloppy or ridiculous. I’ve got my face and clothes to do that. That simple task cannot be worth more than twenty-ish dollars.

My thriftiness has lead me to different solutions in the past, including Supercuts and getting my girlfriend to cut my hair. The conclusion from Supercuts was that you get what you pay for; and Supercuts should be called Supersucks. I know; that’s not very clever.

After that experience (I went there multiple times; if you roll a dice, you should roll a six once in awhile, right?), I decided anybody could do better, so I bought some clippers. I was convinced that a blind person with a butter knife could do at least as good a job as Supercuts. Given that my girlfriend can see and had tools made for cutting hair, she had a good chance. And she did do just as good a job, possibly slightly better. But at the end of the day, I decided that the person who cuts my hair badly and my girlfriend should not be the same person. I realized that if I wanted a decent haircut, my only option was to pony up the cash.

Now I’m paying over 20 bucks a cut, and the results are better but not great. So maybe the problem isn’t in my head but on my head. I’ve been to many barbers and none has really given me something I’ve liked. Maybe I just have a difficult head of hair with a weird cowlick and possibly receding hairline. Maybe my hair lays funny and unevenly. Maybe I don’t know what I really want.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter. I have a girlfriend who was willing to try her hand at cutting my hair, my job doesn’t require me to look decent, and I can’t afford anything else. I guess I’ll just have to get lucky one of these days, which will come from making way more money or losing all my hair.

Why was Obama on at ND?

Recently, Notre Dame has been in the news for inviting President Obama to speak at graduation and receive an honorary degree. There was a bunch of blah blah blah about Obama being pro-choice and the local bishop announcing he would not attend the commencement because of Obama’s stance on this single issue. There was even talk about not conferring a degree.

As an alumnus, I am proud and a little relieved that Notre Dame decided to allow him to speak and conferred an honorary degree. Arizona State University apparently has higher standards than my alma mater, deciding that Obama had not done enough to warrant an honorary degree. I think we should settle which school is better on the football field, even though I would not buy tickets to see that contest of mediocrity. I think it’s pretty clear that we won the contest of better graduation speeches though. Obama clearly understood his audience.

He began with talking about Father Hesburgh and sports. Hesburgh was the University’s president for 35 years, has received 150 honorary degrees, and played a major role in the Civil Rights Movement. The library with “Touchdown Jesus” is named after him. Obama then moved on to sports, a language almost every Notre Dame alumnus understands. A small, warranted joke about our football team preceded mention of an event that makes Domers (not a fan of the nickname, but it’s what we sometimes call ourselves) proud. Notre Dame hosts the largest five-on-five outdoor basketball tournament in the world, and just about everybody competes. It’s just single elimination street ball until the final rounds when they add some refs. It’s fun and it consumes ND life for a month, even if a certain person never saw a second round game.

Obama then went on to talk about the problems that the graduating generation faces and how they are unique. That part is not too original in my book, but it’s an important reminder in any speech, especially at Notre Dame, where service, community, and family are foundations. He threw in a sprinkle of God and Christianity, which are concepts that most Domers at least recognize, even if they do not strongly embrace them. Though this segment’s topic wasn’t necessarily new, it was eloquently delivered. He invoked the ideas of harmonious living and finding common ground, which provided a good segue into the part of his talk that received the most press.

Notre Dame and abortion were on the front web pages of the major newspapers on Sunday. I was surprised that Obama addressed the issue that caused all the controversy, but I was glad that he did. He chose to trust the audience to be civil and intellectually curious, despite what the Pope or bishops say. I like to think that Notre Dame students and families can handle hearing opinions, even if they happen to be different from their own. That being said, not everybody that went to Notre Dame disagrees with Obama on abortion.

For Obama’s part, he didn’t provoke or preach on the topic. He simply called for a dialogue, which has kind of been his MO during his first one hundred and something days. And how can you argue with a having a chat and exchanging ideas, especially at a college graduation? I think he took a smart approach to addressing a captive, pretty conservative crowd. Don’t anger them, but don’t be afraid of them. Invite them to the table. Obama invited and then moved on to topics that the audience found very agreeable.

He spoke of service to the community, tradition, the role Father Hesburgh in the Civil Rights Movement, and the role of Notre Dame in the world. I thought it was a great speech, and after watching it, I felt that sense of inspiration that any good graduation speech should evoke. He got the audience; at the very least, he understood this Notre Dame alumus.

Why not have standards in sports?

I will be the first to admit that sports probably get more attention than they merit. I spend more time than I need to reading ESPN, being disappointed by Notre Dame football, filling out my NCAA tourney bracket, watching golf . . . On the flip side, I could be doing worse things than following sports: robbing old ladies, loitering at a convenience store, or doing drugs. However, we are constantly reminded that sports won’t necessarily keep you away from the drugs.

It’s no longer surprising news that Manny Ramirez of the LA Dodgers was suspended for 50 games because he tested positive for steroid use. In fact, the surprise should be that the media still consider drug-using athletes news. It’s starting to have the ring of “slick politicians” or “nerdy scientists” (but maybe those are better grounded in fact). In sports though, it’s too bad a few bad eggs are ruining the game. Leagues need to dump those eggs by having a serious and very strict drug policy.

The rule should be that if you use performance-enhancing drugs, you are out of the league, stripped of any titles you earned, and your records are stricken from the record. This may sound harsh, but the current repercussions are pretty weak. Sitting out for 50 games? Is that a punishment or a vacation? An athlete’s body gets a nice long rest. Sure, he may not get paid, but it’s not like he’s making minimum wage and needs the hours. Even if you fine these guys, that just means they can’t buy a fourth house or 15^th car. Make the punishment real and lasting.

I also say they make drug testing mandatory for every player every year and keep samples for 10 years so that the latest designer drugs can be identified once tests are developed. Too expensive? Make the players pay it. I don’t know what they cost, but they can’t be more than $1000, can they? And what’s that to the pros? Even if these expenses were passed to the fans, I’d pay another nickel a game to make sure the 50 guys on the roster were clean.

Athletes are entertainers, and they are being paid to perform. But so are dancers, singers, and cooking show hosts. The difference is that athletics is a competition between two teams or individuals, and ultimately, I’m paying to see that contest. Of course, if I see a crazy dunk or huge hit, I like that as a fan. But mostly I’m here to see a close, clean game. Don’t gouge eyes, don’t purposely injure opponents, and don’t inject something that gives an edge.

The bottom line is that there is no place in sports for drugs that make you bigger or stronger. It is cheating. They provide an unnatural advantage to the users. Sports are supposed to be a test of natural physical and mental abilities that are honed through hard work. If an athlete wants to smoke pot or booze it up before a game like in the old days and can still hit an insanely fast ball or shuttlecock, I have no problem with that. In fact, that’s all the more impressive. But don’t cheat an opponent and don’t cheat us, the fans.

Why aren’t most people good at listening?

Listen up! If you don’t know how, then just read on because you will learn what makes a bad listener. I’m taking a class, and one of the topics of the class is how to improve your listening skills. There are three blocks to being a good listener, according to my teacher. They are 1) refocusing the conversation on yourself, 2) trying to fix the problem, and 3) conveying judgment. Now, it’s simple: if a person is telling you what they feel, don’t do any of these things. Well, it’s not that simple, but knowing is a start.

“Let’s talk about me!”

Refocusing the conversation for a moment to convey empathy is OK and is often done with good intention, but we all know people who make the conversation about themselves. She says, “I’m really nervous about going to Africa.” Don’t say, “That reminds me of this time when I wasn’t sure where I was going in Cupertino. I had to go there for a dentist appointment because I got hit in the face.” The only person in that 1-on-1 conversation who cares about that is you. Your friend cares about going to Africa.

Sometimes people want to know that you understand, but you don’t need to provide a long anecdote to convey that. If you do have a story and they want to hear it, let them ask. Hearing that you had a similar experience may help them believe you understand, but the better, safer option is to rephrase and summarize what they said and maybe ask a question that allows them to continue or expand. Being a listener is not about you.

“Let’s fix it!”

We all complain, so we all know what we want from a listener: silence accompanied by vigorous nodding or an occasional “Amen, brother!” Remember this as the listener. If she tells you “My cat Fluffy just died from choking on a hair ball,” she doesn’t want to hear “You can take in that stray by my dumpster.” He may say, “Why can’t that %&*#ing guy tackle?” He doesn’t want to hear, “He tried to arm tackle and didn’t wrap him up.” Trust me, I he just wants Notre Dame that guy to tackle better.

People don’t want to hear how their lives can be better. They probably already know how, and if they don’t, fixing comes later in the conversation, if not later in the week. Trying to work things according to your logical doesn’t work because the person is expressing his or her feelings, which simply need to be affirmed. It’s not about making things better; it’s about making the person feel heard.

“You did what?”

People do not want to hear that what they are sharing is being judged by you. She says, “I should not have gone out with him.” She’s probably not looking for, “You went out with that?” or “Well, he does look unique.” Even if you think she made the biggest mistake ever, she already knows she did. Furthermore, she knows that you know because she just told you. You can judge, but you can’t convey that judgment. It will make a person close up and assume a defensive position. And that makes you a failure at listening. See, you felt a little defensive hearing that, didn't you?

Odds are that you try to do one of these things if you are not the best listener. My fault is “fix it”. If you aren’t sure what yours is, you can do an exercise, but it requires somebody who is willing to talk for three minutes straight about a topic they consider important. When they start talking, keep track of what comes into your head. Is it, “That’s like when I . . .” or “Why is this a problem? You can simply . . .” or “Idiot!” Alternatively, you can just pay attention to your inner monologue the next time somebody tells you about their feelings.

Once you figure out which problem you have, we can talk about it. I’m sure I can help you fix it.