More on Mike Young

I mean, how much more worthless could this guy be? Here is his "2019 Legislative Priorities," replete with TableTopJoe's annotations:

Recently, the Senate Republican Caucus announced its legislative priorities for the 2019 session.

During the next several months, lawmakers will work to prioritize the following initiatives:

Maintain an honestly balanced budget
Like all hardworking Hoosiers who balance their checkbooks, Senate Republicans know responsible government means making tough choices and spending within our means. Therefore, passing a two-year state budget that funds necessities and protects reserves is a top priority.

Good job Mike! You have dedicated yourself to following the Indiana Constitution! Also, this just in, I have refrained from murdering anyone in the past year; do I deserve a prize?

Protect vulnerable children
Due in part to the drug epidemic, the Department of Child Services’ (DCS) staff and resources are being stretched too thin when it comes to protecting the state’s children. Senate Republicans will support operational reforms as well as an appropriate level of new funding for DCS to protect Indiana’s vulnerable children.

This is a nice way of saying that they're not going to "throw money at this problem." It seems to me that they've done everything under the sun except "throw money at the problem." It kind of reminds me of the story my Dr. brother told me one time about a patient who was severely overweight and told him, "Doc, I'd do anything to lose some weight." The only thing my brother could think, as he tells the story, is, "You mean, you'd do anything except eat right and exercise." Similarly, Sen. Mike Young will do anything to protect Indiana's children . . . except spend money to do so.

Support education
With more than half of the state’s General Fund devoted to K-12 education, Indiana spends a higher percentage of its budget on education than all but two other states. This session, Senate Republicans will maintain that strong commitment to students, teachers and schools in the next budget.

This is a strange brag. Yes, IN does spend more, as a % of its budget, than all except two states. However, this fails to note that IN's budget has been shrinking due to our previous governor's corporate tax cuts that continue apace; it also fails to note that Indiana has one of, if not the, largest voucher program in the nation. Thus, public money gets to go and support religious schools. And before you applaud that, just remember that the very next religious school to open up could be teaching dogma that you find terrifying.

Improve school safety
Protecting schools from violence takes vigilance on the part of every Hoosier. At the Statehouse, Senate Republicans will work on school-safety improvements based on the recommendations made to Gov. Holcomb last year, including allowing Secured School Safety Grants to be used for mental and behavioral health services.

"Gun violence in school has nothing to do with guns, so don't even ask if we're going to do anything about guns."

Advance workforce development
To address Indiana’s long-term skills gap, the General Assembly has implemented many workforce-development reforms in recent years. In 2019, Senate Republicans will focus on changes to ensure our existing training programs result in meaningful career paths for all Hoosiers.

Spare me. I don't know a single person who's ever gotten any meaningful help from one of these so-called "existing training programs." I find it interesting that politicians like Mike Young believe that when rich people aren't investing and trying to make more money, it's because they don't make enough already; however, when working class people aren't investing their own time in themselves to get training, nobody thinks that, perhaps, it's because the job for which they would train doesn't pay shit.

I could rant on and on about this do-nothing jackass, but I'm pretty sure my feelings are well known. Perhaps if Sen. Mike Young actually worked in the free-market that he so lovingly espouses; if he actually had to pay for the things that his policies make more expensive; in short, if he actually had to live with the consequences of his own policies . . . then, just maybe, we would get some actual effective policy from him.

I won't hold my breath.

Sen. Mike Young and his "Priorities"

I got an email from our illustrious state Senator Mike Young, he of the government-funded law degree. Anyway, included in that email was this little gem:

Like Senate Republicans, Gov. Holcomb is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state, further develop a 21st century skilled workforce, support education and help protect our at-risk children.

As both readers of this blog know, I have a high opinion of Gov. Holcomb. However, I found this statement to be a bit of a stretch:

• Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure how continuing the bankrupting of labor unions through Right to Work laws "is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state." It seems to me, it's working to ensure that the jobs in this state are low paying. I understand (if disagree with) the rationale for this. However, just own it!
• "Further develop a 21st century skilled workforce" sounds to me like "make the government pay to train workers that companies won't themselves pay to train." Why is it the government's job to make sure that companies have trained workers? Can't the companies train the workers themselves, the way they used to?
• "Support education" by continuing to siphon money to charter schools
• "Help protect our at-risk children" by having yet another "study commission" on how to improve DCS without actually giving it the money it needs.

Senator Young, please don't insult our intelligence any more.

Further, I actually followed the link on the quote; I have more thoughts on that, which I will post tomorrow.

On Karen Pence

So, apparently Karen Pence has attracted a bunch of attention for going to teach art at a Christian school in the D.C. area that doesn't allow gay people . . . to work or learn there.

A few thoughts:

1. This is not about Freedom of Religion

I really don't care whether a private school chooses to exclude gay people. I think they're jerks for it, but my opinion is in the same class as theirs . . . that which is protected by the Constitution. Now, if we start talking about that school getting public money, we have a big problem; that's an argument for another day.

2. This is a Revealed Preference

I may say that I love salad, but if I order fried chicken every time, my revealed preference is fried chicken; my stated preference is salad. Karen Pence (and her husband) may say that they want the best for every child, but at the end of the day, they're only willing to help certain children who believe the way they do.

Again, that is their prerogative. I can't force Mike Pence to be "woke." Nonetheless, I think that I play fair when I use this to gauge the sincerity of some of Mike Pence's proclamations about the dignity of all human beings. Does he really mean "all" human beings, or does he mean all "human beings" (as defined by him and his teachings).

After all, Karen Pence could've chosen to teach at an inner-city school in the D.C. area. Remember when the D.C. basketball team was the Bullets, and they changed the name because they didn't want to feed a stereotype? I'm sure Karen Pence could've found an inner-city school that would welcome her with open arms. Surely she doesn't need the money she gets from part-time teaching at a private school. She could use her stature and position to advocate for something important.

She revealed her preference.

3. This Feeds a Stereotype

As both readers know, TableTopJoe used to be a teacher and was infuriated when teaching is treated as a hobby.

Teaching is not a hobby. Stop treating (and paying) it like it is. Karen Pence does this and feeds into the stereotype that teacher salaries don't need to be competitive because the teacher is not the "bread winner" of the family. F*** that. That is misogyny at its worst.

Teaching is a bona fide profession, no less than litigating. I am now a professional litigator, and I was a former teacher. I don't work any harder now than I ever have. It's time to stop treating teaching as though it is some sort of a junior varsity profession. It's not.

Feel where your mouth is; then put some money there.


Conclusion

TableTopJoe Out!

Why People Hate the Media

It has been my experience, ever since my driver's ed. teacher insisted on exposing me to hours of that fat a$$ Rush Limbaugh every day during that summer of 1992, that conservatives hate HATE the so-called "mainstream media." I've always presumed that it was because the mainstream media refused to parrot their bull$hit (pollution doesn't hurt the environment; guns have nothing to do with gun violence; cutting taxes raises tax intake for the government). 

Well, I'm pretty sure that conservatives have so thoroughly worked the refs that every disagreement that comes up on the national stage is either "Democrats' fault" or "both sides'" fault. Hell, I saw something yesterday that said that the government shut down is both sides' fault because (a) Donald Trump shut down the government because he couldn't get what he want; and (b) Democrats won't give him what he wants. For some reason, I can't get rid of the image of someone violently beaten during a mugging: it's the mugger's fault for beating the guy, but it's also the victim's fault because he didn't just give up his wallet, right?

Anyway, I read the Chicago Tribune this afternoon (Thursday) and about wanted to puke:

Before we get into all the liberal media hysteria over the government shutdown and the southern border, and Donald, Nancy and Chuck hissing at one another while avoiding a workable compromise sitting right in front of their noses, a word about sausage-making.

First off, how is this "liberal media hysteria" when the President of the United States demands a policy change, can't get it through Congress, and then decides that he will simply shut down the government? 

Let's remember that this is not Congress attempting to make some huge change to existing policy, a la Newt Gingrich trying to eviscerate Medicare in 1994 or Congressional Republicans demanding that Obamacare be "defunded" in 2013. This is the President demanding a huge change to policy and shutting the government down when he didn't get it. 

Is this really the new standard? 

If the President wants something, is he entitled to shut the government down? Is that what Obama should have done every time Congressional Republicans stymied his initiatives from 2010 onward, or when they refused to give Merrick Garland so much as a hearing, or is this a "Republican Only" privilege?

Our Chicago Tribune pundit, lets just call him "both sides," claims that there is an "easy" compromise to be had:

They’re the Dreamers. They want to legally call America home. Why not let them stay?

If they’re not in criminal gangs or possessed of violent criminal records, the Dreamers should be given legal residency. That’s what Trump and the Republicans should offer the Democrats.

And in exchange, Democrats should give Trump and the Republicans the $5.6 billion for the wall.

This is called compromise. Remember the word?

The only problem with Mr. Bothsides' proposal is that it was already offered to the Democrats, accepted by the Democrats, and then withdrawn after hardline right-wing immigration restrictionists lost their collective $hit.

If I cut a deal with you today and then go back on that deal, why would you cut that same deal with me tomorrow?

So, as I said before, here's what Democrats should demand in exchange for the wall:

1. National Right to Organize law that preempts every state-level Right to Work law.
2. Rescission of the Trump "Give Rich People More Money" Tax Cut for all corporations and individuals with annual income above $1,000,000.
3. Commitment to nominate only American Constitution Society judges; no more Federalist Society judges.
4. Medicare for All.

Surely, Mr. Bothsides, we can negotiate from there, right? Until the Republicans are willing to give up a sacred calf of theirs, no f*cking wall! 

"Conquest"

I have recently heard discussion of invoking the "military version of eminent domain" in order to build Agent Orange's vanity project President Trump's border wall. The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that there's a better term for it than "military version of eminent domain."

That term is "conquest."

Thus concludes our vocabulary lesson for the day.

Truth

I couldn't figure out a way to embed it, but Ezra Klein had probably the most insightful tweet of the last 24 hours:

"If Donald Trump wanted the wall, he'd have negotiated away something of value to get it. Or at least tried to do so. He doesn't want the wall. He wants the fight over the wall. He wants to be seen going to war over the wall. That's what tonight is about."

Regrettably, I am unable to figure out how to embed the tweet here, so I kind of feel like I'm plagiarizing. However, I think that this is spot on and relates to my post yesterday. It is very revealing to hear how much people are willing to give up to get or keep something; it tells one a lot about how much the thing is worth to the person who wants it.

As a telling anecdote, I took a plaintiff's case a few years ago that I turned out to be a total "pig," i.e. there wasn't a lot of merit or money to it. Nonetheless, I demanded about ten times what I thought it was worth, and the defendant wound up offering about five times what I had prepared my client to accept. Obviously, the case settled. Perhaps the case was worth more to the defendant than me, or perhaps the defendant knew something I didn't. Either way, the settlement offer was telling.

So too in the present situation. As a proud progressive, I see an opportunity to extract something from the president. I would take that opportunity were I in Congress. I don't really care about "the wall" one way or another; I think it's pretty stupid, but in all honesty, $5.6B is a rounding error in a budget expected to be approximately $4.4T. To be clear, this $5.6B would represent approximately 0.0012% of the budget.

Nonetheless, I think it's a stupid vanity project, and I am disinclined to give one to a president who has governed not on my behalf but seemingly in a constant effort to piss me off and offend my sensibilities.

Imagine for a moment that the neighbor who you can't stand needed your permission to do something. Even if you don't care, you bet your a$$ you're going to extract a price from the annoying neighbor. If the neighbor wasn't willing to pay any price to do that "something," said unwillingness probably says a lot about how badly the neighbor actually wants that "something," wouldn't it?

Border Wall "Negotiations"

As we limp into 2019 without a functioning federal government, I ask myself what the whole kerfuffle is even about. Does anyone seriously believe that building a cement (or steel) wall along the border will do anything to keep criminals from entering the country?

Let's recall that the majority of illicit drugs enter this country at points of entry, generally packed in with other cargo; the majority of illegal immigrants entered this country legally and overstayed their visas; and apprehensions at the southern border are at a 17-year low.

So, I suppose point #1 is that the wall won't "fix" the "problem" that its proponents say needs fixing, and the "problem" has gotten significantly better in recent years.

Nonetheless, if someone wants a big concrete and steel symbol to his own xenophobic ego, I suppose all things are worth negotiating. I do a lot of negotiating by virtue of my job, and I notice that you get a real feel for how much someone thinks a thing is worth by how much that person is willing to give up to get it.

Trump has demanded a border wall, and the GOP has stuck by him and echoed the demand. What have they offered for it? They continue to publicly claim that the Democrats aren't negotiating with them. So, on behalf of myself (and perhaps a significant number of liberals), here is my offer to the wall builders:

• WE appropriate your $5,600,000,000 to build your precious wall;
• In exchange:
• YOU repeal last year's tax cuts for everyone making over $500,000/year
• YOU immediately pass Medicare for All
• YOU immediately provide the votes to pass a National Right-to-Organize bill that preempts all state-level Right-to-Work bills
• YOU nominate members of the American Constitution Society to the federal bench, exclusively.

Upon satisfaction of the above conditions, the $5.6B will be appropriated. How's that for a starting point in negotiations?

Suicidal Tendencies

This post is a bit of a departure from the majority of my other posts. This is about suicide.

In the past two days, I've heard two very disturbing stories involving suicide.

In the first one, a prominent banking lawyer at an international law firm was found dead at the foot of a 150' cliff, with his daughter's teddy bear perched at the top of the cliff, hours after allegations of "inappropriate behavior" at his law firm's Christmas party.

In the second one, I just learned that a family friend killed himself in the past week.

These are both truly devastating stories. I understand that everyone has his/her demons in this world; I have struggled with depression myself. However, to anyone reading this, please remember that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Life gets better. I feel as though I am living proof of that.

So, in closing, and I say this with as much sincerity as I have, if you feel alone and are thinking of ending your life . . . you're not alone; don't. Comment here. Call me. Let's go get a beer or a coffee and be friends. Come have dinner with me or sing songs or do anything except kill yourself.

I know that many people have stated these things much more eloquently than me. Nonetheless, if you are feeling alone, you're not. You have friends and people who care about you, even if you barely ever hear from them. You have impacted people's lives and you matter.

Back at It

During the Obama years, I was continually scolded by my Republican friends who would say that "Bush is gone" and "the current economy is Obama's responsibility." "If Obama didn't want to be in charge, he shouldn't have run."

Generally, these scoldings would come after I point out such inconvenient truths as:

• W, not Obama or Clinton, was president on 9/11
• W inherited a budget surplus and left trillion dollar deficits to his successor
• W's successor was Obama . . . he had trillion dollar deficits on his first day in office

I also thought that it was the worst idea imaginable to demand austerity during a recession. 

Did we learn nothing from the Great Depression? 

I argue with my "conservative" (i.e. "Republican") friends all the time about what ended the Great Depression. I insist it was a combination of the New Deal and WWII; my Republican friends refuse to credit FDR or government with success, ever insist that it was solely WWII. 

Whether I'm right or they are, however, it is clear that it was government spending that brought this country out of the Great Depression. With that in mind, I was incredulous that they would then demand that the government cut, not increase, spending during a recession. I could go on and on about Keynesian theory, but I'll save that for another day.

Today, I want to talk about bad faith, cynical argumentation. I always want to impute good faith to my counterparts in any argument, particularly one about our great nation. However, when I saw profligate spending and tax cutting for 8 years, from 2001 - 2009, a HUGE recession in early 2009, and subsequent demands to cut spending thereafter, I couldn't help but question the good faith of the demands for spending cuts. 

If only there was a way for me to figure out whether the concerns over deficits were sincere or not. I wonder what would happen if the people who were demanding that spending be cut during a recession (i.e. 2009-2013 or so) were given full power during a fairly strong economy (say, in 2016 or so). Would they cut spending, raise taxes, and close the spending deficit?  

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 20 years, I think you know the answer to that:

the real test came after 2016. A complete cynic might have expected economists who denounced budget deficits and easy money under a Democrat to suddenly reverse position under a Republican president.

And that total cynic would have been exactly right. After years of hysteria about the evils of debt, establishment Republican economists enthusiastically endorsed a budget-busting tax cut. After denouncing easy-money policies when unemployment was sky-high, some echoed Trump’s demands for low interest rates with unemployment under 4 percent — and the rest remained conspicuously silent.

Huh. Well, you  know what they say: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I think the real problem, for at least a generation, is that now nobody will take anyone's deficit concerns seriously.

Where's the tea party? Either it was a reaction to a black president and its participants are now walking around in red "Make America Great Again" hats or they have disappeared from the political scene, fully aware that their ideals have been sold out.

SINO (Shutdown In Name Only)

Am I supposed to care about the latest (3rd in 2018, for the record) "shutdown" of the U.S. Government? Is all of this drama and blame game supposed to change my mind about substantive policy in this country?

I don't . . . and it doesn't.

For starters, the only reason I care about the "shutdown" is that it pisses me off that a bunch of politicians decide they want to have confrontational tactics to please their base; when such tactics result in real people being laid off; when such tactics underscore an already incessant notion that "public servants" are not admirable figures striving to better our society but instead "beaurocrats" to be derided, degraded, and discarded.

I think that if our politicians want to have a temper tantrum and shut down the government, then this "partial" shit has to stop. STOP making it convenient to throw a monkey wrench in the works. If we're shutting down the government, then lets shut it down. Stop sending SS checks. Stop making medicare payments. Stop paying the military (except those on active duty in a combat zone). Stop the customs office. Stop immigration services. Stop oversight of ports. These are easy.

I think the question is how far we want to go with this mechanism.

Do we shut down law enforcement? Do we stop the overnight lending at the fed?

Do we shut down courts?

What about prisons?

Anyway, I don't have all of those answers, but I adamantly believe that "shutdowns" should actually SHUT DOWN the government, at least in the main.

As to the second part of my initial inquiry: does this change my mind one iota with respect to domestic policy? Resoundingly not! I don't take philosophical guidance from bumper stickers and intellectual toddlers. To convince me to change my mind on substantive matters, one must show a measure of maturity and understanding of the issue before I engage in any sort of debate on the merits.

California Fires

I tend to think of some, but not all, of the wildfire problems in California in the same vein as I do the hurricane problems in FL. "Don't you kind of ask for these problems?" For example, if you live in Malibu, didn't you kind of ask for this? If you live on the coast in FL, didn't you kind of ask for the hurricane?

Now, we see reports of private fire fighting forces rushing in to aid the wealthy landowners in parts of California, while the less-wealthy residents of interior California are essentially homeless. I recently read a review of a book entitled "Let Malibu Burn." The basic point was that the broader, less-fortunate public, should not have to spend one cent of public money to rebuild mansions on sites that will inevitably burn every 20 years or so.

I think the same thing holds true for Malibu Mansions and Miami Mansions. You chose to live there. You can handle the consequences. I find it endlessly frustrating that people tend to embrace libertarian "every man for himself" ideals right up to the point that they need help from the broader public. I find this particularly frustrating when the well-to-do embrace that ideal as to poor people's healthcare but reject it as to their own mansions.

Jam for Jay

By every account I've heard, Jay Koontz was a wonderful man. He died too young as a result of leukemia. His widow Linda has ever since hosted a concert at the Firefighters' Union Hall on Mass. Ave. entitled Jam for Jay as a fundraiser for leukemia and lymphoma research. It is a good event for a good cause. You can bring your own picnic and booze, if you're into that kind of thing.

I play in the band.

If you want to have some fun and donate money (if you can) to a good cause, please come out and join tonight at 7:00. As I said, it is on Mass. Ave., just southwest of College and across the street from the Mass. Ave. Pub. The Firefighters' Union Hall.

Economic Development Question

I hear often about "economic development" plans from localities that are essentially subsidizing private projects via tax dollars, either directly by backing bonds or indirectly by giving tax deferrals. Either way, these subsidies amount to millions of dollars spent by localities in furtherance of private industry.

Two examples of taxpayer-subsidized projects come to mind: Lucas Oil Stadium and the Wilshaw development. I have said before that if the Town of Speedway wants public parking, it should just build a parking garage instead of borrowing the money to build one, lending that money to a developer, then leasing the garage to the developer in exchange for revenue from the garage. It's a rube goldberg device.

I also hear justification for Lucas Oil Stadium in the form of "look at how many jobs it creates" with all of the hotel, restaurant, convention, etc., traffic created by the facility.

I suppose my big question is this: Why don't we just directly invest in those jobs by doing things like hiring teachers? Paying for their health insurance? Hiring construction workers to build better roads? (the NW corner of 465 comes to mind, but that's just because I commute past that area every day).

In a nutshell, it appears that there is a bipartisan consensus that government spending to create jobs is OK. In that instance, why settle for low-wage ALICE ("asset limited income constrained employed") jobs? Why not go for good middle-class jobs with benefits? It seems that we could do so if we cut out the middle man, i.e. Jim Irsay or Loftus/Robinson.

Just a thought.

Election Eve Plea to the Baby Boomers

Our politics are different. I get it. I am a liberal progressive. You are staunchly conservative. I get it.

However, please think about your children, grandchildren, and parents when you pull the lever tomorrow. Remember that your parents stormed the beach in Normandy to defeat fascism. Remember that they stood down both communism and fascism in their lifetimes. Remember that you were raised in an era where what was best for the country dominated political discussion, not what would best stick it to the other side.

Remember that you were raised in an era when the "fairness doctrine" forced users of the public airwaves to provide equal time to opposing political viewpoints; as opposed to now, where you can listen to the radio in Indiana all day and, with the exception of Lake Co. where Chicago stations are available, you will never hear a spirited defense of liberalism; rather, you just listen to straw men being knocked down, day in and day out.

Remember that you were raised in an era when how well the working class was doing was more important than how well the financial markets were doing; we now live in a state that recently passed a Right to Work law.

Remember that you were raised in an era that had considerably less national wealth than now, yet managed to provide more and better public services. We now live in an era where college costs tens of thousands of dollars per year and cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are looming (to get the debt under control following the $1.5T tax-cutting orgy that has reduced my taxes by approximately $50).

Remember that, from George Washington through Jimmy Carter, we built up a national debt of $1T. That number is now nearly $22T. (And no, it wasn't all Obama's doing, either).

Remember that your kids had to incur debt approaching a mortgage to get that college education that you financed with a summer job. Remember that your kids have another mortgage payment to pay for health insurance, whereas when you had young kids health insurance was approximately as costly as county income taxes. Remember that your children, for all of their faults, are raising your grandchildren. Remember that your grandchildren will also need healthcare and an education, both of which are becoming increasingly unaffordable.

Remember that your generation was given much by its forebears; and its forebears was given much by theirs.

Remember, as we all do, that Bill Clinton lied when he claimed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Recall that Barack Obama needlessly exaggerated when he said "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." (He should have qualified that with "For 90% of those affected" but the opportunity to do that has past). Recall, also, that these lies stick out because they were anomalous. Recall that, as of Friday, Donald Trump averaged 30 false or misleading claims per day

Recall that no previous president in your lifetime has gleefully promised to lock up his political opponents. No previous president in your lifetime has publicly declared that the media is the "enemy of the people."

Remember that the world as it is now is a result of your lifetime of choices, just as it used to be the way it was because of your parents' choices.

You did not vote for the policies that led to Vietnam or the Great Depression, but you did vote for the policies that led to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Great Recession.

If you like the way the world has changed since the "good old days," then keep voting the way you have since the "good old days." If you think that your grandchildren are getting a worse deal than you did, perhaps you think about changing your voting behavior.

America will be here longer than you and/or I will be. When you vote, please think about the world you intend to leave behind.

On Halloween

I don't like Halloween, and I'm not quite sure why. One would think that it's right in my wheelhouse: Pagan celebration? Check. Creepy stuff? Yes. Occult? Roger, Roger. Celebration of villainy? For sure!

Getting away from the theme of the holiday itself, I also think that the rituals of Halloween are, themselves, positive. Kids going through the neighborhood, collecting candy from benevolent elders who are keeping an eye on the neighborhood to try to keep it as safe as possible? Count me in.

Unfortunately, I feel like Halloween in my neighborhood is underperforming. A minority of houses pass out candy, and I believe that's deleterious to the neighborhood. I fully understand that the neighborhood is teeming with trick-or-treaters who don't live here on Halloween. I guess I view it as a positive that they want to come to my neighborhood on this holiday. This is the destination. I hope I'm a good host. Nonetheless, numerous people keep their lights out and don't answer the door. It's a bummer.

Keeping to the point, thought. . . I just don't like Halloween. Probably because of the makeup and costumes. Is there a Grinch for Halloween? Unfortunately, I think that "he is I and I am him."