Premarital Morality

The topic for today is less about morality as it is practicality and public policy. Typically, when someone drops a food item onto the floor, some wiseacre spouts out "five second rule!" which, as you probably know, is a strict rule that states it is OK to eat food off the floor, as long as it is picked up within the first five seconds of being on the ground. The wikipedia page about the five second rule references a Mythbusters episode that basically debunks the whole rule. But should we throw out the whole rule? Should we never eat anything that has touched the ground?

No, we should not be so obstinate. A lot of time good food hits the floor, and it would be a waste to just throw it away. The five second rule, for all its flaws, gives us a framework to find a justification for eating food thrown on the ground, and I think that is a good thing. While concerns about spreading disease may be valid, chances are that no one is at any risk except the person who picks up the food and consumes it. People quote this rule because they are probably slightly embarrassed about eating off the floor. They desire their foodstuff enough that they are willing to take the risk of getting sick, but they are looking for a justification to make it somehow (no matter how tenuously) socially acceptable. But the rule fails because it is too stringent, and lacks any nuance whatsoever. Why should we treat dropped yogurt or a potato chip in the same way? With this in mind, I have come up with the following parameters set in place to modify the five second rule, but still allow for the slobbier of us to maintain some semblance of dignity.

I call it the "Phour Potentially Poisoned Parameters for Phood" or Quintuple-P, for short:

1. When food hits the floor, the character of the food is of paramount importance:
a) Sticky food, such as lollipops, jolly ranchers and the like, are, regardless of time spent on the ground, never to be eaten, due to their absorptive properties
b) Non-solid foods, such as yogurt or smoothies are also excluded from eating after touching
the floor.
c) Solid foods, such as potato chips or baby carrots with very limited absorptive qualities may be allowed, if the surface qualifies.

2. The surface fallen on must qualify:
a) Bathrooms, locker rooms, or any place outdoors are prohibited.
b) Visibly dirty floors, or any floors that still reek off cleaning products are also prohibited.
c) Tables are allowed, as long as it is a somewhat clean table (i.e. no tables that strippers may have danced upon. Let's go ahead and exclude any food dropped at a strip club.)
d) Floors that appear clean, in houses that are well-maintained are eligible

3. Time spent on the ground must be reasonable. No hard and fast rule about time will be applied, but if it's on the ground more than a minute, or if you do not know how it got there, by no means will it be edible.

4. Quality of foodstuff will be considered. One of the above rules may be relaxed if food is
a) extremely expensive,
b) holds sentimental value (Mom's apple pie, etc), or
c) has been laced with some sort of mind-altering drug. (For example, if you're about to eat a pizza with "special mushrooms," I think you have more things to worry about than germs.


So, we now all have a framework to decide when exactly it is socially acceptable to eat off the floor. Notice how the five second rule is abolished, but its spirit lives on. This list is merely a first draft, and is open to amendments. Also, keep in mind, if no one is watching, no rules apply. Eating off the floor is then between you and God.

Premarital Morality

I am premiering a new segment today called Premarital Morality, in which I will try to put to good use some of my very expen$ive law school education to a common issue that everyday people face, and come up with an answer that we can all feel good about. Today's topic: Handicapped stalls.

I used to feel bad about using handicapped bathroom stalls, and would never use them. But, is it really a faux pas to use them if you're not handicapped? Is using a handicapped stall like using a handicapped parking space?

No, it's not. Think about it why they are there. The handicapped stalls are probably there because ofis a government regulation requiring them to be in certain buildings. They exist so that handicapped people will have a comfortable place to go to the bathroom, with ample room. But are they there exclusively for handicapped people? No. If all the other stalls are full, and there is no one in the handicapped one, I have a right to use it. It would be unreasonable and inefficient to waste a perfectly good stall on the off-chance that a handicapped person will roll in and have to wait a few seconds. We all have to wait to use the toilet at crowded public events like concerts and sporting events (women more than men, or so I'm told). Just because you're handicapped does not mean you have a free pass every time you get to the bathroom. A wheelchair is no VIP pass, no "go to the front of the line" card. Most handicapped people want to be treated just the same as everyone else. So, they should wait with the rest of us in line at the bathroom, awkwardly making meaningless chitchat as we do our very best to not see another man's penis.

Well, aren't handicapped stalls just like handicapped parking spots? Aren't you being just as much a jerk when you use the stalls? No, it's a completely different scenario. Public bathroom trips are usually a couple of minutes, at most, which is a reasonable time to wait. You could park somewhere for hours, and really screw some people over, and that's not fair. Also, the main reason they exist is so people have a shorter walk to wherever they're trying to go. When you use their space, you're forcing them to park further away, which may cause them additional pain, which is not good. A much larger inconvenience than waiting a minute or two in the bathroom.

Now, my analysis comes with a caveat: yes, I believe we all have the same rights to those bathrooms, but use some common courtesy. If you're next in line in the bigger stalls, and you see someone on crutches limping along in pain, be a good person and let them cut in front of you. Just don't give me a dirty look when you see me exiting the spacious stalls.

For a hilarious exchange about this topic, seee Curb Your Enthusiasm episode "The Bowtie"

Cavemen, Revisited

You may have remembered I ripped into the new TV show based on the Geico Caveman commercials a while back. And tonight, I actually decided to watch the thing. What did I think of it? Well, it wasn't Armageddon. God did not strike me down as I clicked "record" on my Tivo remote (but for some reason I felt like I was tempting fate). It was a pretty standard sitcom: three 20-somethings living in an apartment, getting into conflicts, holding a mirror up to society, etc. And there was not a laugh track, which earns major points for me. It was mildly entertaining, and I even chuckled a couple of times. But will I going to cry when they stop producing episodes because of the writer's strike? No. Am I going to be sad when it inevitably gets canceled because it's a flimsy premise for a TV show? Not really.

But, unlike the people who call the FCC when Janet Jackson's boob pops out, or make a stink when someone slips up and lets out an F Bomb, I respect its right to be on TV. That's the great thing about TV: there are so many channels, and if something upsets you, you can change the channel. Stupid people need shows to watch, too. We can't expect our nation's mediocre minds to follow the plot of Lost, or keep track of all the characters on Heroes (frankly I have trouble with both of those, too). And for those people, we have Cavemen, Mind of Mencia, and The View. So we should therefore have more shows with boob slips and casual swearing for those of us who are "mature" enough to handle it, because we have a right to have our shows, too.

I'm not sure if my argument made any sense, I've been expanding all my mental energy on a law memo. Let me know...

Judgment of Cavemen is reversed and remanded, with costs.