The largest, wealthiest companies in the world such as Amazon, Facebook and Google seem untouchable. Their CEOs are making billions of dollars every year as we watch the wealth gap in society increase. Yet, these same wealthy CEOs are pledging to give away parts of their fortunes to help fix the problems their companies have caused; many, such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburg, have committed billions of dollars to philanthropic projects to address social problems on the mission of advancing human potential and promoting equality. But, is it philanthrocapitalism or just corporate hypocrisy?

The concept of philanthrocapitalism is a double-edged sword to many; the fundamental question is if wealth is inherently immoral and if so, then “ethical wealth” would be an oxymoron. While it is difficult to dig down into the core of how billionaires perceive the world and how their own biases inform their approach to wealth, there are many troubles with wealthy people running and administering charitable efforts. Many of the arguments about the ethics of the sheer concentration of wealth the top 1% possesses boil down to arguments about merit. Some say that the rich deserve the money they have and, therefore, should use it as they see fit. Somewhere in the middle, there are people that argue that while they have earned their money based on hard work, they now have the moral obligation to use their wealth to ameliorate other’s suffering; after all, capitalism is the system that elevated the rich.

What is Philanthrocapitalism?

With the rise of billionaires that have amassed exorbitant amounts of wealth, the scope of philanthropy has changed. Philanthrocapitalism is different from traditional forms of philanthropy and charity work because it involves a capitalist and for-profit approach to solving the world’s pressing issues. An increasing number of billionaires are engaging in this new form of “market-based philanthropy”. The wide held belief is that the billionaires of the world will be the solution to the world’s problems because wealth distribution will benefit those in need.

The CEO Society

The apparent generosity by CEOs is a small contribution to large problems created by the success of their company. It amounts to redirecting fractions of spoils of neoliberal tech capitalism in the name of generosity to try to address the problems of wealth inequality created by the system that allowed spoils to accrue in the first place. The “CEO society” is a society where values associated with corporate leadership are applied to all dimensions of human endeavour. By portraying the image of using private wealth for the public good, it diverts attention and resources away from the failings of capitalism. It is no longer a problem as to whether corporations should be responsible for more than their own business interests, but how philanthropy can be used to reinforce the system that enabled the small number of people to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth in the first place.

In 2019, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative teamed up on a $500 million Bay Area housing fund as an investment fund to preserve affordable housing in the Bay Area. However, tech companies such as Facebook are the ones who contributed to the California housing crisis. Despite the fact that wealthy companies are one of the main contributors to many of the social problems in our world, they are also the most subject to blame. Because CEOs are at the forefront of the political and media stage, they are the most vulnerable to being blamed for the economic injustice in our world and thus, must balance their company’s and personal commitment to profit and social outcomes. On the outside, philanthrocapitalism is a moral cover for companies because when chief executives are portrayed as “socially responsible,” it allows corporations to run as irresponsibly as ever and grants them that moral right through public engagement in the company’s reputation management. Companies are willing to sacrifice some short-term profit for the sake of preserving public reputation and philanthropy is often undertaken in a business-oriented way to balance the importance of reputation and corporate self-interest. Giving to charity is the prime opportunity for CEOs to appear as “doing good” without having to sacrifice commitment to making profit at a social cost.

In 2015, Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan committed 99% of their equity in Facebook shares to philanthropy, and this became a widely celebrated act. However, they made the donation to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, claiming that the decision to donate to their own for-profit company was to “gain flexibility to execute their mission more effectively.” The problem is that the charitable donation does not have the transparency requirements that NGOs have, and this limits how much wealth can be taxed and reinvested into society for good purposes.

Privatizing philanthropy and allowing wealthy individuals and private entities to take over charity is concerning because their privatized, market-based approach removes their social responsibility and allows them to use philanthropy as a moral cover to leverage their wealth and advance their own corporate interests. While the world has seen tremendous benefits from philanthrocapitalist efforts from organizations such as The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation combating global poverty and improving global health in developing nations, philanthrocapitalist actions are more likely to justify wealth inequality in the public’s eye and allow billionaires to exacerbate the global problems they claim to be the best agents of change for. It is hard to say whether billionaires are ethical or whether philanthrocapitalism will be successful, but the problems that arise with it should not be ignored.

Quarantine has given us some time on our hands - some of us have worked extra hard on our schoolwork, picked up a couple new hobbies, or explored a new music genre we never would have thought of (how’s Progressive Metal for ya?). One thing we can all agree on is the fact that we’ve spent a lot of time online - and with the transition to an online platform, I can say that not only myself, but others, have seen an increase in student-run ‘organizations’ that strive to solve anything - ranging from equity to cultural barriers.

I take no issue with innovative causes and unexplored territory in the realm of social justice and awareness. We should be collectively striving to better ourselves and expand our knowledge on unknown subjects. But what I have an issue with is the number of accounts that have self-declared themselves as the pinnacle of a movement, creating applications for their ‘staff’ and developing a hierarchy within their own organization. It does not sit right with me that students are neglecting to do their research on pre-established and accredited organizations, with more funding and members that can actually create change. If a club were to effectively collaborate with an existing organization or start a new chapter of a properly-run organization, the story would read differently.

I haven’t even touched on the worst part of these accounts (mostly found on Instagram) - they’re incredibly vague. They seem to have no clear and focused cause, merely that ‘barriers = bad’ or ‘racism = bad’. It becomes a toxic echo chamber where you recognize something is bad, but you don’t know how to solve it beyond cutely coloured instagram posts with 20 words and a Canva template. The appearance of these Instagram infographics paired with a soft palette has stormed through social media, but when they already say what another has said, it leads to digesting the same content over and over again, with no main goal. It’s almost like a meal that you’re stuck eating everyday. A quick Wikipedia search and look at Twitter statistics does not ground an organization. I definitely believe social media is an amazing way to gain support and educate others, but the regurgitation of information and the concept of applications and positions often show people’s true intentions.

Especially in UTS, as we progress through our high school years, there may feel the need to be the CEO, the president, or the founder of a company - all as a means to highlight your achievements on your resume. Colleges will love it right? The words ‘Founder’,’ CEO’, or ‘President’ may grace your resume but is that worth the destruction of your dignity? People are taking advantage of systemic barriers and social justice issues worldwide, for personal gain. I am by no means a college admission officer; in fact, I am quite the opposite, but how self-indulgent can you be to believe that others cannot see through this act? You are preying on disadvantages and systemic barriers, just for what exactly? To fill out your tenth activity slot on your common application? To show that you REALLY care about the world?

Some of the issues that these accounts speak about are real. They are not packaged up in an aesthetically pleasing, pastel-pink post with their Abril Fatface Font. People face some of these issues daily. They suffer daily. I cannot even fathom how incredibly diminishing and disrespectful the act of capitalizing on others’ suffering for your own greed is.

Not even to mention that most of these ‘organizations’ have been started coincidentally as university applications open - adding to the transparent narrative that they’ve written for themselves. Take a look for yourself, what does your position even mean? These words have become meaningless, autofilled, LinkedIn job titles. I will never understand at what point you sacrifice your dignity to put yourself on a polished plate of nonsense and feed it to college admission officers.

Your post-secondary education may be important, but so is empathy. If you cannot develop this trait, there will be no success for you. And if there is, remember it was on the grounds of you exploiting actual social justice issues for the pretty title of CEO.

Four years ago, one day before Donald J. Trump became the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, a prominent American Senator tweeted the following dire prediction: “If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed...and we will deserve it”. Oddly enough, the senator in question wasn’t a Democrat. Instead, the man posting that somewhat prescient tweet was none other than the President’s famed “attack-dog”: Lindsey Graham.

On the surface, the above anecdote seems to be just another example of the bizarre internal dichotomy of the 2016 GOP. The 2016 Republican primary remains the best example of a winning candidate being viscerally hated by the Party’s establishment, and yet loved by it’s base. However, this all ties into a deeper narrative. As of writing (pre November 3rd), it seems quite likely that Donald Trump will lose the 2020 election. That begs the question, what comes next for the Grand Old Party?

A number of variables dictate the future of the GOP, and thus, the future of the United States. First and foremost is the scale of the potential defeat. In the moderate scenario, Trump could lose by only 20 electoral votes and 2%-3% of the popular vote. In the worst-case scenario, Trump could lose by nearly 300 electoral votes with Joe Biden winning the popular vote by a margin of 5%-7%. Secondly, if the moderate (and more likely scenario) occurs, which battleground states does Trump retain/win? Keeping Rust-Belt states like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin while losing Arizona and North Carolina could have radically different ramifications on the Republican post-mortem after the election. Finally, the question of the voting demographics. Will Trump retain the traditional GOP advantage amongst older White voters and make some inroads amongst minority voters or will there be a blowout for Republicans in most demographic groups?

With the aforementioned questions in mind, I foresee three possible scenarios:

1. 1. 1. The Return to Reaganism.

      2. A Continuation of Trumpism.

      3. A New GOP.

Simply put, in the first scenario, the GOP returns to its pre-2008 form with a few key changes. The party, presumably tired of the melodrama of its populist experiment and a horrendous loss in 2020, would turn back to its roots of Evangelicals, Free Market Libertarians/Conservatives, Interventionist-types and the lingering remnants of the Country Club Republicans. However, the Pandora’s Box of Trumpism has made some unalterable changes to the GOP as a whole, and even these old-school Reaganites would be forced to adapt. It is unlikely that they will be as unabashedly pro “capitalism for capitalism’s” sake as prior Republican administrations. Even moderate current Republicans like Marco Rubio have openly called for “Common-Good Capitalism”, a somewhat leftist suggestion. Secondly, there is a general consensus that American voters no longer think highly of interventionist Neoconservatism (86% of Americans think that military action should be an action of last resort while 71% believe that Congress should pass legislation to prevent military action overseas.) Thus, two of the core tenets of old-school Republicans would have to be tempered, if not dramatically changed. Even more worrying for those who long for a Reaganite restoration is the fact that it would be utterly unable to win elections. After all, Mitt Romney, the very definition of 21st century vanilla conservatism, lost to Barack Obama in the 2012 election. The traditional Republican politician and platform is unable to appeal to the blue collar workers in the Midwest that shattered the infamous Democratic “Blue Wall”, who tend to favour protectionist economic policy.

Furthermore, in the ongoing American culture war, this faction would be ill-prone to represent the Right’s beliefs, while obviously being unable to convert many Left-leaning individuals. Specifically, the grievances that many amongst the Right, far-left and even some independents have are often best demonstrated by these Establishment Republicans. Both Bernie and Trump call for a “Political Revolution” or to “Drain the Swamp!”, with the establishment in question being that of old school conservatives.. Additionally, there is a growing sentiment amongst Conservatives that the Mainstream Media is biased against the Right and inherently untrustworthy. According to Gallup, this sentiment is widespread: only 15% of Republicans and 36% of independents trust the media. While I concur with this idea of media bias, the Republican establishment does not. When John McCain, a decent and honourable man, was dragged over the coals by the media in 2008, Republicans had no response. In 2012, Mitt Romney was repeatedly and unfairly depicted as a disgusting sexist (for making a comment about his efforts to recruit more women during his tenure as State Governor) and as an out-of-touch businessman. Once again, the Right had no response to the media’s excesses. In a post-Trump world, conservatives will almost certainly continue to demand forceful responses to the Left on just about every hot-button societal/cultural question (abortion, political correctness, the media etc); traditional Republicans unfortunately, have few answers to offer.

The second scenario is likely to occur if Biden barely ekes out a victory on November the 3rd or if Trump's loss isn’t decisive enough to be a full repudiation of his Presidency. It could see Donald Trump remain as the GOP’s flagstaff, perhaps even attempting to return to the White House in 2024 (a feat only accomplished by Grover Cleveland). However, I find it highly unlikely that the Party-or even his voter base, who prefer “winners”- would tolerate such a failed candidate. Thus, it seems more likely that the populist/nationalist wing of the GOP shall be heralded by figures including Donald Trump Junior or popular Fox host Tucker Carlson. The clear question this poses is how well would a Trump redux fair 4 or 8 years from now?

In my opinion, they could do fairly well. For the most part, especially in the pre-COVID era, I think Trump could point to a number of major successes with regards to the economy, foreign affairs and even some general domestic policies. Fundamentally, a politician with all the benefits of Trump but few of his obvious drawbacks (his loudmouth narcissistic personality online, sexual assault allegations, major gaffes in public statements) could succeed in winning an election. This hypothetical candidate could put the Rust Belt back in play by focusing on the blue-collar successes of Trump’s administration as well as brandishing their protectionist credentials (the renegotiation of NAFTA, pull-out from TPP, increased tariffs). A potential populist candidate could also run on the plethora of success Trump had in other regards. Median household income grew by $6000 in just 3 years under Trump (compared to $257 from 1999-2016) while the GDP grew consistently faster than under Obama (even during the pandemic, 56% of American’s said they were better off financially), and the unemployment rate (especially for African Americans and Hispanics) dropped to historic lows. With regards to criminal justice, Trump passed the First Step Act, freeing thousands of incarcerated Americans. In terms of foreign policy, Trump led the way in pulling out of foreign conflicts, withdrawing thousands of US soldiers from the “never-ending wars” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria while also partaking in historic Middle East peace agreements between Israel and her neighbours. Overall, there is a lot of material for Trump’s potential successors to run with. Crucially, they will not be encumbered by his major personal flaws, specifically, with regards to his extremely questionable personal character.

However, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows in the world of populist right-wingers. They face a number of stumbling points that could prevent them from being the heirs of the GOP. Firstly, voter’s memories may linger, especially if the pandemic continues to rage on during Joe Biden’s term. Secondly, demographic change may doom a populist right wing party into oblivion (as I have written about previously). With previously stalwart Republican strongholds like Texas and Arizona turning into purple swing states, in part due to the increase of their Hispanic populations, it is unlikely that populist anti-immigration policies will gain much traction.

The final possibility I envision would be the end of both the old school GOP and its current flirtation with populism, and a complete revival. This scenario is most likely to occur in an unprecedented large electoral defeat, but could also occur in a less significant loss. In this situation, the party would adopt certain aspects of both the Reaganite and Trump wings respectively, while also moving forwards with regards to immigration, race-related issues, climate change etc. Right now, it seems unimaginable that such a radical transformation could occur in the Republican party that we know today, but if worst comes to worst on November 3rd, the current strand of Republicanism may be repudiated, forever.

What would this new conservative party look like? For one, it would be forced to broaden its appeal across the country (a fact noted in the GOP’s internal autopsy after the 2012 election). Trump has made some inroads in broadening Republican popularity amongst Black Americans as well as Latinos. This hypothetical new Republican would likely build upon “common-sense” police/criminal justice reform, expanding upon Trump’s initiatives, while staying away from the radical Left’s turpitudes. For example, according to yet another Gallup poll, 81% of African Americans want to retain the same amount of police presence. Obviously, the major problem of police brutality would have to be addressed, but perhaps a future Republican administration would be better placed to do so; after all, it did take Nixon to go to China! Other policy changes that would have to be made would be with regards to topics ranging from climate change to drug legalization. A more Libertarian route with the latter could help appeal to youth, especially those in Gen Z, while for the former, market oriented solutions to tackle climate change could improve the GOP’s standing with Independent voters.

At the end of the day, each of the above predictions has its own benefits and pitfalls, for the Republican Party and for America herself. We cannot be sure of what exactly will happen in the remaining days before the election, and in the years to come. What I can say, however, as a steadfast right-winger, is that should President Trump turn out to be a crippling Faustian bargain, American conservatism will be set back for a generation. That, is something that the Republican Party cannot and must not allow to occur.

Of course, bear in mind that all of the above has one major caveat: a Trump re-electoral victory on November the 3rd, 2020. But of course, we all know, that would be impossible, wouldn’t it?

As the school year begins, many people are worried about the impacts of social distancing and virtual learning on our social lives.

Masks cover most of our faces, hiding many of the facial cues we use to communicate with others. The difficulties inherent in video conferencing (such as blurring, freezing, jerkiness, out-of-sync audio) create a confusing environment for people to interact in. Both options are completely new ways of connecting that seem to work on the surface. But there’s a reason why they make you feel uneasy, even if you’re technically socializing with others.

The problem is that these disruptions, whether it’s a mask covering someone’s face or glitches in a video call, scramble subtle social cues we use in day-to-day conversation. Our brains struggle to fill in the gaps: is that person glaring at me or just looking around? It’s hard to tell because their mask covers their mouth. Are they subconsciously judging me because the lighting makes my face look like a skeleton? I hate video calls.

We may attempt to fix these problems through using only video conferencing (where one can see the entire face without a mask) with better connection and better lighting. But while this may fix the video quality and eliminate disruptions to some extent, we may still feel discomfort when we speak because it feels like everyone in the call is staring at you, and we are all hyper-aware of our appearance when our cameras are turned on. It seems like there isn’t a true way to mimic casual conversation from daily life virtually without feeling slightly awkward.

An alternative solution to maintain casual conversation over long distances is simply making phone calls instead of video calls. This may sound obvious: after all, anyone can call others at only the touch of a button — why would someone choose to eliminate the facial aspect of communication? Isn’t seeing each others’ faces exactly what we’re missing? In reality, phone calls take away the slight awkwardness of face-to-face calls because you can communicate solely through voice. Facial expressions cannot be misconstrued, which means there are less likely to be feelings of discomfort and confusion. As experts have said, no facial cues are better than faulty ones.

The best part of phone calling is the casual atmosphere. The biggest difference between video and voice is that your appearance doesn’t matter as much. Voice calls allow for an additional layer of privacy,a non-intrusive way to keep in touch with others if you’re uncomfortable with showing your face or your background. Voice calls also mimic pre-pandemic social interactions- a friend’s voice is less likely to change than their appearance, providing a sense of stability and familiarity.

As you chat with someone on the phone, you may become aware of the slightest details. Putting the phone right next to your ear makes your brain subconsciously sense that there is a person close to you physically, and unlike video calls, you can clearly hear the slight nuances and changes. When video is eliminated, you become focused on the things they are saying, and you can pick up subtle shifts in expression through breathing patterns, slight tone shifts, and the occasional hesitation. When it comes to developing relationships in isolation, sometimes it’s better to be heard and not seen.

You are going on a date, the first in months, maybe. What places come to mind? A restaurant, a movie theatre, a mall, an art gallery? But with The Disease going around, you probably don’t want to be sitting around inside. Depending on when and where you’re reading this, it might even be banned. So, you conclude, the great outdoors it must be: long walks on the streets of Toronto, with nothing but your extensive knowledge of luxury chalk brands and tennis serve technique to keep the conversation going.

I like this plan. It is an honest date, in my opinion. If you enjoy it, then you have enjoyed each other’s company for the full duration of the date instead of -3 seconds of exchange as you buy tickets before watching a movie. How things work out is a legitimate reflection of how you two get along.

Just as we are thinking we have the upper hand—us, the pitiful humans scrabbling out an existence, daring to feel for each other—winter rears her ugly head. Winter in Canada can be good: it is good to feel winter seeping through your clothes for a few seconds as you move from a car to a building or from a building to a car, to see your breath as you go for a brisk walk around the block with your class on a break, to throw snowballs, to break icicles, to look at the falling flakes. It is not as good to trudge through 20 centimetres of snow as you wonder to yourself if holding hands through gloves still counts. As I write this, there has been a warm spell in Toronto. I just checked the forecast, and the temperature only goes down from here. It’s almost mid-November, so I think that it won’t go back up until spring. That isn’t fun, nossir. But have hope, every situation can be handled. Buy hot drinks, wear many layers, walk instead of sitting, stuff like that. But still, a bummer. Strange to think that mother nature should be able to freeze or thaw out human interaction in the 21st century. But she is, and she does.

There’s also the problem of finding a place to meet. Regrettably for dating, UTS is a good school: people apply from all over. Meeting anywhere apart from school is difficult unless you’re next-door neighbors by a geographical fluke. Covid 19 has unfortunately made TTC less of an option than it used to be. If you’re among the elderly elite of the school who can freely drive wherever the Hell you want without supervision, then I respect and admire you; us proles, however, must make do with what we’ve got. I mean, you’re not exactly going to ask your mom or dad to drop you off at a date. It’s fine if they’re picking you up a little late from school; that’s more justified. But having them go out of their way when there’s no school to drive their kid to a date? Call me whatever you like, but that’s not a measure even I would resort to.

This makes meeting after school the best option for many. As I write we have one class per day and two different classes per week. Moreover, you attend school online for a good chunk of those days that you have school. Let me indulge in calculation. Suppose for the sake of argument that you have seven classes and three spares (the non-overload amount for my grade). On a randomly chosen day there is a 49% chance that you and your date both do not have a spare. On a day that you both do not have a spare, there is a 25% chance that you both have the in-person cohort for that day. Therefore, there is about a 12% chance on a random day that you are both physically at school. Remember, this is not even the probability of being in class together; this is the probability of being physically in the building at the same time so that you can go on a date after school, for example. Keep in mind that this neglects the Humbert–371 split, people voluntarily staying home as a personal choice, co curricular activities after school, with a hearty et cetera.

With this already dismal figure in mind, one can only shudder at the nightmarish probabilities stacked against polyamourous relationships at UTS. A disclaimer to the reader: if you are in a polyamourous relationship, consider not reading the rest of this paragraph; I would not want to discourage love with facts and figures. You can make anything happen if you want to. But for a bit of perverse enjoyment, let us compute the probabilities anyways. To extend the perversity, let us, instead of relying on comforting and concrete numbers like 7/10, let the variable x denote the probability of a random day not being a spare. In other words, x is approximately the number of classes you are taking divided by 10. Let n denote the number of individuals in your polyamourous, exclusively UTS-based relationship, including yourself. Then the probability that y’all do not have a spare on a given day is x^n. The probability that y’all have the cohort that goes to school on that day is 1/(2^n). Therefore the probability that you can all go on a date after school on a random day is the dreary (x/2)^n. For the spare frequency we assumed earlier, we get 4% for a threesome, 1.5% for a foursome, 0.5% for a fivesome, and so on to impossibility. Keep in mind, this formula is only accurate for small n compared to the number of people attending class on a given day. For example, if the entire school was engaged in a polygamous relationship then the miniature probability of 0.45^700 would be an overestimate; not everybody can attend school at once due to class sizes so the true probability would be zero. You have been warned; do not use this formula for planning which requires a high degree of precision and a large number of people involved. The derivation of the fully accurate solution is left as an exercise to the reader.

But all that’s not the worst of it. Remember, if you have a spare on Monday, then that spare shows up on Thursday too. If you are in cohort B on Tuesday and your (we revert to considering monogamous relationships) partner is in cohort A on Tuesday, then you’re not at school together on Friday, either. The bad days are correlated to each other. And keep in mind that you have the same classes and cohorts for the whole three-week chunk. Basically, either you see your date a whole lot (relatively speaking, for covid), or barely at all. This kind of splish splash whippity whappity uncertainty is not good for any relationship. One needs stability, reliability, but that is not what the situation has given. Ah, the old days when everybody went to school every day!

Another issue: wearing masks causes acne. Cue the earlier sentence containing the word ‘proles’ but with appropriate substitutions. The whole shabang, and by shabang I extend myself from covid 19 or wearing masks and instead mean possessing an epidermis, can be a real pain in the ass at times, or always. This applies when you exist platonically in society, or even just alone with yourself and a mirror, but it is doubly a factor when you are, as the subject of this essay would suggest, going on a date. There is a lot to be said about acne, especially about how to not have it. I will restrict myself to covid 19 relevant details. Try to restrict, within reason, the number of situations where you need to wear a mask. If you’re visiting a friend and are near their house, consider staying in the backyard or something instead of going inside. If you’re reluctant to share with people that you don’t want to go in their house because you don’t want to wear a mask and get acne, consider saying that you don’t want to go inside to prevent covid 19 spread. As for the masks themselves, try to get soft cloth fabrics that don’t irritate your skin. As well, the more loose-fitting the mask is the better for your skin, but the worse for disease control; that is a tradeoff I leave in your hands. Also, wash your face as soon as you get home. Consider the upside of the whole situation: masks hide the acne they cause.

Speaking of masks, we have the issue of whether or not to wear a mask while on a date, and more generally what degree you are to social distance. If your date is flagrantly disregarding mask wearing and social distancing protocols, remember that it is your duty as a Canadian citizen, honourable UTS representative, and self-respecting member of the human race to make sure that they’re really hot before you go along with it. On your end, try not to pressure anybody to do things they aren’t comfortable with, because that is not cool beans.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. I hope you enjoyed my essay on COVID-19 and dating.

[Disclaimer: Technically speaking, at the time of writing, to the best of my knowledge, swearing to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, when you deduct income tax on the bottom line, cross all t’s, dot all i’s, obtain the proper paperwork signed in triplicate, put all matrices in reduced row echelon form, edit out all instances of the phrase “the fact that”, and get adequate leeward heel to point upwind, I have not actually been on a date recently.]