Connect with us

Spilled Milk: Treehouse Envy

Published

on

This post is the fifth in a series of Spilled Milk columns by Emmy Award-winning writer and producer William Lucas Walker that chronicle his journey through parenthood. Spilled Milk, which originates in The Huffington Post, appears on these pages every Saturday.

I never thought when I started building my kids a treehouse that it would turn into a competition. A competition inside my mind — the worst kind. What follows is the sad story of how two hot daddies got under my bark.

hot daddy /hät ‘da-dÄ“/ adjective + noun: the father of a kid at your kid’s school, who, instead of aging, balding and gaining weight like you and the other dads, somehow manages to show up on campus looking like the Marlboro Man or worse, a Calvin Klein underwear model.

As any mom won’t tell you, hot daddy sightings make trips to school more fun. They just do. Still, in spite of these occasional diversions, I sometimes wish they’d refrain from breeding. Their kids make my kids look bad.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s flash back to the sixties.

I grew up in South Carolina, on the edge of a small town in a new development oddly named Pitts Meadows. Oddly named because no Pitts families lived there, and there were no meadows, just lots of woods. Which made Pitts Meadows a perfect place for treehouses, great news for the explosion of kids moving in. Every May there’d be tons of new construction. When the workers would knock off around 5, swarms of us non-Pitts termites would descend, devouring every last scrap of wood we could steal for our treehouses.

This went on all summer. Deep in the woods, with no adults to supervise or tell us what not to do, we combined unfettered imagination with a staggering lack of skill to construct some of the most awesome, ramshackle masterpieces in the history of treehousing. Nothing was planned, nothing was level and, best of all, nothing was safe. Our treehouses were flammable, unstable deathtraps. And for good reason: we literally loved them more than life.

Somehow we understood that danger was a key element in the successful treehouse equation; where’s the fun if there’s no risk of backing into a nail, slicing open your leg or falling 10 feet and landing on your brother?

It was a different time. Safety issues never seemed to bother our parents — as long as you made it home for supper alive with no visible signs of sexual molestation, they seemed content. These were the brave men and women who protected us from the elements by putting asbestos roofs over our heads, tucking us into bunks with no railings and driving us to school in smoke-filled cars where cigarette lighters came standard but seatbelts didn’t.

Hindsight apologists will say no one knew the dangers back then, but I don’t buy it. The pill was not yet in wide use and families had lots more kids. Nobody says it out loud, but it’s pretty clear to me the asbestos, second-hand smoke, and lack of seatbelts were deliberate strategies for thinning the herd.

Back to the present. I’m now married with two kids and living in the Hollywood Hills. Living in the hills can be a challenge when raising children. Kids roll down hills. (See “Jack and Jill.”)

When our first child was on her way, our real estate agent encouraged us to sell our house and buy something in a more kid-friendly neighborhood, code for a flat backyard and a fat commission for her. I’d worked hard for a house with a view of the Hollywood sign, and I wasn’t about to trade it in just so my kid could have a yard that took all the challenge out of walking. So we kept our hill but dug a few holes, sank some posts, put in a retaining wall and voila: a lovely, level yard built into our existing hillside. And still, across the canyon, H-O-L-L-Y-W-O-O-D, conveniently located for alphabet lessons.

A few years later, after our son was born, something strange began to happen. A pine grove on the hill below began… calling to me. It was almost like music. I would stand on our deck watching those five stately pines caressing the sky with their graceful, newly-needled branches, and I could actually hear a melody, a two-syllable lyric floating on its perfect, five-note chords:

“Treehouse. Treehouse. Treehouse.”

Convincing James and Elizabeth was a snap; they were jazzed from the word “go.” We discussed what they wanted, I sketched out our basic idea and we set about our work. Once the basic shape of the floor was framed and level among the five pines, I laid down the floor, and we were off and running.

Then it happened.

Enter Hot Daddy No. 1.

I had spotted him months before at one of our school’s Friday-morning sings. Ruggedly handsome, a dark, silent, solid type, he bore a striking resemblance to the Marlboro Man. Beyond noting his resemblance to a cigarette ad, however, I had no feelings about him one way or another. Okay, maybe a couple. Until the night Kelly and I found ourselves at his and his wife’s home for a school fundraising event. I had just finished admiring their kitchen re-model and art collection, when I stepped into their back yard and saw it: The Thing.

Rising 30 feet in the air, it was the most spectacular-looking treehouse I’d ever seen. There was a staircase starting at the ground and climbing all the way up to the main structure. It was so high in the trees it towered over their actual people-live-in-it house. I found myself attracted and repelled at the same time, the way I feel when I see spider or drive through Beverly Hills.

I knew I had to see The Thing up close. As I started up the treehouse staircase, my legs began to buckle. I tried to calm myself. “It’s just a treehouse,” I repeated over and over, under my breath. But it wasn’t. I knew it and the treehouse knew it.

When I got to the top of the stairs, I entered the main structure, the house part of the treehouse. It was similar to what the kids and I had sketched out, with a flat, eight foot high ceiling and a real sliding barn door mechanism. Fine. Cool. I could handle that — I was planning a pitched roof and three sliding doors. But it turned out that the main structure was just a preamble to the main event. The money shot was a catwalk jutting out and over the entire length of their backyard. It must have been 25 feet long, complete with cutouts that allowed branches to grow through, setting the perfect scene for pirate sword fights and Star Wars paternity showdowns.

I began to feel sick.

After we got home, Kelly paid the babysitter while I went downstairs and shook my children awake from their sleep: “Get up, kids. We need to talk.”

“What’s wrong, Daddy?” Elizabeth asked, rubbing her eyes. “Is it an earthquake? Did somebody die?”

“It’s our treehouse.”

James, five-years-old and groggy, just looked at me, confused. “It died?”

“Not yet, but it will if we don’t up our game.”

“What are you doing?” Kelly’s voice and silhouette now filled the door frame.

“Just kissing the children goodnight,” I lied. I hugged the kids, whispering in their ears, “We’re being trounced. I need ideas by breakfast.” With the image of the Marlboro Man’s Thing seared into my brain, I got no sleep at all that night.

The next morning, I told the kids in detail what I’d seen. We spit-balled our new, improved treehouse over eggs and toast.

“We could splatter-paint the inside,” said Elizabeth.

“Can we have a fireman’s pole? I want a fireman’s pole!” cried James.

“Who doesn’t?” I agreed, jotting down notes.

After fielding a few more upgrades, I quickly drew a sketch of our new plans. When I was done, we all agreed the revision looked fierce. After dropping the kids at school, I drove to Home Depot to buy studs, where I ran into the real thing.

Hot Daddy No. 2.

I’d met him a couple of times. He’s a nice guy, so nice, in fact, that he’d grown a scruffy beard to cover his flawless bone structure so that the other dads felt less ugly. It didn’t work. His scruff was like Brad Pitt’s scruff, a monumental failure, like trying to hide Michelangelo’s David under a layer of Saran Wrap.

I said hello to Hot Daddy No. 2, we chatted about our boys and their progress with shapes, and he asked what I was doing at Home Depot. I told him I was there buying supplies for a treehouse I was building.

“No way, dude, I’m building a treehouse for my kids!” he crowed, showing a more animation than you’d expect from a Calvin Klein underwear model.

Because, you see, he actually was a Calvin Klein underwear model. Long before his son was coloring dinosaurs next to mine, images of Hot Daddy No. 2 in his CK briefs inflamed libidos across the land. News reports had it that in Arizona people actually burst into flames. His sizzling photos were everywhere — magazine covers, bus shelters, multi-page spreads in Vanity Fair. For nearly a year he stood over a 100 feet tall on a Times Square billboard, smoldering at the gawkers below wearing nothing but a packed pair of tighty-whities and a naughty smile.

And now he was standing in the lumber aisle of Home Depot smiling at me, but the only photos I cared about were the ones he was showing me on his iPhone, photos of his treehouse. His Thing made the Marlboro Man’s Thing look tame. It had a custom-built, spiral staircase leading up and around a tree trunk to architectural wonders so ridiculous I had to avert my eyes, fearing I would burst into flames.

The shame I felt was piercing.

I’ve always been good with my hands. I’m a man who can build things; it’s a skill I’m proud of. I had set about doing a noble, classically American, Norman Rockwellian dad thing: building a treehouse for my kids. What are the freaking odds there’d be not one but two other dads in one kindergarten class doing exactly the same thing, only looking miles hotter while doing it?

After Hot Daddy No. 2 left in search of materials for what would no doubt become an escalator to his kid’s treehouse media room, I called my husband to report this latest emotional indignity.

“It wouldn’t bother me if they looked like Bob Vela or even Tim Allen,” I unloaded. “But dammit, handy’s all I’ve got. How the hell do they get to be handy and hot? It’s not fair.”

As usual, Kelly saw the situation for what it was and patiently clarified things:

“So what if they’re hotter than you. Big deal. That’s not what’s this is about. What’s really bothering you is the fact that their treehouses are hotter than yours.”

Marriage is a cruel institution. He had nailed it with a high-decibal, pneumatic nail gun. Straight through my heart.

When I picked up the kids from school that afternoon, they took one look at my face and leapt for joy. Without my saying a word knew what was coming: a bigger, better treehouse for them.

Elizabeth: “Let’s put in a loft! With bunk beds!”

James: “And a trap door! I want a trap door! And a swimming pool.”

That was a year ago. We’re nowhere near done, but in keeping with the times I’m happy to report we’re officially underwater. On our treehouse.

I don’t begrudge the Hot Daddies. They’re both cool guys who, like me, are just trying to create something special for their kids. I have, however, subsequently learned a couple of things they initially failed to mention:

1) The Marlboro Man paid someone else to build his kids’ treehouse; and

2) The Crotch of Calvin Klein owns his own construction company, no doubt has a crew of workers and will probably be contracting out the escalator.

And, I’m guessing, their structures are probably built to code, something I would never sink to doing. Building to code is fine for houses. For treehouses, never. It eliminates the key element in the successful treehouse equation: raw danger.

My kids understand this in their bones. Because our treehouse is located way down the hill from our house, you actually have to rappel down a rope to get there. The entire thing has been built one board at a time, with me hanging on to that rope for dear life, climbing down backwards with boxes of tools, cartons of nails and splintery plywood clutched under my arm. I’m never happier than when we’re heading down there for another summer day’s work.

When Kelly announced his plan to build steps leading from the back yard down the hill, to make access to the treehouse safer and easier, the kids’ reaction was merciless and swift.

“No!” cried Elizabeth. “It’s way more fun to go down on the rope.”

“Yeah, no steps!” yelled James. “We like sliding down on our butts!”

Jack and Jill. I could not have been more proud.

(Full disclosure: It is established fact that my husband is the hottest daddy at school, and I’m not just saying that because he’s sitting here watching me type this. Hotly.)

 

* * * * *

William Lucas Walker is an Emmy Award-winning writer and producer whose television credits include Frasier, Will & Grace and Roseanne. He co-created the critically-acclaimed Showtime comedy The Chris Isaak Show. Bill and his husband Kelly are the parents of Elizabeth and James, born in 2001 and 2005. The children were gratified by the legal marriage of their parents in 2008, an event that rescued them from a life of ruinous bastardry.

Spilled Milk chronicles Bill’s misadventures in Daddyland. The first recurring humor column by a gay parent to appear in a mainstream American publication, Spilled Milk has regularly landed on the front page of The Huffington Post.

Follow William Lucas Walker on Twitter: @WmLucasWalker, @SpilledMilkWLW or Facebook: “Spilled Milk” by William Lucas Walker.       

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

DeSantis Declares NYC ‘Reeks’ of Pot Amid Florida’s Battle for Legalization and 2024 Voters

Published

10 hours ago

on

April 30, 2024

By

Standing behind a sign that says “Freedom Month,” Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis on Tuesday blasted efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in the Sunshine State to make recreational use of marijuana legal. DeSantis also denounced efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would make abortion legal in his state.

“Look what’s happened in Denver, Colorado. Look what’s happened in Los Angeles, New York City. You know, I’ve talked to people that have moved from New York and they’re like, they used to have, you know, an apartment somewhere and it used to (smell differently). Now, what does it reek of? It reeks of marijuana. I don’t want the state to be reeking of marijuana,” DeSantis said (video below), as Florida Politics reported.

The Florida governor’s remarks come on the same day the Biden Administration announced plans to decrease the classification level of marijuana, which is currently listed in the same category as heroin, methamphetamines, and LSD. The proposed reclassification, which NBC News reports is expected to be approved, would move marijuana to the same category as Tylenol, codeine, and steroids.

In 2022 and 2023, President Joe Biden pardoned thousands of people serving time in prison for simple pot possession.

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

DeSantis’ remarks also come just days after he met with Donald Trump in a private meeting designed to “bury the hatchet,” and help the ex-president’s re-election efforts. The Florida governor ran in the Republican presidential primary against Trump, and both unleashed strong attacks. DeSantis, who is term-limited and cannot run again for governor in 2026, is expected to help Trump with fundraising and help him try to win the state of Florida.

“DeSantis kisses the ring in Miami meeting with Trump and it might just pay off,” the Miami Herald Editorial Board noted Tuesday. “Kissing the ring — to America’s detriment — has worked in the past, and it might work again for Florida’s ambitious governor.”

The Biden campaign believes Florida is in play, and political analysts say with both abortion and marijuana on the ballot there, Florida is a battleground state and one the President could win. NBC News reported earlier this month the Biden team sees Florida as “winnable.”

“’Make no mistake: Florida is not an easy state to win, but it is a winnable one for President Biden, especially given Trump’s weak, cash-strapped campaign, and serious vulnerabilities within his coalition,’ Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Biden’s campaign manager, wrote in a memo,” NBC News had first reported.

READ MORE: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Calling it “a sign that he is serious about winning the state,” Axios reported last week the Biden campaign is opening a field office in Florida.

On Tuesday the Associated Press reported that “Florida Democrats hope young voters will be driven to the polls by ballot amendments legalizing marijuana and enshrining abortion rights. They hope the more tolerant views of young voters on those issues will reverse an active voter registration edge of nearly 900,000 for Republicans in Florida, which has turned from the ultimate swing state in 2000 to reliably Republican in recent years.”

Watch DeSantis’ remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 30, 2024

By

Donald Trump claimed he has “pretty strong views” on the medication abortion drug mifepristone, vowed he would make a statement on it in two weeks, and when he missed his self-imposed deadline the ex-president said he would do so in one week, according to a TIME magazine cover story interview and transcript published Tuesday.

Abortion has become a critical election issue, with Democrats fully supporting a woman’s right to choose and most Republicans strongly opposed. Some Republicans and those on the far-right support a ban, are attempting to ban, or refusing to protect in-vitro fertilization (IVF), as well as mifepristone, which is widely-used, safe, and available by mail in many states.

In the wide-ranging interview with TIME’s Eric Cortellessa, Trump made clear he would not weigh in on a national abortion ban, insisting it could not happen because the Supreme Court sent the issue to the states. Several Republicans and far-right activists have openly promoted national abortion bans.

Trump, according to a transcript of his interview TIME published, also appeared unfamiliar with – or unable or unwilling to discuss – some issues that have been an important part of the national conversation, including IVF, mifepristone, and attaching legal “personhood” status to fetuses, or embryos, in the womb.

RELATED: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

“Your allies in the Republican Study Committee, which makes up about 80% of the GOP caucus, have included the Life of Conception act in their 2025 budget proposal. The measure would grant full legal rights to embryos. Is that your position as well?” TIME’s Cortellessa asked Trump.

“Say it again. What?” the ex-president replied.

“The Life at Conception Act would grant full legal rights to embryos, included in their 2025 budget proposal. Is that your position?” Cortellessa explained, asking again.

“I’m leaving everything up to the states. The states are going to be different. Some will say yes. Some will say no. Texas is different than Ohio,” Trump replied, ignoring that the bill is a federal bill sponsored by Republicans in the House and Senate.

“Would you veto that bill?” Cortellessa pressed.

“I don’t have to do anything about vetoes, because we now have it back in the states,” Trump insisted, not giving a direct answer. “They’re gonna make those determinations.”

Cortellessa’s next question: “Do you think women should be able to get the abortion pill mifepristone?”

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Again, Trump refused to give a direct answer.

“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain. I’m not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I’ll be releasing it probably over the next week,” he said, unwilling to even engage in any conversation about it.

“Well, this is a big question, Mr. President,” Cortellessa pressed, “because your allies have called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of drugs used for abortions by mail. The Biden Department of Justice has not enforced it. Would your Department of Justice enforce it?”

“I will be making a statement on that over the next 14 days,” Trump vowed.

“You will?” the reporter again pressed.

“Yeah, I have a big statement on that. I feel very strongly about it. I actually think it’s a very important issue,” Trump claimed, refusing to discuss it further.

TIME reports the original Trump interview took place at Mar-a-Lago on April 12, and a follow up interview was conducted by phone April 27.

“Last time we spoke, you said you had an announcement coming over the next two weeks regarding your policy on the abortion pill mifepristone. You haven’t made an announcement yet. Would you like to do so now?” Cortellessa asked Trump.

“No, I haven’t,” he acknowledged. “I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. But I don’t think it will be shocking, frankly. But I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. We’re for helping women, Eric. I am for helping women. You probably saw that the IVF came out very well. And, you know, I set a policy on it, and the Republicans immediately adopted the policy.”

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

 

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Published

15 hours ago

on

April 30, 2024

By

With little more than six months until Election Day, Donald Trump is preparing for an “authoritarian” presidency, and a massive, multi-million dollar operation called Project 2025, organized by The Heritage Foundation and headed by a former top Trump White House official, is proposing what it would like to be his agenda. In its 920-page policy manual the word “abortion” appears, by NCRM’s count, nearly 200 times.

Trump appears to hold a more narrow grasp of the issue of abortion, and is holding on to the framing he recently settled on, which he hoped would end debate on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One day before the Arizona Supreme Court ruled an 1864 law banning abortion was still legal and enforceable, Trump declared states have total control over abortion and can do whatever they like.

Despite the results of that framing, Trump is sticking with that policy.

In a set of interviews with TIME‘s Eric Cortellessa, published Tuesday, the four-times indicted ex-president said he would not stop states from monitoring all pregnancies within their borders and prosecuting anyone who violates any abortion ban, if he were to again become president. He also refused to weigh in on a nationwide abortion ban or on medication abortion.

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Recently, Trump backed away from endorsing a nationwide abortion ban, but in the past he has said there should be “punishment” for women who have abortions. The group effectively creating what could become his polices, The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025, fully support a ban on abortion.

The scope of the TIME interviews was extensive.

“What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world,” Cortellessa writes in his article.

“To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.”

TIME’s Cortellessa also notes that Trump “is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

On abortion, Trump has repeatedly bragged he personally ended Roe v. Wade, which was a nearly 50-year old landmark Supreme Court ruling that found women have a constitutional right to abortion, and by extension, bodily autonomy.

But Trump has also “sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. ‘I think they might do that,’ he says.”

“When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, ‘It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.’ President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation,” Cortellessa adds.

Trump in his TIME interview continued to hold on to the convenient claim as president he would have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

But “Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to ‘the moment of fertilization.’ I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. ‘I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,’ Trump says, ‘because we now have it back in the states.'”

That’s inaccurate, if a national abortion ban, or any legislation on women’s reproductive rights, comes to his desk. And they will, if there’s a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

Brooke Goren, Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) writes, “In the same interview, Trump:
– Repeatedly refuses to say he wouldn’t sign a national ban
– Left the door open to signing legislation that could ban IVF
– Stood by his allies, who are making plans to unilaterally ban medication abortion nationwide if he’s elected.”

Cortellessa ends his piece with this thought: “Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. ‘I think a lot of people like it.'”

The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol, once a hard-core conservative Republican, now a Democrat as of 2020, served up this take on TIME’s Trump interview and overview of a second Trump reign.

“Some of us: A second term really would be far more dangerous than his first, it would be real authoritarianism–with more than a touch of fascism.

Trump apologists: No way, calm down.

Trump: Yup, authoritarianism all the way!”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.