To paraphrase Tolstoy, all good football teams resemble one another, but each bad football team is bad in its own way.
This year's Carolina Panthers have (so far - one game left!) only one more win than the 2001 team that won its first game and then dropped the next 15 straight, but the two squads are very different. Watching the 2001 Panthers at the time, it was obvious that Coach Seifert was biding time until he could get fired and go back to shuffleboard or whatever, and one couldn't blame the players for returning the feeling.
But, if there's one thing you can say about the 2010 Panthers, it's that they never quit on one another. They're frighteningly young, and by extension inexperienced, and that means they make mistakes. But they never just rolled over. And that tells us everything we need to know about how much those players respect John Fox.
I respect Fox, too. Firing him, as the Panthers did today, is probably the right decision, but it still sucks. It sucks because - and believe me, I know how cheesy this sounds, but - that team is a family. The fans who sit in that stadium every week are part of that family, too. It was easy to say good riddance to George Seifert. It was kind of easy to do the same for Dom Capers, just because I was so young in my football fandom. But I still have the journal where I wrote about the Panthers hiring John Fox. I was there when he beat the Cowboys in the playoffs after getting outcoached by them in the regular season, I was there for Steve Smith's double-OT touchdown over the Rams and the murder of the Eagles, and I was there when we just barely lost the Super Bowl. I was there for a lot of frustrating decisions on playcalling and personnel, but I never stopped respecting him.
The Panthers won Fox's last home game, and I hope he leaves N.C. with a lot of good memories. I genuinely hope he continues his NFL career, and I wish him all the best.
Because as long as I live I will never forget sitting in section 529 watching the Panthers beat the Jaguars by one point, coming back from a 17-point deficit at the half (Jake Delhomme's first game). I was there with my parents, and we knew we were watching something special. And I'll never forget sitting in my dad's basement a few months later watching this. I will most definitely never forget.
So long, Foxy. Thanks for the good times.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Size matters, at least for your amygdala
Scientists at the University of London have found a correlation between political conservatism and having a larger "fear center" in the brain, according to a study that will be published next year. They examined brain scans of two members of Parliament, one Conservative and one Labour (what we in the U.S. would call liberal), and also questioned 90 college students who'd previously been scanned about their political beliefs.
They found that people identifying themselves as conservative in their political beliefs tended to have a larger amygdala, which is the part of your brain that controls fear responses and arousal. But hey, the same people are very popular, also according to science.
When I read this, my first thought was, "Well, that explains a lot." I tend to lean toward the notion that a person's experiences may shape their brain chemistry, not that anyone is hard-wired to only think one way for the rest of his or her entire life. And while, anecdotally, the people I know who don't feel safe without a loaded gun in every room of the house tend to be conservative and the people who have Ph.D's tend to be liberal, it's just too easy to think that an amygdala is the explanation for all our differences. Or that one brain make-up is better than another.
It would also be really condescending for anyone to look at this report and say to themselves, "Oh, well, no wonder x is conservative - his brain is just made that way. Poor dear." For one thing, brain researchers have also found what they call a "liberal gene," that, in the words of the Telegraph, "makes people more likely to seek out less conventional political views." A neurotransmitter does not trump an amygdala.
How about this - let's not use scientific research to score political points. Let's let scientific research do what it's supposed to - namely, tell us something about our amazing world that we didn't know before, and appreciate that difference.
Full disclosure, though: I probably have one of those liberal genes.
They found that people identifying themselves as conservative in their political beliefs tended to have a larger amygdala, which is the part of your brain that controls fear responses and arousal. But hey, the same people are very popular, also according to science.
When I read this, my first thought was, "Well, that explains a lot." I tend to lean toward the notion that a person's experiences may shape their brain chemistry, not that anyone is hard-wired to only think one way for the rest of his or her entire life. And while, anecdotally, the people I know who don't feel safe without a loaded gun in every room of the house tend to be conservative and the people who have Ph.D's tend to be liberal, it's just too easy to think that an amygdala is the explanation for all our differences. Or that one brain make-up is better than another.
It would also be really condescending for anyone to look at this report and say to themselves, "Oh, well, no wonder x is conservative - his brain is just made that way. Poor dear." For one thing, brain researchers have also found what they call a "liberal gene," that, in the words of the Telegraph, "makes people more likely to seek out less conventional political views." A neurotransmitter does not trump an amygdala.
How about this - let's not use scientific research to score political points. Let's let scientific research do what it's supposed to - namely, tell us something about our amazing world that we didn't know before, and appreciate that difference.
Full disclosure, though: I probably have one of those liberal genes.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Why Michael Moore is not a journalist
While we’re on the subject… on those few occasions (most of them within the last week) that I’ve written about Michael Moore, I’ve referred to him as a filmmaker. If I’m pissed off, I call him a propagandist. But I don’t think of him as a journalist. Here’s why.
(No, it’s not because you disagree with him.)
Journalists are objective. They are finders and reporters of facts, some of them more reliably than others. Ideally (and no, I’m not naïve enough to believe that this is true of everyone) a journalist starts by accumulating facts and points of view and then – only then – ciphers a narrative from them. (Insert standard caveats about human fallibility, including deadline pressures, here.) Moore, on the other hand, starts with a nugget and then searches out facts and sources that support it.
And you know what? There’s not a thing wrong with that. It’s a free country, and Moore has every right to make films that promote his point of view. But that doesn’t make him a journalist. When you’re watching one of Moore’s films, you need to know that he’s starting from a set point of view, and that he’s going to use an army of production techniques to manipulate you into agreeing with that point of view.
As an example, let me tell you about the particular technique that was the last straw for me, Moore-wise. My all-time favorite movie is “Broadcast News,” which you should absolutely watch if you haven’t seen it, and I don’t think the giant spoiler I’m about to write about will ruin it for you. Long story short, you have a network news producer (Holly Hunter) in a bit of a love triangle between her BFF, a geeky reporter (Albert Brooks), and the shiny new anchor-in-training who, while hot, is also kind of dim (William Hurt).
The thing that really put Holly over the top for Team William was his sensitive story about date rape victims (which I would love to believe was only an issue in the mid-80s, but hahahahaha), in which he’s shown tearing up listening to one of the women he’s interviewing. That story makes William, both professionally and personally as far as Holly’s concerned. Unfortunately, she learns at the end of the movie that William only had one camera for the interview.
For those of you that never took a production class, that means that the camera was pointed at the woman throughout the interview. Only after the whole thing was over was the camera turned around to face William to shoot those cutaway shots of the reporter during the interview… and he faked crying. This is too big a violation of journalistic integrity for Holly, and she dumps him.
Now take the climax of “Bowling for Columbine,” where Moore confronts then-NRA head Charlton Heston (who was also suffering from Alzheimer’s as we know now) about the proliferation of guns in the U.S. At one point Heston has had enough and he starts off down a walkway (staring at about 7:30 in the linked clip). Moore calls to him, and Heston turns around. Moore shows him a picture of a child killed in a school shooting by another child, saying “This is the girl!” and Heston just walks away, and ZOMG Charlton Heston is such a jerk! Michael Moore is so righteous! I hate guns!
Oh, wait, no I don’t. Because… where was the second camera? There’s the camera shooting Heston walking away, and there should be another camera behind him that’s aiming at Moore. But there isn’t. So, where did the “This is the girl!” reaction cutaway come from? Either Moore had a second camera hidden in the bushes, or he shot it once Heston had scooted off. In other words, that cathartic anger at an insensitive man far removed from the consequences of his gun advocacy… fake. Ahem, acted.
Journalists don’t act. Period.
(No, it’s not because you disagree with him.)
Journalists are objective. They are finders and reporters of facts, some of them more reliably than others. Ideally (and no, I’m not naïve enough to believe that this is true of everyone) a journalist starts by accumulating facts and points of view and then – only then – ciphers a narrative from them. (Insert standard caveats about human fallibility, including deadline pressures, here.) Moore, on the other hand, starts with a nugget and then searches out facts and sources that support it.
And you know what? There’s not a thing wrong with that. It’s a free country, and Moore has every right to make films that promote his point of view. But that doesn’t make him a journalist. When you’re watching one of Moore’s films, you need to know that he’s starting from a set point of view, and that he’s going to use an army of production techniques to manipulate you into agreeing with that point of view.
As an example, let me tell you about the particular technique that was the last straw for me, Moore-wise. My all-time favorite movie is “Broadcast News,” which you should absolutely watch if you haven’t seen it, and I don’t think the giant spoiler I’m about to write about will ruin it for you. Long story short, you have a network news producer (Holly Hunter) in a bit of a love triangle between her BFF, a geeky reporter (Albert Brooks), and the shiny new anchor-in-training who, while hot, is also kind of dim (William Hurt).
The thing that really put Holly over the top for Team William was his sensitive story about date rape victims (which I would love to believe was only an issue in the mid-80s, but hahahahaha), in which he’s shown tearing up listening to one of the women he’s interviewing. That story makes William, both professionally and personally as far as Holly’s concerned. Unfortunately, she learns at the end of the movie that William only had one camera for the interview.
For those of you that never took a production class, that means that the camera was pointed at the woman throughout the interview. Only after the whole thing was over was the camera turned around to face William to shoot those cutaway shots of the reporter during the interview… and he faked crying. This is too big a violation of journalistic integrity for Holly, and she dumps him.
Now take the climax of “Bowling for Columbine,” where Moore confronts then-NRA head Charlton Heston (who was also suffering from Alzheimer’s as we know now) about the proliferation of guns in the U.S. At one point Heston has had enough and he starts off down a walkway (staring at about 7:30 in the linked clip). Moore calls to him, and Heston turns around. Moore shows him a picture of a child killed in a school shooting by another child, saying “This is the girl!” and Heston just walks away, and ZOMG Charlton Heston is such a jerk! Michael Moore is so righteous! I hate guns!
Oh, wait, no I don’t. Because… where was the second camera? There’s the camera shooting Heston walking away, and there should be another camera behind him that’s aiming at Moore. But there isn’t. So, where did the “This is the girl!” reaction cutaway come from? Either Moore had a second camera hidden in the bushes, or he shot it once Heston had scooted off. In other words, that cathartic anger at an insensitive man far removed from the consequences of his gun advocacy… fake. Ahem, acted.
Journalists don’t act. Period.
The mountain moved
Some time after his interview with Rachel Maddow last night, Michael Moore contacted TigerBeatdown's Sady Doyle to (sort of) acknowledge that he'd f-ed up. Which is kind of all that we wanted, really.
As Doyle writes in her post today, it does matter for someone of Moore's stature to admit on national TV that rape culture exists. Saying that rape victims deserve to be taken seriously sure seems like a no-brainer, but unfortunately it isn't as evident to far too many people.
Moreover, Doyle reminds us of the power of grassroots activism:
That’s the most important lesson of #MooreandMe, for me, the most important take-away: The next time something is this fucked up, and we feel like we have to fight it, we will. The next time we feel like we have to fight something, we will know fighting can make a difference. The chief thing #MooreandMe gave me, the girl who started out a week ago just writing an irritated Tweet and then eventually hearing a “thank you” from Michael Moore, was faith in the idea that activism can change things. Faith in the idea that you matter. Faith in the idea that, next time we set out to oppose rape culture in our media or our lives, we can do so with that most precious, most rare, most essential of qualities: We can fight rape, and we can have hope.
Doyle is a hero for going up against the dominant left-wing narrative of the Assange rape allegations, and taking on a couple of the left's biggest icons in the process.
As Doyle writes in her post today, it does matter for someone of Moore's stature to admit on national TV that rape culture exists. Saying that rape victims deserve to be taken seriously sure seems like a no-brainer, but unfortunately it isn't as evident to far too many people.
Moreover, Doyle reminds us of the power of grassroots activism:
That’s the most important lesson of #MooreandMe, for me, the most important take-away: The next time something is this fucked up, and we feel like we have to fight it, we will. The next time we feel like we have to fight something, we will know fighting can make a difference. The chief thing #MooreandMe gave me, the girl who started out a week ago just writing an irritated Tweet and then eventually hearing a “thank you” from Michael Moore, was faith in the idea that activism can change things. Faith in the idea that you matter. Faith in the idea that, next time we set out to oppose rape culture in our media or our lives, we can do so with that most precious, most rare, most essential of qualities: We can fight rape, and we can have hope.
Doyle is a hero for going up against the dominant left-wing narrative of the Assange rape allegations, and taking on a couple of the left's biggest icons in the process.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The first draft of history
I'm an editor, and I've screwed up. I've misspelled names, run the wrong names, gotten basic facts wrong and more. I've had to come to peace with the fact that every single magazine I put out - no matter how much time I spend on it, no matter how many people I ask to proof it - will have something (hopefully tiny and un-noticeable to the average reader) wrong with it. Human beings will always miss something.
There's this saying that journalism is the first draft of history, and that's absolutely true. Sometimes the initial story emphasizes the aspects of the story that turn out to not be that significant, and sometimes the really signficant bit gets lost because we don't have the distance needed to properly evaluate it. Sometimes the story changes as facts emerge, and sometimes you simply have to go to press even as you know the story is still breaking. And sometimes, in the heat of the moment and operating in the dark, you print or broadcast things that later prove to be flat-out wrong.
I may've been educated as a journalist, but I work on the other side of the aisle (so to speak) now. There have been plenty of times when I've wished a reporter spent more time with a story or went with a different quote. But I can honestly say that, on those few occasions when what was reported was outright inaccurate, I've always gotten corrections. And for more of those occasions than not, I haven't had to ask for them.
That last point is important. The media get a lot of flack, some of it deserved, but on the whole they get it right more than they get it wrong. We can certainly critique the weight they give some stories and not others, or their interpretations of facts. But the facts themselves? Usually correct, once it all comes out in the wash. And reporters who do get it wrong almost always correct themselves one way or another.
Reporting on the WikiLeaks releases of classified diplomatic cables and the accusations against the site's founder, Julian Assange, has been cloudy. I have to confess that I'm still not 100 percent certain what terminology to use here just because it's so hard (as a mere blogger) to find a single source detailing exactly what's happening. Assange is accused, but not criminally charged, with raping two women. Personally, I think it's possible to separate objective reporting on both the substance of the WikiLeaks documents and the rape accusations from commentary on both of those things. Maybe I'm alone here.
That's where Keith Olbermann screwed up. In my opinion, he's allowed his emotional response to WikiLeaks to color his reporting on the leaks and the rape allegations. He retweeted a link to a story accusing one of the accusers of having CIA ties (since debunked) and which named the accusers (a journalistic no-no). Then last week he welcomed left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore onto his show to talk about the controversy. I did a post with my initial reaction, and in a sec I'm going to expand on my thoughts.
Blogger Sady Doyle launched a Twitter protest against Moore, which Olbermann promptly made all about himself, and he still won't admit that he screwed up. As Doyle wrote today, it's allowable that Olbermann made a mistake in his reporting. But you know what? Journalists make mistakes. And when they become aware of those mistakes, journalists correct themselves and apologize.
Here's a small sampling of what Olbermann did that would've gotten him a D in every journalism class I ever took from elementary school on through college:
- Asking a question that doesn't really reflect the legit opposing viewpoints on an issue, like "Are [the accusations] a ruse? Are they a front for something else?" which was Olbermann's first question to Moore. This is no different than when somebody on Fox News asks if President Obama is really a socialist or just under the remote control of martians.
- Saying "Uh-huh" when Moore repeated the falsehood that the allegations against Assange are "about a broken condom," instead of pointing out that this had already been reported as being inaccurate.
- Not inviting onto this same show a single person who might offer a legit opposing viewpoint. Yes it's true, as Christiane Amanpour has said, that there aren't two sides to a genocide. But there are sure as hell multiple sides to this issue, and Olbermann damn well knows it. For instance... a) of course it's suspicious that Sweden ignored the rape accusations against Assange until he pissed off the U.S., but that doesn't mean those accusations aren't true; b) isn't this ignoring itself problematic? etc.
And I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think it's ethical for a journalist to advocate/argue via Twitter. It's not exactly a medium that lends itself to thorough exploration of an issue. Most of the journalists I know who have Twitter accounts use them to preview stories or share personal information. To do otherwise risks making the news rather than covering it, and that's something with which I will never, ever, ever be okay. Sorry.
Not that Olbermann has ever been anything resembling objective, but reporting inaccurate information and then steadfastly refusing to apologize is a different animal.
For the record, I had a very emotional reaction to Olbermann's interview, and to what I consider his flippant attitude toward the people who've asked him to correct it. Olbermann and Moore may not be aware of this, but what they broadcast last week is exactly what every rape victim hears in her head, from people she thought were her friends and even from law enforcement. For a survivor, it was incredibly triggering to hear it coming from two men who, by virtue of their progressive cred, I thought I could trust just a little bit. Thank goodness this didn't happen two years ago when being able to write "today I washed the dishes" in my journal was a huge victory over my depression.
I'm not the only one who's written that Moore's comments and Olbermann's dismissive reaction contribute to a larger cultural atmosphere where rape victims know we'll never get even a sliver of the benefit of the doubt. But their admission that they were wrong and their apology really will go a long way to healing this problem. And, for a couple of alleged defenders of the truth, it's just the right thing to do.
There's this saying that journalism is the first draft of history, and that's absolutely true. Sometimes the initial story emphasizes the aspects of the story that turn out to not be that significant, and sometimes the really signficant bit gets lost because we don't have the distance needed to properly evaluate it. Sometimes the story changes as facts emerge, and sometimes you simply have to go to press even as you know the story is still breaking. And sometimes, in the heat of the moment and operating in the dark, you print or broadcast things that later prove to be flat-out wrong.
I may've been educated as a journalist, but I work on the other side of the aisle (so to speak) now. There have been plenty of times when I've wished a reporter spent more time with a story or went with a different quote. But I can honestly say that, on those few occasions when what was reported was outright inaccurate, I've always gotten corrections. And for more of those occasions than not, I haven't had to ask for them.
That last point is important. The media get a lot of flack, some of it deserved, but on the whole they get it right more than they get it wrong. We can certainly critique the weight they give some stories and not others, or their interpretations of facts. But the facts themselves? Usually correct, once it all comes out in the wash. And reporters who do get it wrong almost always correct themselves one way or another.
Reporting on the WikiLeaks releases of classified diplomatic cables and the accusations against the site's founder, Julian Assange, has been cloudy. I have to confess that I'm still not 100 percent certain what terminology to use here just because it's so hard (as a mere blogger) to find a single source detailing exactly what's happening. Assange is accused, but not criminally charged, with raping two women. Personally, I think it's possible to separate objective reporting on both the substance of the WikiLeaks documents and the rape accusations from commentary on both of those things. Maybe I'm alone here.
That's where Keith Olbermann screwed up. In my opinion, he's allowed his emotional response to WikiLeaks to color his reporting on the leaks and the rape allegations. He retweeted a link to a story accusing one of the accusers of having CIA ties (since debunked) and which named the accusers (a journalistic no-no). Then last week he welcomed left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore onto his show to talk about the controversy. I did a post with my initial reaction, and in a sec I'm going to expand on my thoughts.
Blogger Sady Doyle launched a Twitter protest against Moore, which Olbermann promptly made all about himself, and he still won't admit that he screwed up. As Doyle wrote today, it's allowable that Olbermann made a mistake in his reporting. But you know what? Journalists make mistakes. And when they become aware of those mistakes, journalists correct themselves and apologize.
Here's a small sampling of what Olbermann did that would've gotten him a D in every journalism class I ever took from elementary school on through college:
- Asking a question that doesn't really reflect the legit opposing viewpoints on an issue, like "Are [the accusations] a ruse? Are they a front for something else?" which was Olbermann's first question to Moore. This is no different than when somebody on Fox News asks if President Obama is really a socialist or just under the remote control of martians.
- Saying "Uh-huh" when Moore repeated the falsehood that the allegations against Assange are "about a broken condom," instead of pointing out that this had already been reported as being inaccurate.
- Not inviting onto this same show a single person who might offer a legit opposing viewpoint. Yes it's true, as Christiane Amanpour has said, that there aren't two sides to a genocide. But there are sure as hell multiple sides to this issue, and Olbermann damn well knows it. For instance... a) of course it's suspicious that Sweden ignored the rape accusations against Assange until he pissed off the U.S., but that doesn't mean those accusations aren't true; b) isn't this ignoring itself problematic? etc.
And I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think it's ethical for a journalist to advocate/argue via Twitter. It's not exactly a medium that lends itself to thorough exploration of an issue. Most of the journalists I know who have Twitter accounts use them to preview stories or share personal information. To do otherwise risks making the news rather than covering it, and that's something with which I will never, ever, ever be okay. Sorry.
Not that Olbermann has ever been anything resembling objective, but reporting inaccurate information and then steadfastly refusing to apologize is a different animal.
For the record, I had a very emotional reaction to Olbermann's interview, and to what I consider his flippant attitude toward the people who've asked him to correct it. Olbermann and Moore may not be aware of this, but what they broadcast last week is exactly what every rape victim hears in her head, from people she thought were her friends and even from law enforcement. For a survivor, it was incredibly triggering to hear it coming from two men who, by virtue of their progressive cred, I thought I could trust just a little bit. Thank goodness this didn't happen two years ago when being able to write "today I washed the dishes" in my journal was a huge victory over my depression.
I'm not the only one who's written that Moore's comments and Olbermann's dismissive reaction contribute to a larger cultural atmosphere where rape victims know we'll never get even a sliver of the benefit of the doubt. But their admission that they were wrong and their apology really will go a long way to healing this problem. And, for a couple of alleged defenders of the truth, it's just the right thing to do.
Adventures in camping
Seven or eight years ago, my then-boyfriend and I went on a road trip through Virginia that involved a little couch surfing at relatives' houses and a lot of camping. Our first stop was at Comers Rock, a small 10-site campground near Wytheville. At the time, Comers Rock was classified as semi-primitive, meaning that it had enclosed vault toilets (basically port-o-johns with a foundation), but no flush toilets or running water.
It didn't bother us. I mean, I was raised to believe that "roughing it" means "no toilet paper," so a vault toilet 100 feet from our (free!) campsite was damn near luxury accommodations, camping-wise. (The only thing I didn't like was that, even in the middle of summer, the campground was completely deserted. I got a little horror-movie vibe from that, but that's just me.)
Anyway, prior to leaving on what was our first camping trip together, the BF and I went to Wal-Mart to stock up. He insisted on buying a couple of cans of Sterno, saying that we could light them on fire for cooking. Well, I thought this was terrible. Cooking over a frakking CAN when you're supposed to be existing on a primitive level in the wilderness is just cheating. I'm of the school that, if you can't get a fire going with matches and twigs, then you don't deserve to eat hot food. He bought the Sterno anyway, and I made fun of him.
So, fast-forward to Comers Rock. It had been drizzling all day, but that's really not a big deal if you have enough kindling to start a larger (albeit smoky) fire. And, I don't mean to brag, but I'm a champion finder of kindling (we'd also packed newspaper). One problem - there was not one single downed branch or pile of brush in this entire campground. I have never seen anything like it before or since. It was as if the surrounding woods had been blasted with the world's largest leaf-blower. When I say there was nothing on the ground, I mean there was NOTHING on the ground. The whole place had been swept. WTF, Parks Service?
As it turned out, it had been swept. The BF eventually found, in a gap between hills, a giant mass of branches, dead leaves, brush. It was the mother lode of fire-building material... or, at least it would've been if it hadn't been sopping wet from being all piled up like it was. Again, WTF, Parks Service?
The upshot is that now I know how long it takes to cook Hamburger Helper over a can of Sterno in the pouring rain. About an hour, for al dente anyway. It was one of the best meals I've ever had.
I thought of that camping trip yesterday when I saw this. Nowhere in my definition of "camping" will you find an RV (that's called "RVing"), or, for the love of pete, a frakking VACUUM CLEANER.
By the way, Michelle Obama didn't tell people not to eat dessert. There's a big difference between working with public institutions (like schools) to see what policy changes could make it easier for them to provide healthier food and ordering you personally what not to feed your family in the privacy of your own home, you paranoiac ninny.
It didn't bother us. I mean, I was raised to believe that "roughing it" means "no toilet paper," so a vault toilet 100 feet from our (free!) campsite was damn near luxury accommodations, camping-wise. (The only thing I didn't like was that, even in the middle of summer, the campground was completely deserted. I got a little horror-movie vibe from that, but that's just me.)
Anyway, prior to leaving on what was our first camping trip together, the BF and I went to Wal-Mart to stock up. He insisted on buying a couple of cans of Sterno, saying that we could light them on fire for cooking. Well, I thought this was terrible. Cooking over a frakking CAN when you're supposed to be existing on a primitive level in the wilderness is just cheating. I'm of the school that, if you can't get a fire going with matches and twigs, then you don't deserve to eat hot food. He bought the Sterno anyway, and I made fun of him.
So, fast-forward to Comers Rock. It had been drizzling all day, but that's really not a big deal if you have enough kindling to start a larger (albeit smoky) fire. And, I don't mean to brag, but I'm a champion finder of kindling (we'd also packed newspaper). One problem - there was not one single downed branch or pile of brush in this entire campground. I have never seen anything like it before or since. It was as if the surrounding woods had been blasted with the world's largest leaf-blower. When I say there was nothing on the ground, I mean there was NOTHING on the ground. The whole place had been swept. WTF, Parks Service?
As it turned out, it had been swept. The BF eventually found, in a gap between hills, a giant mass of branches, dead leaves, brush. It was the mother lode of fire-building material... or, at least it would've been if it hadn't been sopping wet from being all piled up like it was. Again, WTF, Parks Service?
The upshot is that now I know how long it takes to cook Hamburger Helper over a can of Sterno in the pouring rain. About an hour, for al dente anyway. It was one of the best meals I've ever had.
I thought of that camping trip yesterday when I saw this. Nowhere in my definition of "camping" will you find an RV (that's called "RVing"), or, for the love of pete, a frakking VACUUM CLEANER.
By the way, Michelle Obama didn't tell people not to eat dessert. There's a big difference between working with public institutions (like schools) to see what policy changes could make it easier for them to provide healthier food and ordering you personally what not to feed your family in the privacy of your own home, you paranoiac ninny.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Truth to power: A rare two-asshole post
On roughly every other episode of "Law & Order," the cops suspect someone of murder or something and arrest the suspect on a minor charge so that they can buy time to find evidence on the more serious crime. That's basically what the authorities have done with Julian Assange, arresting him on long-standing rape charges (likely with pressure from the U.S.) until someone can figure out if it's possible to charge him with somethimh bigger.
A lot of people have questioned the timing of the arrest, coming so soon after Assange's WikiLeaks website published thousands of classified diplomatic cables. But... is it not possible to do that without also insulting the women involved?
Both of these wealthy, privileged men are full of shit. They both love to believe that they are paragons of progressive integrity. But, sorry, boys. If you're starting with the assumption (as Olbermann's opening question clearly does) that the rape accusations simply have to be false, and that therefore the women are lying, then you don't get to call yourself a progressive anything. Progressive raging asshole, maybe.
Moore continues to disappoint. Does this man honestly think he's the voice of the downtrodden or powerless? Powerless is seeing the laws that are supposed to protect you, ignore you. But instead of calling out the authorities who blew off the rape allegations against Assange until they needed an excuse to hold him, Moore hops on the "they're lying" bandwagon. Let me tell you something, Mike - "Roger & Me" was a long frakking time ago. All you've cared about for a long time - maybe ever - is hearing the sound of your on voice ever more amplified. You forgot what the expression "telling truth to power" meant some time ago.
And all this for Julian frakking Assange? This guy is NOT the second coming of Daniel Ellsburg. He didn't reveal where U.S. officials lied to the American public or Congress; he published mashnotes - but mashnotes that will unravel the diplomatic relationships that keep us safe. President Clinton was right - people are going to die over this.
UPDATE: Tiger Beatdown says all the above far more articulately.
A lot of people have questioned the timing of the arrest, coming so soon after Assange's WikiLeaks website published thousands of classified diplomatic cables. But... is it not possible to do that without also insulting the women involved?
Both of these wealthy, privileged men are full of shit. They both love to believe that they are paragons of progressive integrity. But, sorry, boys. If you're starting with the assumption (as Olbermann's opening question clearly does) that the rape accusations simply have to be false, and that therefore the women are lying, then you don't get to call yourself a progressive anything. Progressive raging asshole, maybe.
Moore continues to disappoint. Does this man honestly think he's the voice of the downtrodden or powerless? Powerless is seeing the laws that are supposed to protect you, ignore you. But instead of calling out the authorities who blew off the rape allegations against Assange until they needed an excuse to hold him, Moore hops on the "they're lying" bandwagon. Let me tell you something, Mike - "Roger & Me" was a long frakking time ago. All you've cared about for a long time - maybe ever - is hearing the sound of your on voice ever more amplified. You forgot what the expression "telling truth to power" meant some time ago.
And all this for Julian frakking Assange? This guy is NOT the second coming of Daniel Ellsburg. He didn't reveal where U.S. officials lied to the American public or Congress; he published mashnotes - but mashnotes that will unravel the diplomatic relationships that keep us safe. President Clinton was right - people are going to die over this.
UPDATE: Tiger Beatdown says all the above far more articulately.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Rules apply even to people you don't like
After watching Ben Roethlisberger get smacked around for the second week in a row, I completely agree with the Steelers that the officials are ignoring questionable-to-outright illegal hits on him and other Steelers, for whatever reason - maybe the team's reputation for toughness means the refs are unconsciously giving opposing teams more leeway than they should.
Last Sunday vs. the Ravens, tight end Heath Miller was damn near decapitated on a tackle that looked like a pretty textbook "defenseless receiver" violation to me (and to Cris Collinsworth) - no flag. Earlier in the game, Haloti Ngata swiped Roethlisberger's facemask, breaking the QB's nose. (The surgeon who operated on Ben this week said the bones looked like corn flakes. Thanks for that, doc. No, really.) Ngata didn't quite grab the facemask, but it was still a clear blow to the QB's head. Two of them, actually - one up front and one on the back. No flag. (Though Ngata did draw a $15,000 fine from the NFL, and Jameel McClain got $40,000 for the hit on Miller.)
Roethlisberger spent most of Sunday's game against the Bengals either on his back or on the way there, including a couple of hits that should've cracked a rib or two. No flags. When he complained to the officials both last week and this week, Roethlisberger says he was told "he was just trying to tackle you."
Oh, well, if THAT's the standard. Let's just start diving directly at the players' testicles. Hey, I was just trying to tackle him!
Here's where I'm tempted - given who we're talking about here - to do what a lot of people leaving comments on blogs and news articles are doing, and snark that Roethlisberger's just getting what's been coming to him. Oh, Ben, you poor thing. It really is terrible when someone hurts you physically, and the very people who are supposed to protect you just blow off your complaints with some BS about how there's nothing they can do, even though there's a rule RIGHT THERE for them to enforce. No, I have no idea what that's like. (What were you wearing, by the way?)
Here's where we need to remove the personalities involved from the issue. Because snarking doesn't fix anything. If the league is going to crow about improving player safety, than it needs to enforce its rules for all players. Refs are one thing, because they're making calls in real time and are bound to miss some things. But it's blazing BS for the NFL - which has plenty of time to review tape of questionable plays - to single out, say, James Harrison while ignoring similar hits on Harrison's own teammates.
It undermines the integrity of the game when the rules don't apply to same players or teams. More importantly, in this case this laxity could get someone killed.
Last Sunday vs. the Ravens, tight end Heath Miller was damn near decapitated on a tackle that looked like a pretty textbook "defenseless receiver" violation to me (and to Cris Collinsworth) - no flag. Earlier in the game, Haloti Ngata swiped Roethlisberger's facemask, breaking the QB's nose. (The surgeon who operated on Ben this week said the bones looked like corn flakes. Thanks for that, doc. No, really.) Ngata didn't quite grab the facemask, but it was still a clear blow to the QB's head. Two of them, actually - one up front and one on the back. No flag. (Though Ngata did draw a $15,000 fine from the NFL, and Jameel McClain got $40,000 for the hit on Miller.)
Roethlisberger spent most of Sunday's game against the Bengals either on his back or on the way there, including a couple of hits that should've cracked a rib or two. No flags. When he complained to the officials both last week and this week, Roethlisberger says he was told "he was just trying to tackle you."
Oh, well, if THAT's the standard. Let's just start diving directly at the players' testicles. Hey, I was just trying to tackle him!
Here's where I'm tempted - given who we're talking about here - to do what a lot of people leaving comments on blogs and news articles are doing, and snark that Roethlisberger's just getting what's been coming to him. Oh, Ben, you poor thing. It really is terrible when someone hurts you physically, and the very people who are supposed to protect you just blow off your complaints with some BS about how there's nothing they can do, even though there's a rule RIGHT THERE for them to enforce. No, I have no idea what that's like. (What were you wearing, by the way?)
Here's where we need to remove the personalities involved from the issue. Because snarking doesn't fix anything. If the league is going to crow about improving player safety, than it needs to enforce its rules for all players. Refs are one thing, because they're making calls in real time and are bound to miss some things. But it's blazing BS for the NFL - which has plenty of time to review tape of questionable plays - to single out, say, James Harrison while ignoring similar hits on Harrison's own teammates.
It undermines the integrity of the game when the rules don't apply to same players or teams. More importantly, in this case this laxity could get someone killed.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Rosebud: a movie lover's lament
I just finished watching the 1944 film "Laura." First off, let me say that I loved it and that it surprised me in ways. I'm lucky that I didn't know a lot about the plot going in, so I could enjoy the twists as they happened.
Which doesn't happen a lot for modern viewers of older, famous films. Take, for instance, the one guy in my first college film class who sat through "Citizen Kane" without knowing what "Rosebud" meant. This guy was a particular thorn in my side because, like many budding film wannabes, he was convinced that he's going to be the next Quentin Tarantino, but moreso because he believed that film technique and storytelling began and ended with Quentin Tarantino. Anyway, the end of "Citizen Kane" absolutely slayed him. He *cried* after. With all his hipster shaky-cam quick-cut aesthetic, he had no idea what was coming.
That was my only beef with "Laura." There are characters played by Vincent Frakking Price and Judith "Mrs. Danvers" Anderson, so you can pretty much anticipate that they're not going to turn out to be choirboys. Because, in 2010, even as I'm enjoying these actors' work I have to acknowledge that their "This is the Bad Guy! Right Here!" reputations had to start somewhere.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about "Star Wars." For my entire life, I've known that Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father. There are probably peasants in rural Nepal who know that. So, when I watched the end of "The Empire Strikes Back" for the first time, did I miss out on something? Of course I did. For one thing, I didn't have to wait three years to find out what happened next. I just popped the next tape into the VCR.
It's fantastic for a 2010 film lover to have so much to play with. But it sucks when you think about what it must've felt like to experience a story originally, without all the cultural baggage that might go with it.
So, moral of the story... If you know what Rosebud means, and you're watching "Citizen Kane" with someone who doesn't, keep your mouth shut.
Which doesn't happen a lot for modern viewers of older, famous films. Take, for instance, the one guy in my first college film class who sat through "Citizen Kane" without knowing what "Rosebud" meant. This guy was a particular thorn in my side because, like many budding film wannabes, he was convinced that he's going to be the next Quentin Tarantino, but moreso because he believed that film technique and storytelling began and ended with Quentin Tarantino. Anyway, the end of "Citizen Kane" absolutely slayed him. He *cried* after. With all his hipster shaky-cam quick-cut aesthetic, he had no idea what was coming.
That was my only beef with "Laura." There are characters played by Vincent Frakking Price and Judith "Mrs. Danvers" Anderson, so you can pretty much anticipate that they're not going to turn out to be choirboys. Because, in 2010, even as I'm enjoying these actors' work I have to acknowledge that their "This is the Bad Guy! Right Here!" reputations had to start somewhere.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about "Star Wars." For my entire life, I've known that Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father. There are probably peasants in rural Nepal who know that. So, when I watched the end of "The Empire Strikes Back" for the first time, did I miss out on something? Of course I did. For one thing, I didn't have to wait three years to find out what happened next. I just popped the next tape into the VCR.
It's fantastic for a 2010 film lover to have so much to play with. But it sucks when you think about what it must've felt like to experience a story originally, without all the cultural baggage that might go with it.
So, moral of the story... If you know what Rosebud means, and you're watching "Citizen Kane" with someone who doesn't, keep your mouth shut.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Stumbling forward in pieces
Earlier tonight, I watched a clip of Glenn Beck making fun of the women who’ve apparently accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of rape – and making fun he does, mocking what the women are reported to have said or done and even going so far as saying that one of the women tweeting the day after her alleged assault doesn’t “fit the profile” of a rape victim in his mind.
Yeah, it pissed me off. But I’d rather talk about Elizabeth Edwards.
Edwards died this morning after a long, public battle with cancer. She’s not somebody that many of us outside of the Triangle probably would’ve heard of if her husband hadn’t run for the Senate, or vice president or president, but she’s infinitely more admirable than him.
Elizabeth Edwards touched people because she was so different from what we expect from a politician’s wife. Remember this? The world would be a happily less full-of-shit place if more people behaved this way. And now I wonder how many of the things for which I admired John Edwards back when I gave him my first vote back in 1998 – like sponsoring programs for our state’s high school students in their late son’s honor – weren’t really down to Elizabeth.
Joan Walsh quotes the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Connie Shultz about Edwards:
If I were living Elizabeth Edwards' life, I'm not sure who I'd be by now, and that uncertainty is mighty humbling.
We want to believe the best about ourselves. We watch someone else stumble and insist we'd respond differently. But live long enough, and life will bring you to your knees. I have not buried a child. I do not have incurable cancer. I have not been betrayed by the man I love, never had to set eyes on the baby the entire world knows he fathered behind my back.
I know this: I would stumble forward in pieces."
Having been through at least one devastating thing in my life, I can relate. What I went through is the very thing Glenn Beck mocks above. I haven’t ever come out and said this on this blog, but I was raped just over three years ago. And it derailed me for a long time. As bad off as I was, seeing people like Elizabeth Edwards admit to fighting depression and anger, too, does make it easier… at least eventually.
And, for the record, I gave the guy a ride home afterwards, I e-mailed a friend (whom I hadn’t told yet what happened to me) pictures from what was supposed to be our vacation and I went to work Monday morning like nothing had happened. So Beck can take his expert “profile” and go fuck himself. Because most of the time rape victims react just that way. It certainly doesn’t make it easier to handle in the legal system, but it also doesn’t erase what happened to us.
I stumbled forward in pieces, and slowly those pieces came back together again with a lot of support from the people who love me. Elizabeth Edwards went through losing a child, losing a life partner and facing her own death, and there probably were days when she felt like saying “screw it” and drinking a vat of wine. I had my share of those days. Hell, I had more of my share of them.
What’s beautiful about her is that none of those shitty things ever turned her heart, at least not if we can go by her public life. She seemed to see them instead as ways to relate to people less fortunate than her. She sure as hell didn’t go on TV to tell victimized people that the bad tings happening to them were their own fault. She never watched someone else stumble and insisted she'd respond differently.
Bad things happen, and frequently to good people. We make choices – every day – whether we’re going to turn that badness back into the world and hurt others the way we’ve been hurt, or make the harder choice and find a way to love and help.
Between the two people I write about above, I’d rather be like Elizabeth.
Yeah, it pissed me off. But I’d rather talk about Elizabeth Edwards.
Edwards died this morning after a long, public battle with cancer. She’s not somebody that many of us outside of the Triangle probably would’ve heard of if her husband hadn’t run for the Senate, or vice president or president, but she’s infinitely more admirable than him.
Elizabeth Edwards touched people because she was so different from what we expect from a politician’s wife. Remember this? The world would be a happily less full-of-shit place if more people behaved this way. And now I wonder how many of the things for which I admired John Edwards back when I gave him my first vote back in 1998 – like sponsoring programs for our state’s high school students in their late son’s honor – weren’t really down to Elizabeth.
Joan Walsh quotes the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Connie Shultz about Edwards:
If I were living Elizabeth Edwards' life, I'm not sure who I'd be by now, and that uncertainty is mighty humbling.
We want to believe the best about ourselves. We watch someone else stumble and insist we'd respond differently. But live long enough, and life will bring you to your knees. I have not buried a child. I do not have incurable cancer. I have not been betrayed by the man I love, never had to set eyes on the baby the entire world knows he fathered behind my back.
I know this: I would stumble forward in pieces."
Having been through at least one devastating thing in my life, I can relate. What I went through is the very thing Glenn Beck mocks above. I haven’t ever come out and said this on this blog, but I was raped just over three years ago. And it derailed me for a long time. As bad off as I was, seeing people like Elizabeth Edwards admit to fighting depression and anger, too, does make it easier… at least eventually.
And, for the record, I gave the guy a ride home afterwards, I e-mailed a friend (whom I hadn’t told yet what happened to me) pictures from what was supposed to be our vacation and I went to work Monday morning like nothing had happened. So Beck can take his expert “profile” and go fuck himself. Because most of the time rape victims react just that way. It certainly doesn’t make it easier to handle in the legal system, but it also doesn’t erase what happened to us.
I stumbled forward in pieces, and slowly those pieces came back together again with a lot of support from the people who love me. Elizabeth Edwards went through losing a child, losing a life partner and facing her own death, and there probably were days when she felt like saying “screw it” and drinking a vat of wine. I had my share of those days. Hell, I had more of my share of them.
What’s beautiful about her is that none of those shitty things ever turned her heart, at least not if we can go by her public life. She seemed to see them instead as ways to relate to people less fortunate than her. She sure as hell didn’t go on TV to tell victimized people that the bad tings happening to them were their own fault. She never watched someone else stumble and insisted she'd respond differently.
Bad things happen, and frequently to good people. We make choices – every day – whether we’re going to turn that badness back into the world and hurt others the way we’ve been hurt, or make the harder choice and find a way to love and help.
Between the two people I write about above, I’d rather be like Elizabeth.
Idiots like this are why my dad stopped hunting
I wouldn't really care if Sarah Palin could actually hunt or not if it weren't for the people who think that being willing and able to fire a gun somehow makes one more "real" than a person with an advanced degree, and who cast votes based on that assumption. (I still don't care, to tell the truth.)
Except that, this Thanksgiving for the first time in probably a dozen years, my family didn't hike to the top of the hill on the back part of our land to shoot down mistletoe for Christmas decorations. (It grows at the tops of trees, and there just aren't many better ways to get it down.) The patch is still growing. But from to hill top there are four houses within sight, and another six or seven within a quarter mile or so. It isn't the isolated place it was when we moved there 20 years ago, and that means it isn't safe to fire off weapons, even a .22.
My dad hunted all his life, and so did his brothers. I never hunted deer, because I'm impatient and I don't do mornings (especially not in November - it's still dark outside, people!), but I've always loved target shooting, usually just with a .22. And my dad kept every gun he owned in a padlocked cabinet in his office, and he made sure that my sisters and I, and later his grandson, respected what they could do. Once the area around his acreage got too developed for high-powered rifles to be safe, he restricted his property to bow-hunting. And yet he still has to run off idiots every year (who are trespassing, by the way), like the guy who set up a stand not 100 yards from the house.
My dad hasn'y hunted in awhile. Part of it's just getting older. But basically, he doesn't want to get shot by one of these jackasses who don't know what they're doing.
So this is my issue: I really don't care that Sarah Palin's "hunting" skills are as full of shit as any part of her image. But it bugs me to think of anyone seeing this episode of her show and thinking that this is how you're supposed to handle a gun. Don't use it as a walking stick, don't go near the trigger until you're ready to pull it and for the love of pete stay frakking quiet.
P.S.: the game can smell your hairspray.
Except that, this Thanksgiving for the first time in probably a dozen years, my family didn't hike to the top of the hill on the back part of our land to shoot down mistletoe for Christmas decorations. (It grows at the tops of trees, and there just aren't many better ways to get it down.) The patch is still growing. But from to hill top there are four houses within sight, and another six or seven within a quarter mile or so. It isn't the isolated place it was when we moved there 20 years ago, and that means it isn't safe to fire off weapons, even a .22.
My dad hunted all his life, and so did his brothers. I never hunted deer, because I'm impatient and I don't do mornings (especially not in November - it's still dark outside, people!), but I've always loved target shooting, usually just with a .22. And my dad kept every gun he owned in a padlocked cabinet in his office, and he made sure that my sisters and I, and later his grandson, respected what they could do. Once the area around his acreage got too developed for high-powered rifles to be safe, he restricted his property to bow-hunting. And yet he still has to run off idiots every year (who are trespassing, by the way), like the guy who set up a stand not 100 yards from the house.
My dad hasn'y hunted in awhile. Part of it's just getting older. But basically, he doesn't want to get shot by one of these jackasses who don't know what they're doing.
So this is my issue: I really don't care that Sarah Palin's "hunting" skills are as full of shit as any part of her image. But it bugs me to think of anyone seeing this episode of her show and thinking that this is how you're supposed to handle a gun. Don't use it as a walking stick, don't go near the trigger until you're ready to pull it and for the love of pete stay frakking quiet.
P.S.: the game can smell your hairspray.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
What the hell is wrong with John McCain?
I'm very confused. Back in the late 90s, when I was a junior in high school, I did a research project for my current events class on the debate over campaign finance reform. (Yes, I know, I'm weird.) I came to it from the direction of the controversy over some of the Clinton campaign fundraising in the 1996 election (the cofffees, Al Gore's solicitation calls from his office, etc.). But I quickly became a lot more interested in Senator John McCain.
McCain was trying to leverage the current stink in order to change the laws governing who could donate to a politician or PAC and how much, which eventually became the McCain-Feingold law. I admired that McCain was so passionate about something that wasn't exactly popular with either party, and I admired that he was working with a liberal Democrat to sponsor it. I disagreed with his position on reproductive choice (still do), but if McCain had gotten the Republican nomination for president in 2000, I probably would've voted for him.
Fast-forward to present day, where McCain's reasons for opposing a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are getting increasingly bizarre. Others have deconstructed that much better than I could. It's so odd and out of character that you have to wonder why - seriously, what the hell is going on here?
Most of the time when a politician takes a position and absolutely does not move from it even if the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, it really is just about politics. Sure, sometimes the guy's a true believer, but most of the time he's just trying to draw a hard distinction from an opponent to either win an election or suck up to someone.
It's hard for me to believe that John McCain is a homophobe, mainly because I just don't want to believe that someone I still respect has that kind of evil in his heart. Which makes me wonder who he's trying to please. Despite his long-held anti-choice beliefs, social conservatives have always had a problem with McCain (which is one reason he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate). Surely he can't think that he needs to move to the right to keep his Senate seat. J.D. Hayworth may have given McCain a scare in his primary this year, but he still won in a landslide.
Does McCain want to run for president again? Or his he just trying to tap into Christian fundamentalists' deep pockets, even though he may not need their votes? Is it even worth it for McCain to chase their votes, or their money? Meaning, is there anything that McCain could do to convince this cohort that he's one of them?
The only other alternative is that McCain really does believe that gays don't belong in the U.S. armed services and that hetero servicemen and women can't handle serving with them. And it's really sad to think that such a distinguished veteran could have such a low opinion of the men and women who've followed him.
McCain was trying to leverage the current stink in order to change the laws governing who could donate to a politician or PAC and how much, which eventually became the McCain-Feingold law. I admired that McCain was so passionate about something that wasn't exactly popular with either party, and I admired that he was working with a liberal Democrat to sponsor it. I disagreed with his position on reproductive choice (still do), but if McCain had gotten the Republican nomination for president in 2000, I probably would've voted for him.
Fast-forward to present day, where McCain's reasons for opposing a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are getting increasingly bizarre. Others have deconstructed that much better than I could. It's so odd and out of character that you have to wonder why - seriously, what the hell is going on here?
Most of the time when a politician takes a position and absolutely does not move from it even if the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, it really is just about politics. Sure, sometimes the guy's a true believer, but most of the time he's just trying to draw a hard distinction from an opponent to either win an election or suck up to someone.
It's hard for me to believe that John McCain is a homophobe, mainly because I just don't want to believe that someone I still respect has that kind of evil in his heart. Which makes me wonder who he's trying to please. Despite his long-held anti-choice beliefs, social conservatives have always had a problem with McCain (which is one reason he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate). Surely he can't think that he needs to move to the right to keep his Senate seat. J.D. Hayworth may have given McCain a scare in his primary this year, but he still won in a landslide.
Does McCain want to run for president again? Or his he just trying to tap into Christian fundamentalists' deep pockets, even though he may not need their votes? Is it even worth it for McCain to chase their votes, or their money? Meaning, is there anything that McCain could do to convince this cohort that he's one of them?
The only other alternative is that McCain really does believe that gays don't belong in the U.S. armed services and that hetero servicemen and women can't handle serving with them. And it's really sad to think that such a distinguished veteran could have such a low opinion of the men and women who've followed him.
Bill knows basketball, Football...meh
You may like to bust on Bill Simmons (hell, I sometimes do), but this was some damn fine sports writing.
How good was it? I went back to ESPN's homepage to look for Simmons' NFL picks column, saw it linked with the LeBron piece, and thought to myself, "Column + picks??? What the hell? I didn't see any picks!" Then I clicked back through to the column I'd already read and - oh look - there the picks are, right there on the side. It was so good I scrolled past the very stuff I'd typed in "ESPN.com" to read!
Alright, Bill. You get this one. Even though you are STILL picking the Panthers because you're clueless about the NFL. Seriously, that line could be "Seahawks by 20" and you'd be crazy to go against it. Have you SEEN my boys play this year???
(Reverse Jinx Alert)
(Gambling is illegal, by the way.)
How good was it? I went back to ESPN's homepage to look for Simmons' NFL picks column, saw it linked with the LeBron piece, and thought to myself, "Column + picks??? What the hell? I didn't see any picks!" Then I clicked back through to the column I'd already read and - oh look - there the picks are, right there on the side. It was so good I scrolled past the very stuff I'd typed in "ESPN.com" to read!
Alright, Bill. You get this one. Even though you are STILL picking the Panthers because you're clueless about the NFL. Seriously, that line could be "Seahawks by 20" and you'd be crazy to go against it. Have you SEEN my boys play this year???
(Reverse Jinx Alert)
(Gambling is illegal, by the way.)
Revenge of the Jennifers
First - I apologize for the technical difficulties (lightning frying my modem, Time Warner Cable being a-holes, being at my parents' for Thanksgiving, getting a cold that won't frakking go away). But, I'm here.
One of the things I missed in my absence was BabyCenter.com's annual list of the year's top baby names. It's important to note that this is not the Social Security list of names that were given to actual babies born in 2010, but instead a survey based on names volunteered to the site by parents. So. keep in mind that it skews toward a) people with Internet access, and all the class/education privilege that implies, and b) people who are impressed enough by the name they chose for their kid that they would submit it to a website.
This survey's top names this year are Sophia and Aiden.
In Freakonomics, there's a chapter about names. I haven't reread the book in awhile, so I'm pulling from memory here, but basically the authors' theory is that elites (both in class and education) glom onto certain types of names for their kids, which then filter down through the non-elites (who are trying to emulate the elites by picking "classy" or "sophisticated" names) until they're considered lower-class. That's why the early-60s versions of Sophia and Aiden aren't among this year's top names.
In 2005 when Freakonomics was published, the authors predicted that, based on what the wealthiest, most educated Americans were naming their kids, Celtic and so-called "traditional" names would soon explode in popularity. Lo and behold, five years later we have not just Sophia and Aiden, but also Olivia, Ava, Liam and Connor.
I would feel like kind of a jerk making fun of what other people name their kids. That's kind of a personal decision. But the trends do interest me. Going purely on anecdotal personal experience here, because I haven't done anything like comprehensive research, it does seem like parents try to remedy the trauma of their own names when it comes to their kids. One of my grandmothers has a very unusual (as in, the only one I've ever met) name, which I think is also beautiful. All three of her children have very much usual names. Is it all those Jennifers and Megans who are reaching back to old-school names in the hopes of finding something distinctive for their own kids?
Maybe. Or not. We are talking about individuals here. For instance, I was never, ever the only Sara anywhere I went growing up. (Most of the rest of them were Sarahs, but whatev.) One of my other sisters was also one of at least three in every class or activity she was in. But another sister probably still can't find an appropriate "(Insert Name Here)'s Room" sign at Cracker Barrel.
But we were all named after family. My mother swears that she only knew one Sara(h) (and that a middle-aged co-worker) when she named me. And yet we're all still on the 2010 top names list.
Family names are big in my family, and maybe that's a Southern thing, I don't know. What I do know is that, when I have kids, I won't fret too much about what's popular and what isn't, because obviously there is some freaky hive mind going on there, and it's pointless to try and fight it.
By the way, for all you "let's just spell it with a Y!" people out there... The no-H thing wasn't something my mother did to be cute. That's how the person I was named for spelled it. And also Fleetwood Mac.
One of the things I missed in my absence was BabyCenter.com's annual list of the year's top baby names. It's important to note that this is not the Social Security list of names that were given to actual babies born in 2010, but instead a survey based on names volunteered to the site by parents. So. keep in mind that it skews toward a) people with Internet access, and all the class/education privilege that implies, and b) people who are impressed enough by the name they chose for their kid that they would submit it to a website.
This survey's top names this year are Sophia and Aiden.
In Freakonomics, there's a chapter about names. I haven't reread the book in awhile, so I'm pulling from memory here, but basically the authors' theory is that elites (both in class and education) glom onto certain types of names for their kids, which then filter down through the non-elites (who are trying to emulate the elites by picking "classy" or "sophisticated" names) until they're considered lower-class. That's why the early-60s versions of Sophia and Aiden aren't among this year's top names.
In 2005 when Freakonomics was published, the authors predicted that, based on what the wealthiest, most educated Americans were naming their kids, Celtic and so-called "traditional" names would soon explode in popularity. Lo and behold, five years later we have not just Sophia and Aiden, but also Olivia, Ava, Liam and Connor.
I would feel like kind of a jerk making fun of what other people name their kids. That's kind of a personal decision. But the trends do interest me. Going purely on anecdotal personal experience here, because I haven't done anything like comprehensive research, it does seem like parents try to remedy the trauma of their own names when it comes to their kids. One of my grandmothers has a very unusual (as in, the only one I've ever met) name, which I think is also beautiful. All three of her children have very much usual names. Is it all those Jennifers and Megans who are reaching back to old-school names in the hopes of finding something distinctive for their own kids?
Maybe. Or not. We are talking about individuals here. For instance, I was never, ever the only Sara anywhere I went growing up. (Most of the rest of them were Sarahs, but whatev.) One of my other sisters was also one of at least three in every class or activity she was in. But another sister probably still can't find an appropriate "(Insert Name Here)'s Room" sign at Cracker Barrel.
But we were all named after family. My mother swears that she only knew one Sara(h) (and that a middle-aged co-worker) when she named me. And yet we're all still on the 2010 top names list.
Family names are big in my family, and maybe that's a Southern thing, I don't know. What I do know is that, when I have kids, I won't fret too much about what's popular and what isn't, because obviously there is some freaky hive mind going on there, and it's pointless to try and fight it.
By the way, for all you "let's just spell it with a Y!" people out there... The no-H thing wasn't something my mother did to be cute. That's how the person I was named for spelled it. And also Fleetwood Mac.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Congrats, Sir Yawnsalot
So, Jimmie Johnson won his fifth straight Sprint Cup championship yesterday. An hour afterwards, the top story on ESPN.com was the half-finished Patriots-Colts game.
Does anyone else think that that the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" would consider a five-time, say, World Series winner to be less newsworthy than a semi-meaningful regular-season football game? That right there tells you everything you need to know about how the mainstream sporting world views NASCAR.
And - apologies to the 48 team, but their winning streak is part of the reason why. It's not just that Johnson is too predictable to love and too boring to hate. I suspect that, even if perennial most-popular-driver Dale Jr. were to knock off five championships in a row, a lot of fans would be tuning out at this point. Sports fans like underdogs and long-shots; that's what makes sport, sport.
It seems that Johnson's team is uniquely suited to take advantage of the Chase format, which essentially turns the season into a 10-race sprint at the very end. They've got it figured out, and good for them. But, as a fan, it's demoralizing to see a team lead the standings for seven months only to see the driver's lead erased. Sure, in other sports it's possible for a wild card team 10 spots out of the lead to rip off a few playoff wins and take the whole thing. But usually not the same team for five years in a row.
Several years ago, after Matt Kenseth won the [Fill in the Sponsor Here] Cup, NASCAR's brain trust devised the Chase format believing that it would be more exciting to have a tight 10 (now 12) way race to the finish. But it hasn't really worked out that way. The News & Observer reported last week that ESPN's race broadcast ratings were down 13 percent over last year. Whatever NASCAR is doing isn't working.
Does anyone else think that that the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" would consider a five-time, say, World Series winner to be less newsworthy than a semi-meaningful regular-season football game? That right there tells you everything you need to know about how the mainstream sporting world views NASCAR.
And - apologies to the 48 team, but their winning streak is part of the reason why. It's not just that Johnson is too predictable to love and too boring to hate. I suspect that, even if perennial most-popular-driver Dale Jr. were to knock off five championships in a row, a lot of fans would be tuning out at this point. Sports fans like underdogs and long-shots; that's what makes sport, sport.
It seems that Johnson's team is uniquely suited to take advantage of the Chase format, which essentially turns the season into a 10-race sprint at the very end. They've got it figured out, and good for them. But, as a fan, it's demoralizing to see a team lead the standings for seven months only to see the driver's lead erased. Sure, in other sports it's possible for a wild card team 10 spots out of the lead to rip off a few playoff wins and take the whole thing. But usually not the same team for five years in a row.
Several years ago, after Matt Kenseth won the [Fill in the Sponsor Here] Cup, NASCAR's brain trust devised the Chase format believing that it would be more exciting to have a tight 10 (now 12) way race to the finish. But it hasn't really worked out that way. The News & Observer reported last week that ESPN's race broadcast ratings were down 13 percent over last year. Whatever NASCAR is doing isn't working.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
You have a low opinion of what drives me crazy
All-you-can-eat buffets. Double negatives. Improper subject/verb agreement. Lazy tackling. These are things that irritate, bother and trouble me, even raise my blood pressure.
A woman (who happens to be the daughter of a conservative political figure) advancing in a TV popularity contest? Not so much.
As I wrote back when I watched my very first episode of "Dancing With the Stars," I hope Bristol Palin has a great time. People her age need a chance to get away from home for a little while and figure out who they are, even if just for a few weeks. And she's doing well, too - great legs, for one thing, and she's doing moves that aren't easy for someone with zero experience performing. I'm a card-carrying liberal and I wish Bristol all the best on "DWTS."
I think it's kind of weird that someone would assume I wouldn't. Every single person I know who's involved with politics and government (mostly liberals, but a few conservatives) is too busy organizing precincts, planning GOTV drives and figuring out a plan for the next election. Not fretting over who wins "DWTS." Who gives a shit?
Frankly, people who have literally hours to waste creating fake e-mail addresses and voting in a TV competition, and then bragging about that on a Web forum, aren't people who are going to have a large role to play in policy development anyway. Yawn.
A woman (who happens to be the daughter of a conservative political figure) advancing in a TV popularity contest? Not so much.
As I wrote back when I watched my very first episode of "Dancing With the Stars," I hope Bristol Palin has a great time. People her age need a chance to get away from home for a little while and figure out who they are, even if just for a few weeks. And she's doing well, too - great legs, for one thing, and she's doing moves that aren't easy for someone with zero experience performing. I'm a card-carrying liberal and I wish Bristol all the best on "DWTS."
I think it's kind of weird that someone would assume I wouldn't. Every single person I know who's involved with politics and government (mostly liberals, but a few conservatives) is too busy organizing precincts, planning GOTV drives and figuring out a plan for the next election. Not fretting over who wins "DWTS." Who gives a shit?
Frankly, people who have literally hours to waste creating fake e-mail addresses and voting in a TV competition, and then bragging about that on a Web forum, aren't people who are going to have a large role to play in policy development anyway. Yawn.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Does this blog make you want to smoke?
Here's a funny story: I grew up in Winston-Salem, N.C., within smelling distance of a cigarette plant where my school used to take field trips. This was before the feds cracked down on tobacco advertising, so Joe Camel was everywhere - including on a sweatshirt my grandfather, a retired RJ Reynolds employee, gave me (and which my mom never let me wear).
Not only did I not smoke until I got to college (making me a statistical freak of nature), when I did buy my first pack, it wasn't Camels, Winstons, Salems or any of my other hometown brands. They were Marlboro Lights, because that's what my roommate smoked.
Ask any smoker what got him or her to light up the first time, and you'll hear "My dad smoked, and I snuck some of his," or, "All my friends/coworkers smoked." It's possible that you'll find someone who swears up and down that a cartoon Camel looked so cool that he wanted to be just like him, but I doubt it. That's because our peers, siblings and, yes, parents, are still bigger influences on us than any advertisment.
Which is why this is dumb. I'm all for restricting tobacco ads to adults. This is a product that says right on the box that it will addict and eventually kill you, and a 15-year-old shouldn't be responsible for hooking himself, any more than that same 15-year-old should be allowed to buy a gun. There's a reason tobacco companies targeted kids at one point (to hook them early), and the government was right to keep them away from kids.
But to me the criticism of this Camel campaign feels like "let's jump on the tobacco industry no matter what they do." You have a contest playing off indie rock, driven by an age-restricted website, featuring destinations like Sturgis, S.D., and Austin, Texas. (Not, say, Disneyland.) The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says Reynolds is "blatantly appeal[ing] to children." Bullshit. I have an 11-year-old nephew, and I doubt he could tell you where Williamsburg, Brooklyn, is if you offered him a hundred bucks.
Adults who want to smoke are going to smoke. A lot of kids who want to smoke will find a way to do so. The way to stop them isn't to piggy-back on a cigarette marketing campaign to get publicity for your own organization. It's to be a responsible parent, grandparent, teacher, etc., monitor your kids' Internet use, smell their breath and in general involve yourself in their lives. You know, like a grown-up.
Not only did I not smoke until I got to college (making me a statistical freak of nature), when I did buy my first pack, it wasn't Camels, Winstons, Salems or any of my other hometown brands. They were Marlboro Lights, because that's what my roommate smoked.
Ask any smoker what got him or her to light up the first time, and you'll hear "My dad smoked, and I snuck some of his," or, "All my friends/coworkers smoked." It's possible that you'll find someone who swears up and down that a cartoon Camel looked so cool that he wanted to be just like him, but I doubt it. That's because our peers, siblings and, yes, parents, are still bigger influences on us than any advertisment.
Which is why this is dumb. I'm all for restricting tobacco ads to adults. This is a product that says right on the box that it will addict and eventually kill you, and a 15-year-old shouldn't be responsible for hooking himself, any more than that same 15-year-old should be allowed to buy a gun. There's a reason tobacco companies targeted kids at one point (to hook them early), and the government was right to keep them away from kids.
But to me the criticism of this Camel campaign feels like "let's jump on the tobacco industry no matter what they do." You have a contest playing off indie rock, driven by an age-restricted website, featuring destinations like Sturgis, S.D., and Austin, Texas. (Not, say, Disneyland.) The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says Reynolds is "blatantly appeal[ing] to children." Bullshit. I have an 11-year-old nephew, and I doubt he could tell you where Williamsburg, Brooklyn, is if you offered him a hundred bucks.
Adults who want to smoke are going to smoke. A lot of kids who want to smoke will find a way to do so. The way to stop them isn't to piggy-back on a cigarette marketing campaign to get publicity for your own organization. It's to be a responsible parent, grandparent, teacher, etc., monitor your kids' Internet use, smell their breath and in general involve yourself in their lives. You know, like a grown-up.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The war at home
It’s Veterans Day, but it’s also the night before my grandmother’s funeral.
Mamaw was a lot of things – an extraordinary woman who’d surely look at me funny if she heard me say that about her: a woman who was married to the love of her life for 61 years until his death, who worked the whole time she was raising three boys, and who likely never missed a Sunday at church. Those are the things that make her extraordinary.
One of my friends reminded me that Nov. 11 used to be called Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, and it honored veterans and anyone else affected by war. And Mamaw certainly was. Her husband was a Marine MP during World War II, and her middle son, my dad, was a four-times-wounded Vietnam vet who said many times that his salvation was having a loving Christian family to come home to.
So, as we rightfully honor military veterans today, let’s not forget the families waiting and worrying back home. They may not get shot at, but they sure as hell sacrifice before, during and after combat is over. Maybe after most of all.
Mamaw was a lot of things – an extraordinary woman who’d surely look at me funny if she heard me say that about her: a woman who was married to the love of her life for 61 years until his death, who worked the whole time she was raising three boys, and who likely never missed a Sunday at church. Those are the things that make her extraordinary.
One of my friends reminded me that Nov. 11 used to be called Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, and it honored veterans and anyone else affected by war. And Mamaw certainly was. Her husband was a Marine MP during World War II, and her middle son, my dad, was a four-times-wounded Vietnam vet who said many times that his salvation was having a loving Christian family to come home to.
So, as we rightfully honor military veterans today, let’s not forget the families waiting and worrying back home. They may not get shot at, but they sure as hell sacrifice before, during and after combat is over. Maybe after most of all.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
This is what a news organization looks like
I'm not going to rehash my distaste for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. In my opinion, he's no better than the "journalists" at Fox News. But apparently MSNBC is. Or at least they want to be.
Olbermann was suspended Friday after it came to light that he'd donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates (one of whom appeared as a guest on his show just last week). NBC News has rules barring its hosts and reporters from making political contributions without prior approval. One can argue that the rule is unfair, but presumably Olbermann knew about it and knowingly broke it. Suspension is a no-brainer.
Now, about Fox... Not only do their on-air people like Sean Hannity make political donations (including to some of the very people who appear on their shows), the network employs Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, who both actively endorse and raise money for candidates. The network itself gives money to Republican organizations, including $1 million to the Republican Governors Association just this year from News Corp., Fox News' parent company.
No, this is not a "but Fox does it, too!" excuse. If you ask me, the fact that Fox News does something is an excellent reason NOT to do that very thing. When we're talking about journalistic ethics, you could do a lot worse than looking at Fox News standards and then doing the opposite.
And I'm fine with NBC News' rule about political donations for the very people its reporters are supposed to be covering objectively. For frak's sake, are we really having this debate? If you want to advocate for one politician or another, don't take a job that requires your neutrality on that very topic.
While "Countdown" is definitely an opinion-based program, Olbermann also anchored MSNBC's election night coverage this year. (I watched CNN, by the way.) That makes him a journalist, not a commentator. As a viewer, I insist that the journalists I watch investigate and report the news, not help make it.
Olbermann was suspended Friday after it came to light that he'd donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates (one of whom appeared as a guest on his show just last week). NBC News has rules barring its hosts and reporters from making political contributions without prior approval. One can argue that the rule is unfair, but presumably Olbermann knew about it and knowingly broke it. Suspension is a no-brainer.
Now, about Fox... Not only do their on-air people like Sean Hannity make political donations (including to some of the very people who appear on their shows), the network employs Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, who both actively endorse and raise money for candidates. The network itself gives money to Republican organizations, including $1 million to the Republican Governors Association just this year from News Corp., Fox News' parent company.
No, this is not a "but Fox does it, too!" excuse. If you ask me, the fact that Fox News does something is an excellent reason NOT to do that very thing. When we're talking about journalistic ethics, you could do a lot worse than looking at Fox News standards and then doing the opposite.
And I'm fine with NBC News' rule about political donations for the very people its reporters are supposed to be covering objectively. For frak's sake, are we really having this debate? If you want to advocate for one politician or another, don't take a job that requires your neutrality on that very topic.
While "Countdown" is definitely an opinion-based program, Olbermann also anchored MSNBC's election night coverage this year. (I watched CNN, by the way.) That makes him a journalist, not a commentator. As a viewer, I insist that the journalists I watch investigate and report the news, not help make it.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Study proves that some people just don't get correlation vs. causality
A study by the National Forest Service found that neighborhoods with lots of trees have less crime! Hell yes! Let's plant some trees and watch our property crime disappear!
Ummmm, nope.
Let me say upfront that I have no idea what controls this survey used in order to ensure it indicates what it thinks it indicates, and there's always the UNC Geography Major caveat that comes whenever the media tries to report stats. That said, my first reaction on reading this was that the results were a little backward.
I say that because just last month I cut down a tree in front of my house because it blocked the street light that allows the whole neighborhood to see when Ted Bundy is trying to break into my house. (Don't get excited - it was a hideous deformed crepe myrtle, not a giant oak or anything.) I love living where I do, but it's just a fact that I live downtown where there's a lot of foot traffic and it's easy to, say, break into a car. Trees obscure sight lines, and better views tend to equal less petty crime, at least where I live.
Sure there might be a broken windows theory-type aspect, where lush foliage indicates that a neighborhood is better cared for and therefore less friendly to crime. But - at least the way it's being reported, this study says that merely having giant trees will deter crime. And I call BS. I need more before I conclude that more big trees = lower crime and not the other way around.
Ummmm, nope.
Let me say upfront that I have no idea what controls this survey used in order to ensure it indicates what it thinks it indicates, and there's always the UNC Geography Major caveat that comes whenever the media tries to report stats. That said, my first reaction on reading this was that the results were a little backward.
I say that because just last month I cut down a tree in front of my house because it blocked the street light that allows the whole neighborhood to see when Ted Bundy is trying to break into my house. (Don't get excited - it was a hideous deformed crepe myrtle, not a giant oak or anything.) I love living where I do, but it's just a fact that I live downtown where there's a lot of foot traffic and it's easy to, say, break into a car. Trees obscure sight lines, and better views tend to equal less petty crime, at least where I live.
Sure there might be a broken windows theory-type aspect, where lush foliage indicates that a neighborhood is better cared for and therefore less friendly to crime. But - at least the way it's being reported, this study says that merely having giant trees will deter crime. And I call BS. I need more before I conclude that more big trees = lower crime and not the other way around.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Principles are Hot!
Every time I try to start a regular feature, I get distracted and end up dropping it. So I'm just going to tell you upfront that this is NOT going to be a regular thing. But when I read about a guy (occasionally a woman, but I am straight after all) doing what I consider to be the single most attractive thing one can do, I want to highlight it. What is that sexy thing? Having principles, living them and acting on them.
First up, we have two guys I've crushed on for awhile now: Scott Fujita and Zach Galifianakis.
Fujita is an NFL linebacker currently playing for the Cleveland Browns. Jezebel has a great rundown of reasons to love Fujita, and today he added to the list by co-authoring an op-ed on the links between LGBT equality and immigration reform. Fujita speaks out on issues relating to adoption, family and reproductive choices, but he gets extra points with me for being so outspoken about LGBT rights even as he makes a living doing one of the most stereotypically "manly" jobs out there. HAWT.
I finally saw "The Hangover" a few weeks ago, and I don't mind writing that I'd kick Bradley Cooper out of bed any day for either Ed Helms or Zach Galifianakis. But Zach also gets points for growing up one county over from me in our our very rural corner of North Carolina. So part of my Zach-crush is identification. I don't know and I don't care if he was involved in cutting Mel Gibson from "The Hangover 2," but it is true that he's done some work for Growing Voices, whose projects include community development in Africa and, yes, domestic violence awareness here in N.C. Ha-aht.
I'm kind of a loudmouth myself (hence the whole "blogging into the void" thing...). While I can't tell you what Women(TM) want, I can assure you that this woman gets all warm and fuzzy when I see people stand up for something they believe in.
First up, we have two guys I've crushed on for awhile now: Scott Fujita and Zach Galifianakis.
Fujita is an NFL linebacker currently playing for the Cleveland Browns. Jezebel has a great rundown of reasons to love Fujita, and today he added to the list by co-authoring an op-ed on the links between LGBT equality and immigration reform. Fujita speaks out on issues relating to adoption, family and reproductive choices, but he gets extra points with me for being so outspoken about LGBT rights even as he makes a living doing one of the most stereotypically "manly" jobs out there. HAWT.
I finally saw "The Hangover" a few weeks ago, and I don't mind writing that I'd kick Bradley Cooper out of bed any day for either Ed Helms or Zach Galifianakis. But Zach also gets points for growing up one county over from me in our our very rural corner of North Carolina. So part of my Zach-crush is identification. I don't know and I don't care if he was involved in cutting Mel Gibson from "The Hangover 2," but it is true that he's done some work for Growing Voices, whose projects include community development in Africa and, yes, domestic violence awareness here in N.C. Ha-aht.
I'm kind of a loudmouth myself (hence the whole "blogging into the void" thing...). While I can't tell you what Women(TM) want, I can assure you that this woman gets all warm and fuzzy when I see people stand up for something they believe in.
Take a picture: it's a happy Democrat
Apparently I'm supposed to be very worried and depressed because I'm a Democrat and the Republicans regained control over the House of Representatives on Tuesday. I'm not. 'Bye, Alan Grayson, you nutball. Sorry, hot mob banker. There are even some Dems I'd have liked to see ousted - if you know any Republicans who aren't all "Let's outlaw Spanish!" I'd even vote for them. The only election result that truly disappointed me was Russ Feingold's loss in Wisconsin, but even that wasn't a shock.
Here's the thing... it was two years ago today that Barack Obama won the presidency. On that day, how many people predicted what happened Tuesday? Ok, anyone with a grasp of history knew that the House would swing back at vety the least, but my point is that a lot can change in two years. The House in particular is like the skin on a chameleon - super-reactionary because its entire membership turns over every other year. Just ask Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who were both re-elected after getting shellacked in the midterms only two years earlier. So don't write off Obama. He's still more popular than Congress.
I might be the only Democrat in America who thinks - or at least will admit to thinking - that this is a good thing. Obama is nowhere close to the far-left radical he's been painted as being. And now that House Republicans can plausibly take credit for anything good that happens for the next two years, I predict that we're going to see more cooperation, not less.
So Mitch McConnell should really lay off the "our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office" stuff, unless he's secretly on the DNC's attack ad-production team. Because if Tuesday's vote show anything, it's that this kind of bickering is exactly what Americans DON'T want. We aren't married to one party or another, we just want our country to work again. (Also, the Republicans salivating over the chance to start investigating anything would do well to remember the 1998 midterms, or, as I like to call it, the "We Don't Care Who Blew the President" election.)
While the federal government can't force banks to give credit or businesses to invest or expand, they can set policy that makes it easier and safer to do these things. Instead of name-calling, build roads and light rail systems and invest in tech education. Forget 2012 and think about 2062 for a second.
So I'm not too worried about the national scene. On a state level, though, I'm kind of wary. Democrats have controlled N.C.'s legislature for 112 years, and while changing power can be an opportunity for new ideas, the state Republicans don't particularly inspire me.
Here's the thing... it was two years ago today that Barack Obama won the presidency. On that day, how many people predicted what happened Tuesday? Ok, anyone with a grasp of history knew that the House would swing back at vety the least, but my point is that a lot can change in two years. The House in particular is like the skin on a chameleon - super-reactionary because its entire membership turns over every other year. Just ask Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who were both re-elected after getting shellacked in the midterms only two years earlier. So don't write off Obama. He's still more popular than Congress.
I might be the only Democrat in America who thinks - or at least will admit to thinking - that this is a good thing. Obama is nowhere close to the far-left radical he's been painted as being. And now that House Republicans can plausibly take credit for anything good that happens for the next two years, I predict that we're going to see more cooperation, not less.
So Mitch McConnell should really lay off the "our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office" stuff, unless he's secretly on the DNC's attack ad-production team. Because if Tuesday's vote show anything, it's that this kind of bickering is exactly what Americans DON'T want. We aren't married to one party or another, we just want our country to work again. (Also, the Republicans salivating over the chance to start investigating anything would do well to remember the 1998 midterms, or, as I like to call it, the "We Don't Care Who Blew the President" election.)
While the federal government can't force banks to give credit or businesses to invest or expand, they can set policy that makes it easier and safer to do these things. Instead of name-calling, build roads and light rail systems and invest in tech education. Forget 2012 and think about 2062 for a second.
So I'm not too worried about the national scene. On a state level, though, I'm kind of wary. Democrats have controlled N.C.'s legislature for 112 years, and while changing power can be an opportunity for new ideas, the state Republicans don't particularly inspire me.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
King and Solomon
Remember the Biblical story of King Solomon? In what has to be the world's most f-ed up custody case, two women come to King Solomon asking him to decide who gets to keep a baby. He says, just cut it in half and you can each have a piece. (Note: when I first heard this story in Sunday School, I was dubious. I mean... really?) Anyway, the story goes that one of the women said, yeah sure, and the other said "ARE YOU FRAKKING INSANE??? DON'T CUT MY BABY IN HALF!" (Note: not a direct quote from the Bible.) And Solomon in his infinite wisdom figured that the woman who was cool with half a baby corpse (I say again... really?) was either a) not the mother, or b) possibly the actual mother, but too frakking fruitloops to be trusted with a kid anyway. Problem solved.
I've been thinking about King Solomon ever since my neighboring community, King, stepped in a local Christians vs. Constitution debate a few months ago. In a nutshell, the city added a Christian flag to its public veterans memorial; a resident (who said he's a veteran himself, btw) called them saying he objected to this on the-government-can't-give-preference-to-one-religion grounds; the city heard the same thing from the ACLU and decided to avoid a lawsuit and take the flag down; and then Bibles hit the fan.
For about a month or so now, a group of King residents has been going out to the monument every day and setting up a Christian flag, keeping vigil next to it all day. (As is their right, by the way.) Yesterday, King's town council voted - Solomon-like - to spilt the difference. A compromise will fly the various flags recognized by the U.S. military (and it is a military monument, after all), including the Christian flag.
As a Christian myself, I have a hard time getting worked up over this. At no point during this drama have I gone to open my Bible or pray and been unable to do so because my faith is under attack or something. While Christians may be a majority in the U.S., our government - including our military - is and always has been secular. As I've written before, the people who created our government from scratch had a chance to make Christianity the state religion, and they didn't. That's a choice they made for a reason.
On a more general note... I realize that I'm about to piss in some cornflakes here, but it had to be said. Just know that I'm not casting judgment on others any more than I am myself. Do you ever think about WHY Jesus told his followers to pray in the dark where no one could see you, and that the people who prayed out in public were hypocrites? I think it's because being a public Christian is easy, and Jesus knew that.
It's easy to wear a cross necklace or a WWJD bracelet or - yes - to go to church every Sunday, and say to yourself, "Well, I'm done for the week." What isn't easy is to LIVE Christian values: giving, living humbly, forgoing revenge, accepting that yuo're not in charge. One Biblical story I've always struggled with is the one about the Prodigal Son - you know, where one kid screws up in every way possible, comes home in shame and his father throws a massive party to welcome him home, and the other kid, who's always done everything right, is like, WTF? Where the hell's my fatted calf?
I think what Jesus wants his followers to get is that we don't get a cookie - ahem, fatted calf - for doing what we should. And we shouldn't expect it. Following Jesus is ultimately about losing your pride, your "I got mine, so screw you" instincts. You shouldn't need a flag in a park, like your religion just won the Super Bowl or something.
The Winston-Salem Journal did some really great journalism Sunday and featured short stories about several King residents. One of them was a diner owner who said she'd gotten comments from customers because she didn't post a Christian flag in her business. She told them she'd never flown that flag before, so why would she now?
It's unpleasant to think of Christians in King who may be judging others based on what earthly emblems they choose to display - which, again, is a direct contradiction of what Jesus tells us to do. The King town council made a good decision, publicly, governmentally. I hope that my Christian neighbors make good decisions as people of faith.
I've been thinking about King Solomon ever since my neighboring community, King, stepped in a local Christians vs. Constitution debate a few months ago. In a nutshell, the city added a Christian flag to its public veterans memorial; a resident (who said he's a veteran himself, btw) called them saying he objected to this on the-government-can't-give-preference-to-one-religion grounds; the city heard the same thing from the ACLU and decided to avoid a lawsuit and take the flag down; and then Bibles hit the fan.
For about a month or so now, a group of King residents has been going out to the monument every day and setting up a Christian flag, keeping vigil next to it all day. (As is their right, by the way.) Yesterday, King's town council voted - Solomon-like - to spilt the difference. A compromise will fly the various flags recognized by the U.S. military (and it is a military monument, after all), including the Christian flag.
As a Christian myself, I have a hard time getting worked up over this. At no point during this drama have I gone to open my Bible or pray and been unable to do so because my faith is under attack or something. While Christians may be a majority in the U.S., our government - including our military - is and always has been secular. As I've written before, the people who created our government from scratch had a chance to make Christianity the state religion, and they didn't. That's a choice they made for a reason.
By the way... is "Christian flag" not an oxymoron?
I think the King town council made the best choice here. It's one that might not be popular with people who think they need a flag in a park in order to practice their faith (despite specific instructions from the head of our church to the contrary), but it was the best choice. A monument to military veterans should follow military guidelines, and that means recognizing religions other than Christianity. Unless you only want Christians to enlist in the military from now on, that is.On a more general note... I realize that I'm about to piss in some cornflakes here, but it had to be said. Just know that I'm not casting judgment on others any more than I am myself. Do you ever think about WHY Jesus told his followers to pray in the dark where no one could see you, and that the people who prayed out in public were hypocrites? I think it's because being a public Christian is easy, and Jesus knew that.
It's easy to wear a cross necklace or a WWJD bracelet or - yes - to go to church every Sunday, and say to yourself, "Well, I'm done for the week." What isn't easy is to LIVE Christian values: giving, living humbly, forgoing revenge, accepting that yuo're not in charge. One Biblical story I've always struggled with is the one about the Prodigal Son - you know, where one kid screws up in every way possible, comes home in shame and his father throws a massive party to welcome him home, and the other kid, who's always done everything right, is like, WTF? Where the hell's my fatted calf?
I think what Jesus wants his followers to get is that we don't get a cookie - ahem, fatted calf - for doing what we should. And we shouldn't expect it. Following Jesus is ultimately about losing your pride, your "I got mine, so screw you" instincts. You shouldn't need a flag in a park, like your religion just won the Super Bowl or something.
The Winston-Salem Journal did some really great journalism Sunday and featured short stories about several King residents. One of them was a diner owner who said she'd gotten comments from customers because she didn't post a Christian flag in her business. She told them she'd never flown that flag before, so why would she now?
It's unpleasant to think of Christians in King who may be judging others based on what earthly emblems they choose to display - which, again, is a direct contradiction of what Jesus tells us to do. The King town council made a good decision, publicly, governmentally. I hope that my Christian neighbors make good decisions as people of faith.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Jason and Grant did not pee in your cornflakes, either
When I was about 11 years old, I was ridiculously into parapsychology. Vampires and witches, too, but mainly poltergeists and ESP. I knew all about the parapsychology lab at Duke, and I had fantasies about going to college there just to study various psychic phenomena. But - I say again - I was 11.
It's probably a good thing that I ended up majoring in something that actually landed me a job after college, or otherwise I might've ended up like the "professionals" quoted in this piece, whose beef with "Ghost Hunters," et al, seems to be pretty much that the TV guys are stealing all the gigs these days.
I never lost my interest in ghost stories, which I guess is why "Ghost Hunters" is one of my favorite TV shows. So, purely as a fan, I feel obligated to defend my favorite Yankee plumbers from - let's face it - kind of a BS premise. First of all, the TAPS crew go into every episode looking to debunk claims of haunting, and 99.9 percent of the time they err on the side of lens flare/electronic noise/etc. So I think that lumping them in with the "Use my energy!" people on the Travel Channel's "Ghost Adventures" isn't exactly fair. (Though, having never seen "Ghost Adventures," I have no idea whether the snippet quoted in the article is representative of what they do.)
Second - if professional academics in the parapsychology/paranormal area don't feel they get enough respect, are the people who were lucky enough to land on TV really to blame? Say what you want about TAPS, but at least they all had day jobs before the SyFy channel came along.
My only quibble with "Ghost Hunters" is that they focus so much on their tech toys and less on the folklore/sociological side of haunting legends. But a) they're on the sci-fi channel, not the History Channel, and, b) the gizmos are the closest one can come to providing objective evidence. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, people who come into a ghost story or haunted place thinking first of the spookiness of the experience tend to look for something spooky. Which is a recipe for subjectivity... a.k.a., not science.
So, I heart the Ghost Hunters. And, I repeat what I wrote this time last year: please, please, please come to Winston-Salem; I will totally hook you up.
It's probably a good thing that I ended up majoring in something that actually landed me a job after college, or otherwise I might've ended up like the "professionals" quoted in this piece, whose beef with "Ghost Hunters," et al, seems to be pretty much that the TV guys are stealing all the gigs these days.
I never lost my interest in ghost stories, which I guess is why "Ghost Hunters" is one of my favorite TV shows. So, purely as a fan, I feel obligated to defend my favorite Yankee plumbers from - let's face it - kind of a BS premise. First of all, the TAPS crew go into every episode looking to debunk claims of haunting, and 99.9 percent of the time they err on the side of lens flare/electronic noise/etc. So I think that lumping them in with the "Use my energy!" people on the Travel Channel's "Ghost Adventures" isn't exactly fair. (Though, having never seen "Ghost Adventures," I have no idea whether the snippet quoted in the article is representative of what they do.)
Second - if professional academics in the parapsychology/paranormal area don't feel they get enough respect, are the people who were lucky enough to land on TV really to blame? Say what you want about TAPS, but at least they all had day jobs before the SyFy channel came along.
My only quibble with "Ghost Hunters" is that they focus so much on their tech toys and less on the folklore/sociological side of haunting legends. But a) they're on the sci-fi channel, not the History Channel, and, b) the gizmos are the closest one can come to providing objective evidence. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, people who come into a ghost story or haunted place thinking first of the spookiness of the experience tend to look for something spooky. Which is a recipe for subjectivity... a.k.a., not science.
So, I heart the Ghost Hunters. And, I repeat what I wrote this time last year: please, please, please come to Winston-Salem; I will totally hook you up.
Friday, October 29, 2010
"Law & Order" rules
I have to warn you that I'm still processing Gawker's decision to post an anonymous account from a guy who claims that Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell got drunk and hooked up with him at a Halloween party three years ago, so what I'm about to write may be pretty disjointed, and I may change my mind about it later. Gawker's gotten some criticism, but they stand by their report.
At first I was on the "that's not fair" side, but...
As I've been saying since the op-ed I wrote for my high school newspaper back in 1998, I could not possibly care less about the private life of an elected official or, in this case, someone running for office, as long as that private life doesn't affect the job that person's been hired to do. Politician cheats on his wife? Sleazy, and not someone I'd want to date my sister. But unless the cheating opens said politician up to, say, blackmail charges that could sway his/her votes on legislation, I don't care. I. Dont. Care.
But there's one area where we run into problems, and that's where politicians who sell themselves as "values" based but then turn out to be hypocrites. The problem is that conservatives rightly wonder why a Republican Congressman who gets caught cheating on his wife or buying hookers gets raked over the coals, but a Democratic politician doesn't. It seems like a double standard. But it isn't.
That's because some politicians base their qualifications for office on experience, and some base it on what church they attend. Some voters choose a candidate based on a past record, and some on which one prays better in public. And if you're a so-called values voter, you're setting yourself up for heartbreak.
It's what I think of as "Law & Order" rules. On seemingly every other episode, some perp exposes himself on the stand by spouting off some ludicrous, easily contradicted statement like "I would NEVER do (fill in the blank)," which gets the DA all excited and usually allows him/her to say something like, "Oh REALLY? Like that guy you chopped into 37 pieces and hid in your closet?" - which of course HAD been inadmissable for one reason or another until the defendant opened the door. The defendant's attorney objects, and the DA always says the same thing - it goes to credibility, Your Honor.
When you're a conservative who virulently opposes gay marriage and then you get caught going on vacation with a gay escort, it goes to credibility. When you're a Senate candidate whose "issues" webpage is only one page because your entire candidacy is based on your "Christian" morality, and then you get drunk and fool around with some guy you just met, it goes to credibility.
No double standard here - if an environmentalist social justice Democrat got caught on camera beating a homeless person with a baby seal, you'd better believe that mess would be all over CNN. Why do you think conservatives keep going on about how much power Al Gore's house uses?
Here's what the Newt Gingriches and the Larry Craigs and the Sarah Palins and the rest have never figured out: if you make your private life a qualification for office, voters and media types alike are obligated to vet it just as if you were running on your legislative record. Say what you want about Bill Clinton, but the man knew better than to make his morality a campaign issue.
Of course, it helped that he had an actual record to use instead.
At first I was on the "that's not fair" side, but...
As I've been saying since the op-ed I wrote for my high school newspaper back in 1998, I could not possibly care less about the private life of an elected official or, in this case, someone running for office, as long as that private life doesn't affect the job that person's been hired to do. Politician cheats on his wife? Sleazy, and not someone I'd want to date my sister. But unless the cheating opens said politician up to, say, blackmail charges that could sway his/her votes on legislation, I don't care. I. Dont. Care.
But there's one area where we run into problems, and that's where politicians who sell themselves as "values" based but then turn out to be hypocrites. The problem is that conservatives rightly wonder why a Republican Congressman who gets caught cheating on his wife or buying hookers gets raked over the coals, but a Democratic politician doesn't. It seems like a double standard. But it isn't.
That's because some politicians base their qualifications for office on experience, and some base it on what church they attend. Some voters choose a candidate based on a past record, and some on which one prays better in public. And if you're a so-called values voter, you're setting yourself up for heartbreak.
It's what I think of as "Law & Order" rules. On seemingly every other episode, some perp exposes himself on the stand by spouting off some ludicrous, easily contradicted statement like "I would NEVER do (fill in the blank)," which gets the DA all excited and usually allows him/her to say something like, "Oh REALLY? Like that guy you chopped into 37 pieces and hid in your closet?" - which of course HAD been inadmissable for one reason or another until the defendant opened the door. The defendant's attorney objects, and the DA always says the same thing - it goes to credibility, Your Honor.
When you're a conservative who virulently opposes gay marriage and then you get caught going on vacation with a gay escort, it goes to credibility. When you're a Senate candidate whose "issues" webpage is only one page because your entire candidacy is based on your "Christian" morality, and then you get drunk and fool around with some guy you just met, it goes to credibility.
No double standard here - if an environmentalist social justice Democrat got caught on camera beating a homeless person with a baby seal, you'd better believe that mess would be all over CNN. Why do you think conservatives keep going on about how much power Al Gore's house uses?
Here's what the Newt Gingriches and the Larry Craigs and the Sarah Palins and the rest have never figured out: if you make your private life a qualification for office, voters and media types alike are obligated to vet it just as if you were running on your legislative record. Say what you want about Bill Clinton, but the man knew better than to make his morality a campaign issue.
Of course, it helped that he had an actual record to use instead.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Crappy "journalism" alert
In the other room on the TV, Keith Olbermann has (at least) twice plugged an upcoming story about how Arizona's "paper please" law* - the one where local law enforcement have to determine the immigration status of pretty much anyone they come across - is actually a secret conspiracy promoted by for-profit prisons.
Proof? One of the legislators who pushed the legislation got donations from prison companies, and several of the bill's later supporters did as well. Now Keith is interviewing Rep. Raul Grijalva about it.
Am I the only one who remembers a time when journalists, even investigative journalists, reported facts that they'd uncovered from documents or on-the-record sources, as opposed to guessing about something that might be plausible and then reporting it as if it's fact? Because that's basically what Olbermann is doing here. Roughly four minutes into this segment, he's yet to produce any objective fact proving that the proponents of SB 1070 were definitely influenced by private prison-lobbyists. And while I'm sure Rep. Grijalva has strong opinions about SB 1070 - really, who doesn't? Unless Grijalva has some special inside knowledge of legislature/lobbyist negotiations, Olbermann might as well be interviewing me.
Basically, Olbermann has about as much proof as do the Fox News wingnuts who think that every Muslim in America is a terrorist. "This looks fishy" --> "It could be true"--> "It's definitely true" --> doesn't work any better when it's a left-wing screaming head doing it.
Proof? One of the legislators who pushed the legislation got donations from prison companies, and several of the bill's later supporters did as well. Now Keith is interviewing Rep. Raul Grijalva about it.
Am I the only one who remembers a time when journalists, even investigative journalists, reported facts that they'd uncovered from documents or on-the-record sources, as opposed to guessing about something that might be plausible and then reporting it as if it's fact? Because that's basically what Olbermann is doing here. Roughly four minutes into this segment, he's yet to produce any objective fact proving that the proponents of SB 1070 were definitely influenced by private prison-lobbyists. And while I'm sure Rep. Grijalva has strong opinions about SB 1070 - really, who doesn't? Unless Grijalva has some special inside knowledge of legislature/lobbyist negotiations, Olbermann might as well be interviewing me.
Basically, Olbermann has about as much proof as do the Fox News wingnuts who think that every Muslim in America is a terrorist. "This looks fishy" --> "It could be true"--> "It's definitely true" --> doesn't work any better when it's a left-wing screaming head doing it.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
I for one forgive you, Facebook
It was never your fault that some of your users didn't understand the concept of discretion, or failing that, of privacy settings so grandma or the co-workers or the person you haven't seen since high school whom you only added so you could see if she'd gained weight didn't have to see every party pic that popped up in their news feed.
So making it easier for people to decide who sees what is a good idea.
But you really need to do something about the little box urging me to learn more about/try out thenew group feature, because right now it's popping up right in the middle of my feed every damn time I log in, and I've already clicked through it twice.
So please have the Facebook Elves check me off your list, or I'll have to start one of those whiny "Facebook peed in my cornflakes" facebook groups.
So making it easier for people to decide who sees what is a good idea.
But you really need to do something about the little box urging me to learn more about/try out thenew group feature, because right now it's popping up right in the middle of my feed every damn time I log in, and I've already clicked through it twice.
So please have the Facebook Elves check me off your list, or I'll have to start one of those whiny "Facebook peed in my cornflakes" facebook groups.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
I was a teenaged Confederate
Let me tell you a story about a young woman in a small Southern town, a history buff who took great pride in her family's heritage.
Ok, screw it, I don't have the patience for this, either. I'm talking about me.
I grew up watching "Gone With the Wind," begging my mom every time we saw our family in Atlanta to drive us to where Tara would've been. I still crush hard on Clark Gable. In my teens, I became a full-fledged Civil War geek, reading everything I could get my hands on about the battles and watching that Ken Burns documentary for fun. I was fascinated by the political blunders that let our country wander off into civil war, and by the human element of it all. When my family went to Petersburg, I made them stand exactly where the U.S. and rebel battle lines were near the Crater - mere yards apart - just so we could all imagine what it was like to experience being so close to your enemy for so long.
While I wasn't ever one of the "but we never whipped OUR slaves" apologists (at least, not that I remember), I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the white supremacy that necessarily underpinned the Confederacy. That came later.
First there was my humble version of the Civil Wargasm (read Confederates in the Attic if you don't know what that is) through Virginia with my then-BF. In Lee Chapel, I got a little grossed out by the reverence of the whole scene and the crowd of other visitors. Look, General Lee was an extraordinary man, but from everything I know about him he'd be appalled at the idea that people were basically worshipping his grave.
But the last straw for me was a Civil War reenactment in Old Salem, the very last weekend I worked there after graduating college. I was excited about getting to portray a period that was normally outside our interpretive era, and to talk about what life was like for the people here during the war. Basically, on Saturday, we showed the war's early period. Sunday was to show the last year or so of the war, when things were decidely less glamorous. I spent Saturday embroidering; I spent Sunday scraping at cotton scraps to make packing for open wounds.
On Saturday,a group of reenacters portrayed Confederate troops marching through town. On Sunday, the same group played U.S. troops. On Saturday, they paraded, they drummed, it was compelling. On Sunday, the same men in blue marched up Main Street with the same drums. Along with our visitors, we came out of the house to watch.
A woman who was with the reenacters turned to me and said - I'll never forget this as long as I live - "Doesn't it turn your stomach to see that flag?" Well, first of all - first-person interpretation, where you pretend you're really in 18-whatever, has its place when done correctly, disciplined, for educational benefit. But in a private conversation it's just frakking weird. Second... Um, no.
Pretend or not - I can't in a million years imagine a scenario where I look on the flag of the United States and feel anything but pride, and nor do I want to. The fact that some weekend historio-warrior needed to do so is probably what permanently turned me off any kind of romantic view of the Civil War.
Because what I knew of the history of this community was that those U.S. troops that marched into Salem in 1865 read the Emancipation Proclamation on the steps of the "slave church," St. Philips, which still exists today. They raided food, they threatened the head of the Salem Female Academy* (now my alma mater), but they helped end one of the ugliest chapters in America's history.
I remember thinking at the time of those reenacters, with what you're making yourself imagine, with what you're commemorating, you might as well re-create a Nazi review or something.
And that was before we heard about this guy. (Though at least the Civil War actually happened in the same locations where it's being reenacted.) Rich Iott uses the same rationale as the Civil War reenacters: it's important to educate about history. Well, yeah, I'll be the first to tell you that. But this isn't the way to do it.
Example... back to that asterisk a few paragraphs above. When the U.S. troops reached Salem, one of the stories noted in the town records was this: a soldier put a gun to the head of the girls school's head (inspector) - why, I don't know; maybe he was looking for supplies, maybe he was just being a dick - anyway, the inspector shouted out his name, DeSchweinitz. The soldier pulled away. Turns out he had a teacher by the same name back home in Pennsylvania - probably a relative of the Salem DeSchweinitz, given the ties between the two areas. No one bothered the school after that.
My point is that history is about more than who carried what gun or wore which uniform on X battlefield. It's about people, and subtleties of relationships that can't be categorized, or demonized. It's about a lot of people and incidents that will never show up in history books because of the privilege - or lack thereof - of the people involved. And Faulkner was right, it never is really past.
So, in all the ridicule of Rich Iott and his fellow Nazi reenactors, ask yourself how the nostalgic Confederates are any different.
Screw Scarlett and Rhett. How about Mammy and Hoke and those white trash Slatterys?
Ok, screw it, I don't have the patience for this, either. I'm talking about me.
I grew up watching "Gone With the Wind," begging my mom every time we saw our family in Atlanta to drive us to where Tara would've been. I still crush hard on Clark Gable. In my teens, I became a full-fledged Civil War geek, reading everything I could get my hands on about the battles and watching that Ken Burns documentary for fun. I was fascinated by the political blunders that let our country wander off into civil war, and by the human element of it all. When my family went to Petersburg, I made them stand exactly where the U.S. and rebel battle lines were near the Crater - mere yards apart - just so we could all imagine what it was like to experience being so close to your enemy for so long.
While I wasn't ever one of the "but we never whipped OUR slaves" apologists (at least, not that I remember), I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the white supremacy that necessarily underpinned the Confederacy. That came later.
First there was my humble version of the Civil Wargasm (read Confederates in the Attic if you don't know what that is) through Virginia with my then-BF. In Lee Chapel, I got a little grossed out by the reverence of the whole scene and the crowd of other visitors. Look, General Lee was an extraordinary man, but from everything I know about him he'd be appalled at the idea that people were basically worshipping his grave.
But the last straw for me was a Civil War reenactment in Old Salem, the very last weekend I worked there after graduating college. I was excited about getting to portray a period that was normally outside our interpretive era, and to talk about what life was like for the people here during the war. Basically, on Saturday, we showed the war's early period. Sunday was to show the last year or so of the war, when things were decidely less glamorous. I spent Saturday embroidering; I spent Sunday scraping at cotton scraps to make packing for open wounds.
On Saturday,a group of reenacters portrayed Confederate troops marching through town. On Sunday, the same group played U.S. troops. On Saturday, they paraded, they drummed, it was compelling. On Sunday, the same men in blue marched up Main Street with the same drums. Along with our visitors, we came out of the house to watch.
A woman who was with the reenacters turned to me and said - I'll never forget this as long as I live - "Doesn't it turn your stomach to see that flag?" Well, first of all - first-person interpretation, where you pretend you're really in 18-whatever, has its place when done correctly, disciplined, for educational benefit. But in a private conversation it's just frakking weird. Second... Um, no.
Pretend or not - I can't in a million years imagine a scenario where I look on the flag of the United States and feel anything but pride, and nor do I want to. The fact that some weekend historio-warrior needed to do so is probably what permanently turned me off any kind of romantic view of the Civil War.
Because what I knew of the history of this community was that those U.S. troops that marched into Salem in 1865 read the Emancipation Proclamation on the steps of the "slave church," St. Philips, which still exists today. They raided food, they threatened the head of the Salem Female Academy* (now my alma mater), but they helped end one of the ugliest chapters in America's history.
I remember thinking at the time of those reenacters, with what you're making yourself imagine, with what you're commemorating, you might as well re-create a Nazi review or something.
And that was before we heard about this guy. (Though at least the Civil War actually happened in the same locations where it's being reenacted.) Rich Iott uses the same rationale as the Civil War reenacters: it's important to educate about history. Well, yeah, I'll be the first to tell you that. But this isn't the way to do it.
Example... back to that asterisk a few paragraphs above. When the U.S. troops reached Salem, one of the stories noted in the town records was this: a soldier put a gun to the head of the girls school's head (inspector) - why, I don't know; maybe he was looking for supplies, maybe he was just being a dick - anyway, the inspector shouted out his name, DeSchweinitz. The soldier pulled away. Turns out he had a teacher by the same name back home in Pennsylvania - probably a relative of the Salem DeSchweinitz, given the ties between the two areas. No one bothered the school after that.
My point is that history is about more than who carried what gun or wore which uniform on X battlefield. It's about people, and subtleties of relationships that can't be categorized, or demonized. It's about a lot of people and incidents that will never show up in history books because of the privilege - or lack thereof - of the people involved. And Faulkner was right, it never is really past.
So, in all the ridicule of Rich Iott and his fellow Nazi reenactors, ask yourself how the nostalgic Confederates are any different.
Screw Scarlett and Rhett. How about Mammy and Hoke and those white trash Slatterys?
“You just kinda wasted my precious time:” the best break-up songs
I’ve been meaning to do a post on the best post-break-up songs for awhile, and now that I’m far enough removed from my last break-up (right before the Super Bowl and Valentine’s Day, the bastard), I feel like I can look at this objectively. Nerve has their own list, and it’s all very appropriately hip.
I, however, am not hip. My go-to break-up songs are probably pretty cliché, but they work for me.
“Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright,” Bob Dylan
For the break-up that you probably knew was coming. I love the last verse: “I ain’t sayin’ you treated me unkind/You could have done better but I don’t mind/You just kinda wasted my precious time/But don’t think twice, it’s all right.”
“Back on the Chain Gang,” The Pretenders
For the break-up with the person that you just can’t hate, or that you did hate, but it’s been long enough that you don’t anymore.
“Things Change,” Dwight Yoakam
When you’re the one who’s been dumped, after you bump into the ex and he/she’s gained 40 pounds. An astonishingly well-written song.
“I Am a Rock,” Simon and Garfunkel
And a rock feels no pain. My college roommate and I spent more than one afternoon signing this at top volume.
“Try Sleeping With a Broken Heart,” Alicia Keys
For when you’re singing karaoke in front of the person who dumped you.
“Don’t Dream it’s Over,” Crowded House or Sixpence None the Richer
Great kinda sad song when you need a kinda sad song.
“The Happiest Girl in the Whole USA,” Donna Fargo
For when your break-up is happening in a Quentin Tarantino movie.
“Careless Love,” by everybody who's ever recorded music, ever
Drink a beer or 12 and enjoy.
“Friends in Low Places,” Garth Brooks
In case you still have any of that beer left…
“Time is On My Side,” Irma Thomas
Because Mick Jagger can kiss your ass, that’s why.
“Goin’ Out of My Head,” Little Anthony and the Imperials
Just in case you’re still at that karaoke bar.
“Brandy (You’re a Fine Girl),” Looking Glass.
Sigh. It just wasn’t meant to be.
“Metal Firecracker,” Lucinda Williams
Dude, every other song Lucinda Williams writes is a break-up song (including pretty much the entirety of “World Without Tears”), but this is the best. “All I ask, don’t tell anybody the secrets I told you.” (BTW, “Are you alright” WILL make you drunk-dial. Be advised.)
“Ventura,” Lucinda Williams
For when you’re not self-actualized enough for “Metal Firecracker.” (NOTE: this is a terrible video. Just buy the CD.)
“Hanging By a Thread,” Nickel Creek
That sonuvabitch said he’d call, and now here you are three hours later listening to shitty alt-country. This is probably the song that makes you break up in the first place.
“Hey There,” Rosemary Clooney
“He’s got you dancing on a string. Break it, and he won’t care.” Advice we all probably should’ve taken far earlier than we did.
“Under Pressure,” Queen and David Bowie
I once heard this song immediately after running into my ex-fiance with the GF he started dating – no shit – less than a week after we broke up, to whom he’s now married, and I needed to restore my faith in humanity. It worked.
“This Room for Rent,” Sammi Smith
A song about a relationship and break-up that subtle, but still manages to be fabulous.
“Silence is Golden,” the Tremeloes
Another one of those sad-sounding songs that really hits the spot.
I, however, am not hip. My go-to break-up songs are probably pretty cliché, but they work for me.
“Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright,” Bob Dylan
For the break-up that you probably knew was coming. I love the last verse: “I ain’t sayin’ you treated me unkind/You could have done better but I don’t mind/You just kinda wasted my precious time/But don’t think twice, it’s all right.”
“Back on the Chain Gang,” The Pretenders
For the break-up with the person that you just can’t hate, or that you did hate, but it’s been long enough that you don’t anymore.
“Things Change,” Dwight Yoakam
When you’re the one who’s been dumped, after you bump into the ex and he/she’s gained 40 pounds. An astonishingly well-written song.
“I Am a Rock,” Simon and Garfunkel
And a rock feels no pain. My college roommate and I spent more than one afternoon signing this at top volume.
“Try Sleeping With a Broken Heart,” Alicia Keys
For when you’re singing karaoke in front of the person who dumped you.
“Don’t Dream it’s Over,” Crowded House or Sixpence None the Richer
Great kinda sad song when you need a kinda sad song.
“The Happiest Girl in the Whole USA,” Donna Fargo
For when your break-up is happening in a Quentin Tarantino movie.
“Careless Love,” by everybody who's ever recorded music, ever
Drink a beer or 12 and enjoy.
“Friends in Low Places,” Garth Brooks
In case you still have any of that beer left…
“Time is On My Side,” Irma Thomas
Because Mick Jagger can kiss your ass, that’s why.
“Goin’ Out of My Head,” Little Anthony and the Imperials
Just in case you’re still at that karaoke bar.
“Brandy (You’re a Fine Girl),” Looking Glass.
Sigh. It just wasn’t meant to be.
“Metal Firecracker,” Lucinda Williams
Dude, every other song Lucinda Williams writes is a break-up song (including pretty much the entirety of “World Without Tears”), but this is the best. “All I ask, don’t tell anybody the secrets I told you.” (BTW, “Are you alright” WILL make you drunk-dial. Be advised.)
“Ventura,” Lucinda Williams
For when you’re not self-actualized enough for “Metal Firecracker.” (NOTE: this is a terrible video. Just buy the CD.)
“Hanging By a Thread,” Nickel Creek
That sonuvabitch said he’d call, and now here you are three hours later listening to shitty alt-country. This is probably the song that makes you break up in the first place.
“Hey There,” Rosemary Clooney
“He’s got you dancing on a string. Break it, and he won’t care.” Advice we all probably should’ve taken far earlier than we did.
“Under Pressure,” Queen and David Bowie
I once heard this song immediately after running into my ex-fiance with the GF he started dating – no shit – less than a week after we broke up, to whom he’s now married, and I needed to restore my faith in humanity. It worked.
“This Room for Rent,” Sammi Smith
A song about a relationship and break-up that subtle, but still manages to be fabulous.
“Silence is Golden,” the Tremeloes
Another one of those sad-sounding songs that really hits the spot.
Any other suggestions?
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
I was with you until I wasn't
The first Carolina Panthers game I attended was in 1996, the team's first season in what we now call Bank of America Stadium (the team having played its inaugural season at Clemson University). My mom took me to what was also my first NFL game, vs. the 49ers, and the still-infant Panthers killed Steve Young & Co. 23-7 on their way to an undefeated-at-home season. I can honestly say that if this one game hadn't happened the way it did, I might never have gotten into football.
The then-NFC West rivalry between the Panthers and 49ers got ugly over the next few years, with the 49ers signing a disgruntled Kevin Greene and George Seifert sabotaging the Panthers as one of the worst head coaches in history as revenge. (OK, maybe not actually... but 1-15 is certainly something.)
Then the league realigned, and the Panthers went to the NFC South, and just like that, we stopped going to war against the first real rival of my nascent sports fanhood. And I actually missed it.
Which is part of the reason why I both agree and disagree with Bill Simmons' proposal to realign the NFL yet again in order to keep both conferences' West divisions from pissing off fans every year in the playoffs - the NFC being a worse offender than the AFC in the 32-team era. I'm totally for an 8- or 9-game threshold for a playoff spot. But...
I just love Simmons to death, but he has a tendency not to think things through before he puts them in a column, at least when it comes to football (still not his native territory). For starters, you can't move Carolina to a division where it's the only warm-weather team. (Miami - I know. I don't care.) It was over 90 degrees here on the first day of fall, for crying out loud. And, while his realignment may be more tight geographically, it kills several long-standing league rivalries.
Which brings me to my earlier point. It sucked to transition from hating the 49ers all year long to suddenly not playing them but once every few years. But newborns didn't even make it to kindergarten during the life of that rivalry. If it sucked for me, how much more would it suck for, say, Philly fans who only get to play Dallas once in a blue moon? Both NY teams in the same division, really? Oh, I get it. Simmons gets his childhood dream conference, with the Colts out of the Patriots' way and Carolina as cannon fodder.
And yes, historical rivalries matter. As much as some of us love football, the NFL's purpose is to entertain. And it's a hell of a lot more fun to beat the team and fans that you have to face twice a year, every year, and who compete with you for playoff slots. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say. And contempt breeds ticket and jersey sales.
I respect him for spit-balling, though. Just... get your head out of your head, man.
The then-NFC West rivalry between the Panthers and 49ers got ugly over the next few years, with the 49ers signing a disgruntled Kevin Greene and George Seifert sabotaging the Panthers as one of the worst head coaches in history as revenge. (OK, maybe not actually... but 1-15 is certainly something.)
Then the league realigned, and the Panthers went to the NFC South, and just like that, we stopped going to war against the first real rival of my nascent sports fanhood. And I actually missed it.
Which is part of the reason why I both agree and disagree with Bill Simmons' proposal to realign the NFL yet again in order to keep both conferences' West divisions from pissing off fans every year in the playoffs - the NFC being a worse offender than the AFC in the 32-team era. I'm totally for an 8- or 9-game threshold for a playoff spot. But...
I just love Simmons to death, but he has a tendency not to think things through before he puts them in a column, at least when it comes to football (still not his native territory). For starters, you can't move Carolina to a division where it's the only warm-weather team. (Miami - I know. I don't care.) It was over 90 degrees here on the first day of fall, for crying out loud. And, while his realignment may be more tight geographically, it kills several long-standing league rivalries.
Which brings me to my earlier point. It sucked to transition from hating the 49ers all year long to suddenly not playing them but once every few years. But newborns didn't even make it to kindergarten during the life of that rivalry. If it sucked for me, how much more would it suck for, say, Philly fans who only get to play Dallas once in a blue moon? Both NY teams in the same division, really? Oh, I get it. Simmons gets his childhood dream conference, with the Colts out of the Patriots' way and Carolina as cannon fodder.
And yes, historical rivalries matter. As much as some of us love football, the NFL's purpose is to entertain. And it's a hell of a lot more fun to beat the team and fans that you have to face twice a year, every year, and who compete with you for playoff slots. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say. And contempt breeds ticket and jersey sales.
I respect him for spit-balling, though. Just... get your head out of your head, man.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
You're the one with the crisis of conscience
There's an episode of "Law & Order" where a young woman commits a savage murder, shows zero remorse at first and then is born again while in jail (a la Karla Faye Tucker). She'd be a classic death penalty case if it weren't for the apparently genuine religious conversion. Various church groups file suit on her behalf, arguing that her newfound Christianity should earn her a commutation into a life sentence. While ADA Jack McCoy struggles with the precedent this sets, his assistant Jamie Ross tells him, "You're the one with the crisis of conscience. I'm against the death penalty."
That's the kind of answer I would've given at one point. I am still opposed to capital punishment very generally, but I also recognize that there really are true monsters out there who commit crimes for which there's only one justified punishment. So I suppose I would say I oppose the death penalty applied capriciously. It should be reserved for those - thankfully very rare - monsters.
But I also get frustrated with the "law and order" "tough on crime" types who think there's a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem. It's a fact that there are disparities in the way the death penalty is applied, particularly with regard to race. It's a fact that rich murderers typically don't end up on death row (or in prison, for that matter). It's fact that innocent people have been sentenced to death. You can't be a proponent of capital punishment and not acknowledge that the system needs work.
I hadn't heard of Teresa Lewis before today. Lewis was executed earlier tonight in Virginia, the first woman put to death there in nearly a century, after being convicted of the murder-for-hire of her husband and step-son. Her defenders argued that she wasn't mentally competant, and that she wasn't really the ringleader of the crime. If true, either is a good reason to commute her sentence.
But "she's a woman" isn't a good reason. "She's a Christian now" isn't a good reason. Neither are fair reasons, because they can't be applied equitably to everyone on death row in Virginia. (Or nationwide, but this is a state-by-state thing.)
Do people who find religion in prison and become Muslims, or Jews, or members of the Church of Body Modification, also get this consideration? No? Then pardoning a Christian just for being a Christian is unfair and unconstitutional.
The "but she's a woman" people really get me, though. Either women are full citizens with all the rights and responsibilities that implies, or it's 1900 again. We can't have both. Treating women - even murderers - as though their lives are more valuable than any of the men on death row doesn't make any sense to me.
That's the kind of answer I would've given at one point. I am still opposed to capital punishment very generally, but I also recognize that there really are true monsters out there who commit crimes for which there's only one justified punishment. So I suppose I would say I oppose the death penalty applied capriciously. It should be reserved for those - thankfully very rare - monsters.
But I also get frustrated with the "law and order" "tough on crime" types who think there's a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem. It's a fact that there are disparities in the way the death penalty is applied, particularly with regard to race. It's a fact that rich murderers typically don't end up on death row (or in prison, for that matter). It's fact that innocent people have been sentenced to death. You can't be a proponent of capital punishment and not acknowledge that the system needs work.
I hadn't heard of Teresa Lewis before today. Lewis was executed earlier tonight in Virginia, the first woman put to death there in nearly a century, after being convicted of the murder-for-hire of her husband and step-son. Her defenders argued that she wasn't mentally competant, and that she wasn't really the ringleader of the crime. If true, either is a good reason to commute her sentence.
But "she's a woman" isn't a good reason. "She's a Christian now" isn't a good reason. Neither are fair reasons, because they can't be applied equitably to everyone on death row in Virginia. (Or nationwide, but this is a state-by-state thing.)
Do people who find religion in prison and become Muslims, or Jews, or members of the Church of Body Modification, also get this consideration? No? Then pardoning a Christian just for being a Christian is unfair and unconstitutional.
The "but she's a woman" people really get me, though. Either women are full citizens with all the rights and responsibilities that implies, or it's 1900 again. We can't have both. Treating women - even murderers - as though their lives are more valuable than any of the men on death row doesn't make any sense to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)