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.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)