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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)