Let's talk about the Kennedys, just to name a political family with multi-generational wealth.
In particular, Robert F. Kennedy and Ted Kennedy made anti-poverty centerpieces of their political legacies. RFK was practically obsessed with racial and social justice; as a Senator, he spearheaded an economic development project in Brooklyn, and in a speech as a presidential candidate first introduced the concept of the "other America" who'd been passed by, prosperity-wise. Ted Kennedy was probably the biggest proponent of public education this country's ever seen.
The fact that both of these men grew up in a wealthy, influential family didn't blind them to the importance of policies that allow others to advance and build their own wealth.
That's what was running through my mind when I watched this:
It's like a bad sequel to that 2008 flop, "Sarah Palin is Better For Women Than That Guy Who Wrote the Violence Against Women Act, Even Though She Doesn't Care About Rape Victims, Just Because She Has a Uterus."
I'm sure that some of these GOP presidential hopefuls really did grow up in humble circumstances. But that doesn't automatically make them more attuned to the needs of Americans who are currently unemployed, under-employed or buried in debt. I'm a lot more interested in how the policies they say they'll support will affect those financially struggling Americans.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Newts are slithery and disgusting, but that's neither here nor there
It's been an interesting couple of weeks for those of us who regularly read newspapers and news magazines back in the mid-90s. As Newt Gingrich emerged as the latest favorite GOP candidate who's not Mitt Romney, I found myself wondering just how long it would take the people who apparently were telling pollsters that Newt was their top choice to remember what he was actually like the last time he held public office.
Washington, 1994-98. I was a teenager with my own subscription to Newsweek. He was the Georgia Representative who rode the 1994 GOP midterm gains all the way to Speaker of the House, where he proceeded to cave to President Clinton over the 1995 federal government shutdown. This was just the first act, though. Speaker Gingrich later distinguished himself by railroading an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton through Congress, even as he himself was cheating on Wife #2 with decades-younger aide and eventual Wife #3. And then, after the midterm voters in 1998 reminded the GOP that they were sent to Congress to pass legislation, not hold hearings on the president's sex life, Gingrich resigned as Speaker.
To recap: Gingrich rode to power on the strength of the "Contract with America," a multi-point pledge to reduce the size and role of federal government. In 2000, Edward H. Crane of the Cato Institute wrote in Forbes that "Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton's requests by more than $30 billion. The party that in 1994 would abolish the Department of Education now brags in response to Clinton's 2000 State of the Union Address that it is outspending the White House when it comes to education. My colleagues Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski found that the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%."
In other words, Gingrich as the leader of the majority in Congress failed to do, by at least one estimate, most of what he promised he'd do.
I guess he was too busy policing the morality of the twice-elected executive, who - it's true - fooled around with an aide and lied about it. The problem is that the guy wasting millions of taxpayer dollars investigating whether the president had schtupped an aide was himself sleeping with an aide. AT THE SAME TIME.
I understand the people who will never be able to admire Clinton because of what he did and lying to the American people about it. But I do feel the need to remind those people that Gingrich did the same thing, only more than once. If you're asking yourself what kind of man can lie to voters with a straight face about Clinton, then you have to ask it about Gingrich, too.
Oh, and it gets better. Guess what else Gingrich lied about?
Washington, 1994-98. I was a teenager with my own subscription to Newsweek. He was the Georgia Representative who rode the 1994 GOP midterm gains all the way to Speaker of the House, where he proceeded to cave to President Clinton over the 1995 federal government shutdown. This was just the first act, though. Speaker Gingrich later distinguished himself by railroading an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton through Congress, even as he himself was cheating on Wife #2 with decades-younger aide and eventual Wife #3. And then, after the midterm voters in 1998 reminded the GOP that they were sent to Congress to pass legislation, not hold hearings on the president's sex life, Gingrich resigned as Speaker.
To recap: Gingrich rode to power on the strength of the "Contract with America," a multi-point pledge to reduce the size and role of federal government. In 2000, Edward H. Crane of the Cato Institute wrote in Forbes that "Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton's requests by more than $30 billion. The party that in 1994 would abolish the Department of Education now brags in response to Clinton's 2000 State of the Union Address that it is outspending the White House when it comes to education. My colleagues Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski found that the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%."
In other words, Gingrich as the leader of the majority in Congress failed to do, by at least one estimate, most of what he promised he'd do.
I guess he was too busy policing the morality of the twice-elected executive, who - it's true - fooled around with an aide and lied about it. The problem is that the guy wasting millions of taxpayer dollars investigating whether the president had schtupped an aide was himself sleeping with an aide. AT THE SAME TIME.
I understand the people who will never be able to admire Clinton because of what he did and lying to the American people about it. But I do feel the need to remind those people that Gingrich did the same thing, only more than once. If you're asking yourself what kind of man can lie to voters with a straight face about Clinton, then you have to ask it about Gingrich, too.
Oh, and it gets better. Guess what else Gingrich lied about?
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
A Christmas wish
A - I hope that I am fortunate enough to have children.
B - I hope that I have the sense not to humiliate them on the Internet.
Seriously, the things that random Americans would say about my family's home videos...
(though I have to say... I totally welcome black beans and a Waffle House hat, if anyone's buying...)
B - I hope that I have the sense not to humiliate them on the Internet.
Seriously, the things that random Americans would say about my family's home videos...
(though I have to say... I totally welcome black beans and a Waffle House hat, if anyone's buying...)
Needles in a haystack? Deport all the hay.
Earlier today, I posted on my Facebook page a link to a story in today's New York Times about how a number of American citizens have been wrongfully detained by immigration enforcement. Some of them are naturalized citizens, and some are natural-born, native Americans who happen to have non-Anglo Saxon names. The fact that this is happening in America should scare the hell out of anyone who prides herself or himself on living in the "land of the free."
The quote that jumped out at me, and which I pulled out in my Facebook post, was this:
"United States citizens can also be tagged in a Secure Communities fingerprint check because of flukes in the department’s databases. Unlike the federal criminal databases administered by the F.B.I., Homeland Security records include all immigration transactions, not just violations. An immigrant who has always maintained legal status, including those who naturalized to become American citizens, can still trigger a fingerprint match."
I have dear friends, past and former co-workers and classmates and family members who fall into that category: "has always maintained legal status, including those who naturalized to become American citizens." Apparently, any one of them could potentially be swept up and confined to an ICE detention facility for days at a time, and maybe even deported. Not because they're skirting the system, but because they did everything right - got their green cards, became citizens. Not because DHS honestly (no matter how erroneously) believes the woman who came over from Germany to finish high school back in the 50s (hi, Irma!) might be a threat. But because DHS has a sh*tty filing system.
Ok, imagine this: You bought a handgun. Lots of criminals and dangerous people have handguns, but you're not one of them. You bought yours legally after the required waiting period, and you have all the right paperwork. But, when you get pulled over for speeding and the officer spots the totally legal handgun in your car, you get arrested - excuse me, "detained" - anyway, just because you MIGHT be one of those bad gun-owning guys after all.
Of course the difference is that, if for some reason a handgun owner who gets caught without the right paperwork gets taken down to the station, that person gets to call his or her lawyer and then go home. That guy who was born in L.A. who gets arrested for shoplifting a $10 bottle of perfume gets sent to an ICE jail for days without any contact with the outside world, and it takes an ACLU suit to get the government to LOOK AT ITS OWN RECORDS and get him out.
Let's talk about the shoplifting. The people in the Times story entered the system in the first place because they were arrested on minor criminal charges. So a lot of the people commenting on the article wrote some version of "they were breaking the law, so they deserved what they got." Except, no, unless the U.S. suddenly just turned into Stalinist Russia. In America, we don't imprison people for days at a time on suspicion that they committed a crime, and we sure as hell don't deport them. We have something called due process. (Oh look, Tea Party! It's that Bill of Rights y'all love so much!) That means that the guy who shoplifted the perfume spends the night in jail, is arraigned the next day, gets a fine and/or a court date, etc., etc. He does NOT get lost in a federal rabbit warren even after the judge in his case has ordered his release.
And the people who are arguing otherwise are guilty of the "You did something wrong, then something bad happened to you; I'm not doing that wrong thing, and therefore nothing bad will ever happen to me" fallacy... or worse. If that line of reasoning is appealing to you, I'd like to remind you that the people in this story are American citizens, just like you. I hope you never look suspiciously Canadian to the wrong federal agent.
This is an entirely separate issue from the discussion of how our country handles people who are here in this country illegally. This administration has found and deported over 1 million of them, more than any previous administration. The policy is a major strategy in the "war on terror," even though most of the people involved are not dangerous, just people who've overstayed their visas. But we have these laws for a reason and we need to enforce them. I sincerely hope that the administration figures out a way to do so without violating the civil rights of actual Americans.
(Seriously, have they never heard of Excel? I'm just saying, if your average college development office can tell in five seconds how many geology majors with lifetime giving of over $1,000 live in a particular ZIP code, you'd think the Department of Homeland Security could find a way to ID people who are only in its system because they took the time to follow the rules and get naturalized.)
The quote that jumped out at me, and which I pulled out in my Facebook post, was this:
"United States citizens can also be tagged in a Secure Communities fingerprint check because of flukes in the department’s databases. Unlike the federal criminal databases administered by the F.B.I., Homeland Security records include all immigration transactions, not just violations. An immigrant who has always maintained legal status, including those who naturalized to become American citizens, can still trigger a fingerprint match."
I have dear friends, past and former co-workers and classmates and family members who fall into that category: "has always maintained legal status, including those who naturalized to become American citizens." Apparently, any one of them could potentially be swept up and confined to an ICE detention facility for days at a time, and maybe even deported. Not because they're skirting the system, but because they did everything right - got their green cards, became citizens. Not because DHS honestly (no matter how erroneously) believes the woman who came over from Germany to finish high school back in the 50s (hi, Irma!) might be a threat. But because DHS has a sh*tty filing system.
Ok, imagine this: You bought a handgun. Lots of criminals and dangerous people have handguns, but you're not one of them. You bought yours legally after the required waiting period, and you have all the right paperwork. But, when you get pulled over for speeding and the officer spots the totally legal handgun in your car, you get arrested - excuse me, "detained" - anyway, just because you MIGHT be one of those bad gun-owning guys after all.
Of course the difference is that, if for some reason a handgun owner who gets caught without the right paperwork gets taken down to the station, that person gets to call his or her lawyer and then go home. That guy who was born in L.A. who gets arrested for shoplifting a $10 bottle of perfume gets sent to an ICE jail for days without any contact with the outside world, and it takes an ACLU suit to get the government to LOOK AT ITS OWN RECORDS and get him out.
Let's talk about the shoplifting. The people in the Times story entered the system in the first place because they were arrested on minor criminal charges. So a lot of the people commenting on the article wrote some version of "they were breaking the law, so they deserved what they got." Except, no, unless the U.S. suddenly just turned into Stalinist Russia. In America, we don't imprison people for days at a time on suspicion that they committed a crime, and we sure as hell don't deport them. We have something called due process. (Oh look, Tea Party! It's that Bill of Rights y'all love so much!) That means that the guy who shoplifted the perfume spends the night in jail, is arraigned the next day, gets a fine and/or a court date, etc., etc. He does NOT get lost in a federal rabbit warren even after the judge in his case has ordered his release.
And the people who are arguing otherwise are guilty of the "You did something wrong, then something bad happened to you; I'm not doing that wrong thing, and therefore nothing bad will ever happen to me" fallacy... or worse. If that line of reasoning is appealing to you, I'd like to remind you that the people in this story are American citizens, just like you. I hope you never look suspiciously Canadian to the wrong federal agent.
This is an entirely separate issue from the discussion of how our country handles people who are here in this country illegally. This administration has found and deported over 1 million of them, more than any previous administration. The policy is a major strategy in the "war on terror," even though most of the people involved are not dangerous, just people who've overstayed their visas. But we have these laws for a reason and we need to enforce them. I sincerely hope that the administration figures out a way to do so without violating the civil rights of actual Americans.
(Seriously, have they never heard of Excel? I'm just saying, if your average college development office can tell in five seconds how many geology majors with lifetime giving of over $1,000 live in a particular ZIP code, you'd think the Department of Homeland Security could find a way to ID people who are only in its system because they took the time to follow the rules and get naturalized.)
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Cranky thoughts on two TV shows
I keep writing and rewriting a post about "The Office," and here "Boardwalk Empire" comes and makes my point for me.
Ok - I was a late convert to "The Office." (And, before we go on, I mean the show that airs every Thursday night in the country where I live. As far as I'm concerned, clarifying that you "like 'The Office,' but only the U.K. version" is an even bigger "I'm a raging douchebag" identifier than referring to your drink as "SoCo." Moving on.) Frankly, my former supervisor was so freakishly similar to the Michael Scott character, even in name, that watching the show was just too painful. But eventually my Ed Helms crush won out, and "The Office" became must-see viewing.
This season has been lackluster. (No, not because Steve Carrell left. Grow an original thought.) I think every TV show gets to the point where the audience knows the characters so well that we watch just because we love spending time with these people, and I really do love all of these characters. But lately I've been thinking that the issue with "The Office" is that this particular group has been together for so long that it's becoming harder and harder to find stories to tell about them. You know that relationship where you just start having the same fight over and over for 27 years? That's "The Office" right now.
Perhaps it's because I've recently changed jobs myself, and so every day is an awkward comedy of learning to relate to a whole new set of quirky individuals... but "The Office" needs to lose some people. Yes, I know I just wrote one paragraph ago that I love all these characters, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them need to go. Yes, it will suck, but doesn't that happen in real life? Even as we constantly come to know new people, we drop others from our orbit. The only place where this doesn't happen is on TV shows past their fifth seasons, which just keep adding and adding characters.
Which is why I want to pat the writers of "Boardwalk Empire" on the back. Throughout tonight's second season finale, I was worried that we'd lose one or more of my favorite supporting characters, just because the story was headed that way. And "Empire" does have some brilliantly written characters, and an excellent cast. I started watching it because of Steve Buscemi and Michael Shannon, but I kept watching because of Kelly MacDonald and Shea Wigham, both of whom I've loved in everything I've ever seen them in. I was convinced that Wigham's Eli Thompson in particular was not long for the show, and I was preemptively mourning his loss. He's just so fun to watch.
Well... not wanting to spoil anything here for an episode that just aired an hour ago, I'm just going to say that "Boardwalk Empire" impressively wrote off a major - as in top of the credits - character. It did so in a way that was (at least for me) a total surprise, and yet that made perfect sense in retrospect. It wasn't just that this character didn't have many more places to go dramatically; it was that, looking back on everything that's happened in the last two seasons, what happened in those last 10 minutes almost seemed inevitable... but only when looking back.
And the best part is that I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen next. The writers just blew the story wide open in the best possible way; they're like kids who just got a $10,000 shopping spree in FAO Schwartz, and I can't wait to see what toys they bring home to play with.
"The Office" is very different from "Boardwalk Empire," but its writers could learn something here. Murder your darlings. Don't get attached. Tell the story, however it affects those actors you really like hanging out with every day.
Ok - I was a late convert to "The Office." (And, before we go on, I mean the show that airs every Thursday night in the country where I live. As far as I'm concerned, clarifying that you "like 'The Office,' but only the U.K. version" is an even bigger "I'm a raging douchebag" identifier than referring to your drink as "SoCo." Moving on.) Frankly, my former supervisor was so freakishly similar to the Michael Scott character, even in name, that watching the show was just too painful. But eventually my Ed Helms crush won out, and "The Office" became must-see viewing.
This season has been lackluster. (No, not because Steve Carrell left. Grow an original thought.) I think every TV show gets to the point where the audience knows the characters so well that we watch just because we love spending time with these people, and I really do love all of these characters. But lately I've been thinking that the issue with "The Office" is that this particular group has been together for so long that it's becoming harder and harder to find stories to tell about them. You know that relationship where you just start having the same fight over and over for 27 years? That's "The Office" right now.
Perhaps it's because I've recently changed jobs myself, and so every day is an awkward comedy of learning to relate to a whole new set of quirky individuals... but "The Office" needs to lose some people. Yes, I know I just wrote one paragraph ago that I love all these characters, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them need to go. Yes, it will suck, but doesn't that happen in real life? Even as we constantly come to know new people, we drop others from our orbit. The only place where this doesn't happen is on TV shows past their fifth seasons, which just keep adding and adding characters.
Which is why I want to pat the writers of "Boardwalk Empire" on the back. Throughout tonight's second season finale, I was worried that we'd lose one or more of my favorite supporting characters, just because the story was headed that way. And "Empire" does have some brilliantly written characters, and an excellent cast. I started watching it because of Steve Buscemi and Michael Shannon, but I kept watching because of Kelly MacDonald and Shea Wigham, both of whom I've loved in everything I've ever seen them in. I was convinced that Wigham's Eli Thompson in particular was not long for the show, and I was preemptively mourning his loss. He's just so fun to watch.
Well... not wanting to spoil anything here for an episode that just aired an hour ago, I'm just going to say that "Boardwalk Empire" impressively wrote off a major - as in top of the credits - character. It did so in a way that was (at least for me) a total surprise, and yet that made perfect sense in retrospect. It wasn't just that this character didn't have many more places to go dramatically; it was that, looking back on everything that's happened in the last two seasons, what happened in those last 10 minutes almost seemed inevitable... but only when looking back.
And the best part is that I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen next. The writers just blew the story wide open in the best possible way; they're like kids who just got a $10,000 shopping spree in FAO Schwartz, and I can't wait to see what toys they bring home to play with.
"The Office" is very different from "Boardwalk Empire," but its writers could learn something here. Murder your darlings. Don't get attached. Tell the story, however it affects those actors you really like hanging out with every day.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
I'm a Christian, and Rick Perry doesn't speak for me
Oh, my hell, what an ignorant asshat.
And I say that not as a Democrat, not as a supporter of LGBT civil rights, but as a devout Christian who's sick and [expletive deleted] tired of bigots like Rick Perry insisting that they speak for my faith, when what they're really doing is hijacking a 2,000-year-old belief system to rationalize their own hatred and inadequacy.
Aside from the fact that Perry rehashes the lie that children can't observe their religion in public school - not true, although non-Christian observants still have to fight for their right to do so - and aside from the blatant lie that the Obama Administration is waging a "war" on religion - where? when? - and aside from the fact that what Perry said about the late unlamented "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is blatant hate-speech - why not just rant about those n***** welfare queens and their baggy pants while you're at it? - there's the fact that this ad is meant to persuade people to elect him president of the United States of America.
Not Sunday School teacher. Not head deacon of the West Texas Tabernacle of the True Redeemed Snake Handlin' Reformed Baptist Whatevers. President. Which, the last time I checked, is a civic office heading the Executive Branch of the federal government. And, since we don't live in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, our government is a secular one.
Most Americans like the notion that the person who holds such power and responsibility has some sort of belief system to fall back on, but nowhere is it written that the president has to be a Christian. In fact, the men who created our government from scratch back in 18th century Philadelphia deliberately did NOT write an official religion into the Constitution, or any sort of religious test for holding public office.
This Christian thinks it's pretty insulting to suggest that followers of my faith have a monopoly on ethics, morality or good behavior. Any of us could list people who've called themselves Christians and behaved horribly. There's a reason that Jesus taught his followers not to pray in public - because simply proclaiming "I'm a Christian! Done!" is just too easy, at least compared with actually living the faith.
Perry is entitled to his beliefs. It's free country, and ensuring that freedom is a major piece of the job Perry's applying for. Meanwhile, he's no theologian, and shouldn't pretend to be.
And, while I'm pissed off at Rick Perry, I might as well say that any grown man who takes a gun with him jogging anywhere other than Baghdad has a tiny dick. There, I said it.
And I say that not as a Democrat, not as a supporter of LGBT civil rights, but as a devout Christian who's sick and [expletive deleted] tired of bigots like Rick Perry insisting that they speak for my faith, when what they're really doing is hijacking a 2,000-year-old belief system to rationalize their own hatred and inadequacy.
Aside from the fact that Perry rehashes the lie that children can't observe their religion in public school - not true, although non-Christian observants still have to fight for their right to do so - and aside from the blatant lie that the Obama Administration is waging a "war" on religion - where? when? - and aside from the fact that what Perry said about the late unlamented "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is blatant hate-speech - why not just rant about those n***** welfare queens and their baggy pants while you're at it? - there's the fact that this ad is meant to persuade people to elect him president of the United States of America.
Not Sunday School teacher. Not head deacon of the West Texas Tabernacle of the True Redeemed Snake Handlin' Reformed Baptist Whatevers. President. Which, the last time I checked, is a civic office heading the Executive Branch of the federal government. And, since we don't live in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, our government is a secular one.
Most Americans like the notion that the person who holds such power and responsibility has some sort of belief system to fall back on, but nowhere is it written that the president has to be a Christian. In fact, the men who created our government from scratch back in 18th century Philadelphia deliberately did NOT write an official religion into the Constitution, or any sort of religious test for holding public office.
This Christian thinks it's pretty insulting to suggest that followers of my faith have a monopoly on ethics, morality or good behavior. Any of us could list people who've called themselves Christians and behaved horribly. There's a reason that Jesus taught his followers not to pray in public - because simply proclaiming "I'm a Christian! Done!" is just too easy, at least compared with actually living the faith.
Perry is entitled to his beliefs. It's free country, and ensuring that freedom is a major piece of the job Perry's applying for. Meanwhile, he's no theologian, and shouldn't pretend to be.
And, while I'm pissed off at Rick Perry, I might as well say that any grown man who takes a gun with him jogging anywhere other than Baghdad has a tiny dick. There, I said it.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Choose logic
I'm the middle child of five, all girls. The oldest four of us are very close in age, and the youngest is seven years younger than I am. So, our family dynamic was first like that of a basketball team, and then later like that of a basketball team ganging up on a toddler because we were bigger than her. Except that basketball players are adults, and we were children right at that age where each of us genuinely felt that we were the center of the universe and SHE'S ON MY SIDE OF THE CAR SEAT!!!
Which is to say, my parents had to be master mediators. If you have more than one kid, you're probably very familiar with those bitter disputes that end with "...then NO ONE gets to ride in the front seat/pick the TV show/hang the Patrick Swayze poster on her side of the room."
It's basic Fairness 101. When you have two or more opposing entities, you give them all the same privileges, or you give all of them no privileges at all.
And consider that my introduction to what might be the simplest case the ACLU has ever argued. This year, our GOP-led General Assembly continued its waste-no-time approach to its first controlling majority in more than a century and ok'd a state-issued anti-choice specialty license plate. The plate, reading "Choose Life," would raise money ($15 of every $25) for the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship, whose website says it is "the legally designated agency for disbursement of plate funds." CPCF openly advocates against abortion rights... and that's their prerogative. It's a free country.
The problem is that the General Assembly had previously rejected six attempts to issue a plate benefiting a pro-choice organization. Now, personally I don't think the DMV should be in the business of shilling for ANY non-profit group, but if it is going to do that, logic dictates that it be objective.
Not just logic, though. The law, too. The ACLU argues that the state can't facilitate speech by one side and not the other. And this week a federal judge agreed, issuing an injunction that prevents the "Choose Life" plates from being offered.
CPCF and its supporters have every right to buy and display their plates, but not if every other advocacy group on the same issue is silenced. The government doesn't get to play favorites.
Which is to say, my parents had to be master mediators. If you have more than one kid, you're probably very familiar with those bitter disputes that end with "...then NO ONE gets to ride in the front seat/pick the TV show/hang the Patrick Swayze poster on her side of the room."
It's basic Fairness 101. When you have two or more opposing entities, you give them all the same privileges, or you give all of them no privileges at all.
And consider that my introduction to what might be the simplest case the ACLU has ever argued. This year, our GOP-led General Assembly continued its waste-no-time approach to its first controlling majority in more than a century and ok'd a state-issued anti-choice specialty license plate. The plate, reading "Choose Life," would raise money ($15 of every $25) for the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship, whose website says it is "the legally designated agency for disbursement of plate funds." CPCF openly advocates against abortion rights... and that's their prerogative. It's a free country.
The problem is that the General Assembly had previously rejected six attempts to issue a plate benefiting a pro-choice organization. Now, personally I don't think the DMV should be in the business of shilling for ANY non-profit group, but if it is going to do that, logic dictates that it be objective.
Not just logic, though. The law, too. The ACLU argues that the state can't facilitate speech by one side and not the other. And this week a federal judge agreed, issuing an injunction that prevents the "Choose Life" plates from being offered.
CPCF and its supporters have every right to buy and display their plates, but not if every other advocacy group on the same issue is silenced. The government doesn't get to play favorites.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
A funny story... but not really
About five years ago, I was going through a Mexican cooking phase, and I was feeling kind of cocky about my ability to handle spicy foods. Long story short, I ended up adding way too many habañero chili peppers to my fajita recipe (for the record, ANY number of habañeros is too many). The eating part was actually okay... maybe a little uncomfortable, but I had rice and chips and other stuff to absorb the oils.
Then I washed the dishes and sat out on the porch for nice post-meal glass of wine. At which point my hands exploded.
Now, I've had eczema all my life, so random itchy rashes aren't something unusual in my life. But this was by far the most skin-related pain I've ever been in. The super-strength, prescription-only hydrocortisone cream that knocks out my eczema flare-ups did nothing to touch this. Finally, out of desperation, I reasoned that since drinking milk helps with easing spicy-food mouth-burn, rubbing cream cheese all over my hands would cure this. Believe it or not, it worked.
I bring this up because, according to Scoville Unit scale, which officially ranks peppers by the amount of capsaicin they contain (capsaicin is the angry oil that you can apparently only neutralize with dairy products), habañero chilis have 100,000 to 350,000 Scoville Heat Units (SHUs). A jalapeño pepper has 3,500 to 8,000 SHUs.
Law enforcement-grade pepper spray? 500,000 to 2 million SHUs. Or, at minimum, five times the strength of the most physically painful thing I've ever been through, or maybe up to 20 times as painful, depending on the variety of spray.
In other words... anyone out there, say, going on national television to say that Occupy protestors at UC Davis are just big babies because pepper spray is "a food product, essentially," is either a) hopelessly partisan to the point that he/she can't acknowledge the basic humanity of people they disagree with politically, b) a blooming idiot, or c) both.
(Substitute "middle aged retirees as a Tea Party rally" for "college students at an Occupy protest" and see if you still think pepper-spraying a peaceful assembly is A-OK.)
Then I washed the dishes and sat out on the porch for nice post-meal glass of wine. At which point my hands exploded.
Now, I've had eczema all my life, so random itchy rashes aren't something unusual in my life. But this was by far the most skin-related pain I've ever been in. The super-strength, prescription-only hydrocortisone cream that knocks out my eczema flare-ups did nothing to touch this. Finally, out of desperation, I reasoned that since drinking milk helps with easing spicy-food mouth-burn, rubbing cream cheese all over my hands would cure this. Believe it or not, it worked.
I bring this up because, according to Scoville Unit scale, which officially ranks peppers by the amount of capsaicin they contain (capsaicin is the angry oil that you can apparently only neutralize with dairy products), habañero chilis have 100,000 to 350,000 Scoville Heat Units (SHUs). A jalapeño pepper has 3,500 to 8,000 SHUs.
Law enforcement-grade pepper spray? 500,000 to 2 million SHUs. Or, at minimum, five times the strength of the most physically painful thing I've ever been through, or maybe up to 20 times as painful, depending on the variety of spray.
In other words... anyone out there, say, going on national television to say that Occupy protestors at UC Davis are just big babies because pepper spray is "a food product, essentially," is either a) hopelessly partisan to the point that he/she can't acknowledge the basic humanity of people they disagree with politically, b) a blooming idiot, or c) both.
(Substitute "middle aged retirees as a Tea Party rally" for "college students at an Occupy protest" and see if you still think pepper-spraying a peaceful assembly is A-OK.)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
NBC's going to Britta this one
This morning, I had to sit in on a meeting about an upcoming community event. Now, there's a reason I don't do event planning, and that's because I suck at event planning. I have zero interest and negligible ability. I could not possibly have less patience with spending an hour debating the appropriate tablecloth. My philosophy is, you plan it and I'll promote it. So, I was not having a good time.
Long story short, someone mentioned decorations in the bathroom, and I literally had to put my hand over my mouth to keep from saying "Olives! Put a bowl of olives by the toilet... It's a fancy party, Britta." And the reason I had to restrain my self from saying this out loud is because I was 99 percent sure no one else in the room would get it. And that makes me sad, because it means that not enough people are watching "Community."
It was just about a month ago, about the time that "Remedial Chaos Theory" aired, that I realized I looked forward to watching "Community" roughly 400 times more than I do "The Office" (which makes me sad for different reasons...). Anyway, "Remedial Chaos Theory" isn't just one of the best episodes of "Community;" it's one of the best episodes of any TV show I've ever seen, period. "Community" is the rare network TV show that trusts its audience's intelligence, and that's why I love it.
I do not trust NBC in the slightest, unfortunately. "Community" is not on the mid-season schedule - at all. NBC could've moved it to another time slot on Thursdays, or another night, but instead they chose to shelve it entirely for months. "Community" isn't cancelled yet, but raise your hand if you have any faith in the programming instincts of the network that destroyed "The Tonight Show."
Just about every network TV show I watch, I have on in the background in the next room while I'm working at night. There is exactly one network show that I make an appointment to watch every week, and NBC just put it on the bench.
Great thinking, guys. Britta'd it.
But you still have about another week to watch "Remedial Chaos Theory" on Hulu!
Long story short, someone mentioned decorations in the bathroom, and I literally had to put my hand over my mouth to keep from saying "Olives! Put a bowl of olives by the toilet... It's a fancy party, Britta." And the reason I had to restrain my self from saying this out loud is because I was 99 percent sure no one else in the room would get it. And that makes me sad, because it means that not enough people are watching "Community."
It was just about a month ago, about the time that "Remedial Chaos Theory" aired, that I realized I looked forward to watching "Community" roughly 400 times more than I do "The Office" (which makes me sad for different reasons...). Anyway, "Remedial Chaos Theory" isn't just one of the best episodes of "Community;" it's one of the best episodes of any TV show I've ever seen, period. "Community" is the rare network TV show that trusts its audience's intelligence, and that's why I love it.
I do not trust NBC in the slightest, unfortunately. "Community" is not on the mid-season schedule - at all. NBC could've moved it to another time slot on Thursdays, or another night, but instead they chose to shelve it entirely for months. "Community" isn't cancelled yet, but raise your hand if you have any faith in the programming instincts of the network that destroyed "The Tonight Show."
Just about every network TV show I watch, I have on in the background in the next room while I'm working at night. There is exactly one network show that I make an appointment to watch every week, and NBC just put it on the bench.
Great thinking, guys. Britta'd it.
But you still have about another week to watch "Remedial Chaos Theory" on Hulu!
Saturday, November 12, 2011
A Word Nerd Rants
Coupon: COO-pon
Anything else is just wrong. Sorry.
This has been a longtime pet peeve of mine. Not just this one word, but common mispronunciation of words in general that I think might be a unique product of regional psychology. I'll explain.
Coupon. From the French word "couper," meaning "to cut." It seems so straightforward, and it is in pretty much the entire English-speaking word except for the South, where much of the time you're liable to hear "cyoo-pon" instead. You'll hear educated, professional people saying "cyoo-pon" as if it's remotely logical or linguistic to see C-O-U and think, "that's pronounced CYOO."
This drives me up the wall, even moreso than double negatives or "ain't." In my experience, saying something like "I ain't got no (whatever one has none of)" is a product of ignorance, and that's understandable. What is NOT understandable is educated people who should know better persisting in flat-out mispronouncing words, just because. I'm no expert on language (just a card-carrying Word Nerd), but in my anecdotal experience, the desire to appear to be educated is behind a lot of common mispronunciations.
Like "often." It's supposed to be "OFF-en," the T being silent, as in "listen."
A friend I had in college always pronounced the word "tavern" as "TAV-ren," order of letters be damned. She said that the "ern" sound made her feel like she "sounded ignorant," which I interpreted to mean, "sounded country." (Because mispronouncing a simple word doesn't make you sound ignorant AT ALL.) This was also one of the people (more than one, sadly) I've met in my life who refused to use the proper words for genitalia, because they "sounded dirty"... as opposed to something like "vajayjay," because that's obviously so dignified... anyway.
Anyway, I think my friend was on to something. Nobody wants to sound stupid, or unsophisticated, or unschooled. I think that Southerners, and surely rural people everywhere, are particularly sensitive to this. We've been lectured about our lazy enunciation, so we react by super-enunciating everything in order to seem more sophisticated than we are.
And, like the self-conscious hostess of a party I attended once who spent the whole night telling her guests, "You can't drink white wine out of that glass; that's a red wine glass!" we just end up looking silly. What about simple syllables is so threatening?
It's coo-pon. It's off-en. It's "regardless," and it's tavern.
I am the world's biggest proponent of regional dialect. You can pry my "y'all" and my "reckon" and my "yonder" from my cold, dead hands. But saying words the wrong way doesn't get you anything from dirty looks and frustration from people who know better. You, really, really, really don't have to work that hard to convince people that you're awesome.
Anything else is just wrong. Sorry.
This has been a longtime pet peeve of mine. Not just this one word, but common mispronunciation of words in general that I think might be a unique product of regional psychology. I'll explain.
Coupon. From the French word "couper," meaning "to cut." It seems so straightforward, and it is in pretty much the entire English-speaking word except for the South, where much of the time you're liable to hear "cyoo-pon" instead. You'll hear educated, professional people saying "cyoo-pon" as if it's remotely logical or linguistic to see C-O-U and think, "that's pronounced CYOO."
This drives me up the wall, even moreso than double negatives or "ain't." In my experience, saying something like "I ain't got no (whatever one has none of)" is a product of ignorance, and that's understandable. What is NOT understandable is educated people who should know better persisting in flat-out mispronouncing words, just because. I'm no expert on language (just a card-carrying Word Nerd), but in my anecdotal experience, the desire to appear to be educated is behind a lot of common mispronunciations.
Like "often." It's supposed to be "OFF-en," the T being silent, as in "listen."
A friend I had in college always pronounced the word "tavern" as "TAV-ren," order of letters be damned. She said that the "ern" sound made her feel like she "sounded ignorant," which I interpreted to mean, "sounded country." (Because mispronouncing a simple word doesn't make you sound ignorant AT ALL.) This was also one of the people (more than one, sadly) I've met in my life who refused to use the proper words for genitalia, because they "sounded dirty"... as opposed to something like "vajayjay," because that's obviously so dignified... anyway.
Anyway, I think my friend was on to something. Nobody wants to sound stupid, or unsophisticated, or unschooled. I think that Southerners, and surely rural people everywhere, are particularly sensitive to this. We've been lectured about our lazy enunciation, so we react by super-enunciating everything in order to seem more sophisticated than we are.
And, like the self-conscious hostess of a party I attended once who spent the whole night telling her guests, "You can't drink white wine out of that glass; that's a red wine glass!" we just end up looking silly. What about simple syllables is so threatening?
It's coo-pon. It's off-en. It's "regardless," and it's tavern.
I am the world's biggest proponent of regional dialect. You can pry my "y'all" and my "reckon" and my "yonder" from my cold, dead hands. But saying words the wrong way doesn't get you anything from dirty looks and frustration from people who know better. You, really, really, really don't have to work that hard to convince people that you're awesome.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
May no act of ours bring shame
Today I found myself thinking about an elective I took at a community college about the Holocaust. It was less a history class than a course focusing on the philosophy of evil, for lack of a better term - why seemingly good people do terrible things. We read about the Kitty Genovese case, and the theory that people will be less likely to respond to cries for help if they think others are around to do so instead. We looked at the Milgram Experiment, which found that people will continue to administer progressively more intense electric shocks to another person as long as someone who appears to be in authority tells them it's okay. In modern times, there's plenty of anecdotal and scholarly evidence to show that, under the right circumstances, most people are capable of anything.
I hope there's a class like this at Penn State. It looks like they could use it.
Just before I went to bed last night, Penn State's Board of Trustees finally fired both the university's president and head football coach Joe Paterno. As I wrote last night, I think it was the right decision. A few thousand Penn State undergrads felt otherwise, and spent the evening pulling down light poles, overturning news vans and getting appropriately pepper-sprayed. They weren't demonstrating on behalf of the (at least) eight alleged victims, or out of anger at the coaches and administrators who swept this under the rug from (at least) 15 years. No, they rioted over a football coach getting fired. I'd like to give some leeway to the kids here, given what a bubble college life can be. I seriously hope the students quoted in this story, in particular, grow up at some point. "WE ARE... over-privileged children* with no perspective whatsoever!"
*Though... aren't current Penn State students the same age now as some of the victims would be? You'd think THAT would be a bit of a reality check.
Anyway, I continue to read comments from Paterno supporters (including in the above linked story) that he's being made a scapegoat, he did everything he should've, etc. Pardon me, but that's BS. Let's walk through this one, shall we? (A lot of this is drawn from the grand jury summary released this week. Read it only if you have a strong stomach.)
Backstory: there were allegations against Jerry Sandusky in 1998 serious enough for the local DA to look at them. At least one public school principal banned Sandusky from his campus. A Penn State janitor reported walking in on Sandusky and a young boy, and was so upset at what he saw that his coworkers feared he'd have a heart attack.
So, when a graduate assistant coach (widely reported to be current Penn State assistant Mike McQueary) comes to Paterno back in 2002 and tells him that, the night before, he walked into the shower room and saw Sandusky committing anal rape on a boy he estimated to be 10 years old, it wasn't like this was something out of the blue. Some have speculated today that the 1998 incident is what led Sandusky to retire abruptly in 1999. Also, McQueary played for both JoePa
and Sandusky, and grew up in State College. This is not some campus rumor drifting up the ladder; it's an insider reporting what he saw with his own eyes.
It's not clear how much detail the assistant/McQueary went into with Paterno. An uncomfortable chat with the man who holds your professional future in his hands about his colleague of 30 years is not, after all, sworn testimony. But, here's the thing. Even if all McQueary said that day was "I saw Sandusky naked with a kid in the shower," who on earth would not say, "Elaborate, please?" Either Paterno blew off what he was hearing, or he deliberately stuck his fingers in his ears. Then he did the bare minimum of ass-covering by passing the report to his athletic director, the vp, the president, etc. "May no act of ours bring shame," indeed.
No, Paterno didn't molest anyone, but still he may have broken the law. Pennsylvania is a state that requires reports of sexual abuse of children to be reported to law enforcement. It's a misdemeanor no to do so, but still. More seriously, the federal Clery Act requires every college to publish an annual report of crimes taking place on campus, even those that are never prosecuted. If Penn State's top administrators knew about a credible allegation and did not investigate it even through campus channels, this university could be in very serious trouble. Like, six-figure fines and potentially losing federal financial aid trouble. THAT is why these men lost their jobs.
But, I think a huge part of why this has become such a major story is that this happened at Penn State, and not, say Miami or Ohio State or USC. Penn State fans can take pride at their athlete graduation rate and the fact that they've had no NCAA violations during Paterno's tenure. But narratives matter. As grotesque as the charges against Sandusky are, what's really feeding the widespread fascination and/or shock with this case is the troubling reality that it was JoePa, the "win with honor" paragon of integrity, who failed utterly when it counted. The great coach who inspired generations, who recruited "clean" kids and would've cut one of his players in a heartbeat for doing a tenth of what Sandusky is accused of - when it mattered, when honor and courage and fortitude weren't just vocabulary words for a pre-game pep talk but tools that might've saved an innocent child from the worst harm there is - Paterno choked.
I have no doubt that Paterno is a good man. So were the people who went to bed that night in 1964 while Kitty Genovese bled to death outside. If you won't help them - and I do mean you personally - then who will?
Yes, it's sad that Paterno's legendary coaching career will end like this. And by "like this," I mean, "by the revelation that he covered for his friend the serial child rapist," not "OMG the media sucks so hard, bro."
I hope there's a class like this at Penn State. It looks like they could use it.
Just before I went to bed last night, Penn State's Board of Trustees finally fired both the university's president and head football coach Joe Paterno. As I wrote last night, I think it was the right decision. A few thousand Penn State undergrads felt otherwise, and spent the evening pulling down light poles, overturning news vans and getting appropriately pepper-sprayed. They weren't demonstrating on behalf of the (at least) eight alleged victims, or out of anger at the coaches and administrators who swept this under the rug from (at least) 15 years. No, they rioted over a football coach getting fired. I'd like to give some leeway to the kids here, given what a bubble college life can be. I seriously hope the students quoted in this story, in particular, grow up at some point. "WE ARE... over-privileged children* with no perspective whatsoever!"
*Though... aren't current Penn State students the same age now as some of the victims would be? You'd think THAT would be a bit of a reality check.
Anyway, I continue to read comments from Paterno supporters (including in the above linked story) that he's being made a scapegoat, he did everything he should've, etc. Pardon me, but that's BS. Let's walk through this one, shall we? (A lot of this is drawn from the grand jury summary released this week. Read it only if you have a strong stomach.)
Backstory: there were allegations against Jerry Sandusky in 1998 serious enough for the local DA to look at them. At least one public school principal banned Sandusky from his campus. A Penn State janitor reported walking in on Sandusky and a young boy, and was so upset at what he saw that his coworkers feared he'd have a heart attack.
So, when a graduate assistant coach (widely reported to be current Penn State assistant Mike McQueary) comes to Paterno back in 2002 and tells him that, the night before, he walked into the shower room and saw Sandusky committing anal rape on a boy he estimated to be 10 years old, it wasn't like this was something out of the blue. Some have speculated today that the 1998 incident is what led Sandusky to retire abruptly in 1999. Also, McQueary played for both JoePa
and Sandusky, and grew up in State College. This is not some campus rumor drifting up the ladder; it's an insider reporting what he saw with his own eyes.It's not clear how much detail the assistant/McQueary went into with Paterno. An uncomfortable chat with the man who holds your professional future in his hands about his colleague of 30 years is not, after all, sworn testimony. But, here's the thing. Even if all McQueary said that day was "I saw Sandusky naked with a kid in the shower," who on earth would not say, "Elaborate, please?" Either Paterno blew off what he was hearing, or he deliberately stuck his fingers in his ears. Then he did the bare minimum of ass-covering by passing the report to his athletic director, the vp, the president, etc. "May no act of ours bring shame," indeed.
No, Paterno didn't molest anyone, but still he may have broken the law. Pennsylvania is a state that requires reports of sexual abuse of children to be reported to law enforcement. It's a misdemeanor no to do so, but still. More seriously, the federal Clery Act requires every college to publish an annual report of crimes taking place on campus, even those that are never prosecuted. If Penn State's top administrators knew about a credible allegation and did not investigate it even through campus channels, this university could be in very serious trouble. Like, six-figure fines and potentially losing federal financial aid trouble. THAT is why these men lost their jobs.
But, I think a huge part of why this has become such a major story is that this happened at Penn State, and not, say Miami or Ohio State or USC. Penn State fans can take pride at their athlete graduation rate and the fact that they've had no NCAA violations during Paterno's tenure. But narratives matter. As grotesque as the charges against Sandusky are, what's really feeding the widespread fascination and/or shock with this case is the troubling reality that it was JoePa, the "win with honor" paragon of integrity, who failed utterly when it counted. The great coach who inspired generations, who recruited "clean" kids and would've cut one of his players in a heartbeat for doing a tenth of what Sandusky is accused of - when it mattered, when honor and courage and fortitude weren't just vocabulary words for a pre-game pep talk but tools that might've saved an innocent child from the worst harm there is - Paterno choked.
I have no doubt that Paterno is a good man. So were the people who went to bed that night in 1964 while Kitty Genovese bled to death outside. If you won't help them - and I do mean you personally - then who will?
Yes, it's sad that Paterno's legendary coaching career will end like this. And by "like this," I mean, "by the revelation that he covered for his friend the serial child rapist," not "OMG the media sucks so hard, bro."
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Breaking: JoePa is out
I still have things I want to say about this - long-winded, hopefully thoughtful things - but for now I just wanted to note that, after Penn State's Joe Paterno announced today that he'd retire at the end of the football season following the indictment of his former assistant Jerry Sandusky for numerous counts of sexual abuse, Penn State's Board of Trustees fired him effective immediately. They also fired the university's president.
It should go without saying that this is the right decision. For now, I'll set aside the ethical arguments and just focus on the cold, hard calculus of image management. Some are protesting that Paterno, with his 50+ year history coaching at Penn State, should be allowed to leave on his own terms*. But that would mean that this would continue to drag on for the next three weeks, minimum. The Big Ten can't be wild about the possibility of this stink clinging to their championship game. If Penn State makes a high-profile bowl game, ye gods. Ok, the football players shouldn't be punished for their coach's monumental failure of morality... but at least cutting JoePa loose now gives the team at least the possibility of moving on.
I've also read the argument about how much Paterno has done for the university over the years, and how much money he helps raise. Um... exactly. Like the Penn State advancement office is going to ask JoePa to sign a fundraising letter or make an appearance at an event right now. The Penn State community is hurting, and they're angry. They just learned that their god of "winning with honor" turned a blind eye toward straight-up rape of a 10-year-old on campus. Sadly, there probably are Penn State alums and boosters out there who will threaten to withdraw their support out of JoePa love... but they are far, far outnumbered by the alumni and parents who want their school's honor back. After all, that "B.A., Penn State" is going to be on one's resume forever, and no one wants that tarnished.
The board made the right call. Only they should've done so days ago... or years ago.
*As I once wrote relating to Ben Roethlisberger, it's pretty rich for anyone to complain about being forced into something when... HELLO.
It should go without saying that this is the right decision. For now, I'll set aside the ethical arguments and just focus on the cold, hard calculus of image management. Some are protesting that Paterno, with his 50+ year history coaching at Penn State, should be allowed to leave on his own terms*. But that would mean that this would continue to drag on for the next three weeks, minimum. The Big Ten can't be wild about the possibility of this stink clinging to their championship game. If Penn State makes a high-profile bowl game, ye gods. Ok, the football players shouldn't be punished for their coach's monumental failure of morality... but at least cutting JoePa loose now gives the team at least the possibility of moving on.
I've also read the argument about how much Paterno has done for the university over the years, and how much money he helps raise. Um... exactly. Like the Penn State advancement office is going to ask JoePa to sign a fundraising letter or make an appearance at an event right now. The Penn State community is hurting, and they're angry. They just learned that their god of "winning with honor" turned a blind eye toward straight-up rape of a 10-year-old on campus. Sadly, there probably are Penn State alums and boosters out there who will threaten to withdraw their support out of JoePa love... but they are far, far outnumbered by the alumni and parents who want their school's honor back. After all, that "B.A., Penn State" is going to be on one's resume forever, and no one wants that tarnished.
The board made the right call. Only they should've done so days ago... or years ago.
*As I once wrote relating to Ben Roethlisberger, it's pretty rich for anyone to complain about being forced into something when... HELLO.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Socratic NASCAR, part II: NASCAR is mad, y'all
Just because I enjoyed the first part so much...
(...and, again, apologies for being so slow. Adjustment to new job is kicking my a**.)
But it turns out that NASCAR has given this story a few days' more legs by fining Kyle Busch $50,000 for wrecking Ron Hornaday Jr. last Friday, after parking Busch for the Saturday Nationwide and Sunday Cup races. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled...but on an intellectual level I understand that there's stuff I should work out.
You were super-happy to hear that Kyle Busch couldn't compete Saturday or Sunday. You gloated, and you know it.
Yep. Guilty. It's about time NASCAR stopped treating this punk like the Lovable Scamp Who Gosh Darn It Just Wants to Drive Racecars (trademark pending)! and started treating him like they would anyone else who blatantly wrecked another driver. Wasn't Busch on probation once already this year? It's not like Jeff Burton or Elliott Sadler went out there and crashed someone.
But the fact that it was Kyle Busch HAS to be affecting your reaction at least a little, right?
I think that's fair. I can't tell a lie - after days of parsing by how many spaces Dale Jr. would have to finish ahead of Busch in order to move up in the standings, learning that Busch would essentially be scoreless in one race was a "pinch me, I'm dreaming" moment. It helped that Kurt Busch also finished the perfect number of places behind Dale Jr., so my driver ended up gaining not just one spot in the points, but two. I freely admit that I'm not objective when it comes to either my favorite or least favorite drivers. Who is? If this had been Harvick or Stewart being parked, I'd have been pissed.
Parking him for the whole weekend, and then a fine on top of it? C'mon, that's extreme.
I disagree. Again, this is not a driver with a clean record. Busch has been stacking straws on the back of this camel for a long time, on and off the track. And we can't forget that the motorsports world doesn't operate in a vacuum. Two-time Indy 500 champ Dan Wheldon died in an in-race crash two weeks ago. Sunday, while Busch was not getting ready for a race at Texas, Motocross racer Jim McNeil died in an exhibition outside. People die in this sport. Wrecks will happen, but intentionally crashing someone head-on into a wall at full speed can't be tolerated. Ever.
Yeah, but would NASCAR have penalized Busch to this extent if he'd been higher than 7th in points?
That I can't answer... but I'll bet the powers-that-be are glad that they don't have to answer it either. It's one thing to say, yes, we absolutely treat every driver the same... and another to know that your subjectively applied penalty surely cost someone a championship (and potentially sponsors and/or a ride). But race fans argue all the time about how debris cautions or penalties cost their drivers. Football fans gripe about holding and PI calls; baseball fans gripe about strikes; basketball fans call foul on fouls. A little subjectivity is what makes sports interesting.
...Are you still gloating?
Yes.
(...and, again, apologies for being so slow. Adjustment to new job is kicking my a**.)
But it turns out that NASCAR has given this story a few days' more legs by fining Kyle Busch $50,000 for wrecking Ron Hornaday Jr. last Friday, after parking Busch for the Saturday Nationwide and Sunday Cup races. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled...but on an intellectual level I understand that there's stuff I should work out.
You were super-happy to hear that Kyle Busch couldn't compete Saturday or Sunday. You gloated, and you know it.
Yep. Guilty. It's about time NASCAR stopped treating this punk like the Lovable Scamp Who Gosh Darn It Just Wants to Drive Racecars (trademark pending)! and started treating him like they would anyone else who blatantly wrecked another driver. Wasn't Busch on probation once already this year? It's not like Jeff Burton or Elliott Sadler went out there and crashed someone.
But the fact that it was Kyle Busch HAS to be affecting your reaction at least a little, right?
I think that's fair. I can't tell a lie - after days of parsing by how many spaces Dale Jr. would have to finish ahead of Busch in order to move up in the standings, learning that Busch would essentially be scoreless in one race was a "pinch me, I'm dreaming" moment. It helped that Kurt Busch also finished the perfect number of places behind Dale Jr., so my driver ended up gaining not just one spot in the points, but two. I freely admit that I'm not objective when it comes to either my favorite or least favorite drivers. Who is? If this had been Harvick or Stewart being parked, I'd have been pissed.
Parking him for the whole weekend, and then a fine on top of it? C'mon, that's extreme.
I disagree. Again, this is not a driver with a clean record. Busch has been stacking straws on the back of this camel for a long time, on and off the track. And we can't forget that the motorsports world doesn't operate in a vacuum. Two-time Indy 500 champ Dan Wheldon died in an in-race crash two weeks ago. Sunday, while Busch was not getting ready for a race at Texas, Motocross racer Jim McNeil died in an exhibition outside. People die in this sport. Wrecks will happen, but intentionally crashing someone head-on into a wall at full speed can't be tolerated. Ever.
Yeah, but would NASCAR have penalized Busch to this extent if he'd been higher than 7th in points?
That I can't answer... but I'll bet the powers-that-be are glad that they don't have to answer it either. It's one thing to say, yes, we absolutely treat every driver the same... and another to know that your subjectively applied penalty surely cost someone a championship (and potentially sponsors and/or a ride). But race fans argue all the time about how debris cautions or penalties cost their drivers. Football fans gripe about holding and PI calls; baseball fans gripe about strikes; basketball fans call foul on fouls. A little subjectivity is what makes sports interesting.
...Are you still gloating?
Yes.
Men behaving badly, and all the other people who have to clean up after them
When I read yesterday for the first time an opinion commentator writing that Penn State doesn't have many other options other than to ask Joe Paterno to resign, and when I read today that this might actually be in the works, my first reaction was, "Well, this sucks." It's sad that Paterno's decades-long career might end because he may have helped cover up a former colleague's sexual abuse of children (which I refuse to refer to as a "sex scandal" - "sex scandals" are between consenting adults, not predators and children).
But then the other half of my Gemini brain immediately swooped in pointing out that sympathy should be reserved for the children here, not grown men who should've known better. Ok, other half, that's true. Sure, Paterno made choices and now he has to deal with the consequences. But I can still make room in my mind and my heart for the thousands of Penn State alums, former players, and of course the families of the people involved, because it's a terrible feeling to realize that the person you've admired for almost 50 years maybe isn't that admirable.
That's nothing compared to the loss of innocence that the children assistant coach Jerry Sandusky is accused of assaulting must have gone through. Sexual assault is always heinous, but especially so in cases like this, or the many Catholic priest abuse cases, where the child victim belongs to a culture that tells him or her that this particular grown-up has special authority. Because what goes through that child's mind is a litany of thoughts like "This person is always right, therefore I must have been the one who did something wrong." Even if the child realizes that abuse has happened, who's going to believe a kid over a minor deity like a Penn State football coach?
The more authority you have, the more responsibility you have not to abuse it.
This week, two of the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment several years ago have "gone public" - one by choice, with an attorney and a press conference, and one against her will. This morning on the radio, there was a discussion of how this expanding harassment issue will affect Cain, and someone brought up Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. Again, a consensual relationship is NOT the same thing as non-consensual comments or behavior... so Clinton/Flowers isn't at all applicable here.
There are plenty of places on the 'net to discuss what the revelations of these allegations might do to Cain's presidential candidacy, but I relate more to the women involved. I'm not in a position to weigh in on what happened all those years ago. But I can relate to going through something of that nature, doing the hard work of moving on with your life, and then dreading what will happen to your put-back-together life when, at any point decades from now, someone in the press gets ahold of it.
I can also relate to the children in the Penn State case. What's getting lost (or under-reported) here is that this abuse happened over a 15-year period. Y'all know what happened to me, a little over four years ago. The guy in my case also had very close ties to a college athletic program, with a lot of people who idolize and idealize the program. When I'd see those news stories about the great athletic tradition of blah blah blah, all I could think was - you have a rapist in the family. Do you know that? If you do, do you care? Do you believe what I said was true and are you ashamed, or are you sitting up there on your booster-funded pedestal thinking I'm a crazy liar? For 15 years, there have been at least eight children thinking something very close to that every time a Penn State highlight rolls across the ESPN ticker.
This is what's the most awful about abuse, or any crime... even when the perpetrator is caught and (rarely) brought to justice, it seems that the victims, their families, and any number of people who are just caught up in the ripple effects are the ones who truly end up dealing with the consequences in real, life-altering ways. Sexual abuse isn't just a one-time incident where someone in power takes advantage of someone else. It's a decision to permanently alter another person's life for the worse. That's why it's so obscene. The perpetrator might (rarely) end up in jail, but someone else is always going to have to clean up the mess.
But then the other half of my Gemini brain immediately swooped in pointing out that sympathy should be reserved for the children here, not grown men who should've known better. Ok, other half, that's true. Sure, Paterno made choices and now he has to deal with the consequences. But I can still make room in my mind and my heart for the thousands of Penn State alums, former players, and of course the families of the people involved, because it's a terrible feeling to realize that the person you've admired for almost 50 years maybe isn't that admirable.
That's nothing compared to the loss of innocence that the children assistant coach Jerry Sandusky is accused of assaulting must have gone through. Sexual assault is always heinous, but especially so in cases like this, or the many Catholic priest abuse cases, where the child victim belongs to a culture that tells him or her that this particular grown-up has special authority. Because what goes through that child's mind is a litany of thoughts like "This person is always right, therefore I must have been the one who did something wrong." Even if the child realizes that abuse has happened, who's going to believe a kid over a minor deity like a Penn State football coach?
The more authority you have, the more responsibility you have not to abuse it.
This week, two of the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment several years ago have "gone public" - one by choice, with an attorney and a press conference, and one against her will. This morning on the radio, there was a discussion of how this expanding harassment issue will affect Cain, and someone brought up Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. Again, a consensual relationship is NOT the same thing as non-consensual comments or behavior... so Clinton/Flowers isn't at all applicable here.
There are plenty of places on the 'net to discuss what the revelations of these allegations might do to Cain's presidential candidacy, but I relate more to the women involved. I'm not in a position to weigh in on what happened all those years ago. But I can relate to going through something of that nature, doing the hard work of moving on with your life, and then dreading what will happen to your put-back-together life when, at any point decades from now, someone in the press gets ahold of it.
I can also relate to the children in the Penn State case. What's getting lost (or under-reported) here is that this abuse happened over a 15-year period. Y'all know what happened to me, a little over four years ago. The guy in my case also had very close ties to a college athletic program, with a lot of people who idolize and idealize the program. When I'd see those news stories about the great athletic tradition of blah blah blah, all I could think was - you have a rapist in the family. Do you know that? If you do, do you care? Do you believe what I said was true and are you ashamed, or are you sitting up there on your booster-funded pedestal thinking I'm a crazy liar? For 15 years, there have been at least eight children thinking something very close to that every time a Penn State highlight rolls across the ESPN ticker.
This is what's the most awful about abuse, or any crime... even when the perpetrator is caught and (rarely) brought to justice, it seems that the victims, their families, and any number of people who are just caught up in the ripple effects are the ones who truly end up dealing with the consequences in real, life-altering ways. Sexual abuse isn't just a one-time incident where someone in power takes advantage of someone else. It's a decision to permanently alter another person's life for the worse. That's why it's so obscene. The perpetrator might (rarely) end up in jail, but someone else is always going to have to clean up the mess.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Bless your heart, New York Times!
(First of all, apologies for being so lax in posting lately. I started my new job not quite three weeks ago, and I love that it's so fast-paced... but naturally that leaves me less time for pontificating.)
True story: this summer, my family, traveling in a tourist-y area in the Blue Ridge Mountains found ourselves entering a restaurant at the same time as a small party of men. The men visibly raced to the door to squeeze in after the first half of the family, and allowed the restaurant's screen door to slam directly in the face of the second half of the family, which included me. My instantaneous, instinctive first thought at getting a face-full of spring-loaded screen door was, "Yankee." (I wish I could say that this was followed by "Bless his heart, he doesn't know any better," but it wasn't. Those guys pissed me off.)
Yep. Guilty. In my hind-brain, any full-grown man in the South who fails at anything so basic as holding open a door just MUST be ... well, not from here. Call me prejudiced. I am.
This morning, I read this New York Times story about how the South - the world's last bastion of courtesy, apparently - is gradually losing our trademark hospitality. (Ah, the South. Even our war was civil!) For what it's worth, they also blame the Yankees. Now, I love the Times' reporting of actual news events, with their ability to place a multitude of reporters in all 47,000 places that news might be breaking. But their "lifestyle" stories tend to go something like this: Question? Competing anecdotes. No objective data. Page clicks. etc. Or, as Gawker put it, "Manners Down South: Killed by Anecdotes."
As a Southerner, I love that "has manners" is a major part of our identity, even as I can understand that our region doesn't in fact have a monopoly on saying "Ma'am" and holding open doors. In my experience, people in rural areas anywhere tend to be more cordial than those in large cities, simply because the city peoples' personal encounters tend to be more anonymous. If you live in a town of 627 people, there's not a lot you can get done if people aren't nice to one another.
But, aside from the lazy reasoning, the Times story bugged me for a number of reasons. Mainly, the argument that Southerners came up with manners just so we could get away with racism, and now that we can't have Jim Crow laws, we just don't know what to do with ourselves. There's a big difference between etiquette designed to enforce unwritten oppressive social codes and just plain courtesy. When I think of the former, I picture an elderly black man being called "boy" by any white person who addresses him, or a woman whose doctor won't talk to her about her own health. That happened, and not just in the South. (Newsflash! Racism and sexism do in fact happen in other parts of the world.) But I don't put that in the same category as saying please and thank you.
I'm not insensitive to the gut reaction of people who are suspicious of the racist/sexist origins of some points of etiquette. The man who cuts my grass calls me "Miss Sara," even though I've told him he can call me plain old "Sara." It bothers the hell out of me; I feel like a plantation owner. But he still says it. And, if it's true that manners are ultimately about making other people feel at ease, then am I the one being rude by repeatedly correcting him?
But, again, rigid social codes are a far cry from basic manners. I don't feel discriminated against when a man holds open a door for me. I hold open doors for people every day, men included. That's because slamming a slab of wood or glass in the face of a woman with a stroller or a man toting a stack of boxes or a person of any gender who's right fracking behind you is just rude.
I was raised right (and not by parents with scads of money or privilege, either). I still put my napkin on my lap; I stand when people enter the room; I say please, thank you, ma'am, sir, etc., and I don't call my elders by their first names unless they tell me I may. I write thank-you notes. I by God hold open doors, and say thank you when others do so for me. As proud as I am to be from the South, I certainly hope that a child raised in Westchester or Palm Beach or Minot, North Dakota is able to say the same thing.
(And side rant - "bless your heart" or "Isn't that nice" aren't passive-aggressive. They're just courteous. Again, manners are about putting others at ease, not crowing from the rooftops that you've got Emily Post memorized, for pete's sake.)
True story: this summer, my family, traveling in a tourist-y area in the Blue Ridge Mountains found ourselves entering a restaurant at the same time as a small party of men. The men visibly raced to the door to squeeze in after the first half of the family, and allowed the restaurant's screen door to slam directly in the face of the second half of the family, which included me. My instantaneous, instinctive first thought at getting a face-full of spring-loaded screen door was, "Yankee." (I wish I could say that this was followed by "Bless his heart, he doesn't know any better," but it wasn't. Those guys pissed me off.)
Yep. Guilty. In my hind-brain, any full-grown man in the South who fails at anything so basic as holding open a door just MUST be ... well, not from here. Call me prejudiced. I am.
This morning, I read this New York Times story about how the South - the world's last bastion of courtesy, apparently - is gradually losing our trademark hospitality. (Ah, the South. Even our war was civil!) For what it's worth, they also blame the Yankees. Now, I love the Times' reporting of actual news events, with their ability to place a multitude of reporters in all 47,000 places that news might be breaking. But their "lifestyle" stories tend to go something like this: Question? Competing anecdotes. No objective data. Page clicks. etc. Or, as Gawker put it, "Manners Down South: Killed by Anecdotes."
As a Southerner, I love that "has manners" is a major part of our identity, even as I can understand that our region doesn't in fact have a monopoly on saying "Ma'am" and holding open doors. In my experience, people in rural areas anywhere tend to be more cordial than those in large cities, simply because the city peoples' personal encounters tend to be more anonymous. If you live in a town of 627 people, there's not a lot you can get done if people aren't nice to one another.
But, aside from the lazy reasoning, the Times story bugged me for a number of reasons. Mainly, the argument that Southerners came up with manners just so we could get away with racism, and now that we can't have Jim Crow laws, we just don't know what to do with ourselves. There's a big difference between etiquette designed to enforce unwritten oppressive social codes and just plain courtesy. When I think of the former, I picture an elderly black man being called "boy" by any white person who addresses him, or a woman whose doctor won't talk to her about her own health. That happened, and not just in the South. (Newsflash! Racism and sexism do in fact happen in other parts of the world.) But I don't put that in the same category as saying please and thank you.
I'm not insensitive to the gut reaction of people who are suspicious of the racist/sexist origins of some points of etiquette. The man who cuts my grass calls me "Miss Sara," even though I've told him he can call me plain old "Sara." It bothers the hell out of me; I feel like a plantation owner. But he still says it. And, if it's true that manners are ultimately about making other people feel at ease, then am I the one being rude by repeatedly correcting him?
But, again, rigid social codes are a far cry from basic manners. I don't feel discriminated against when a man holds open a door for me. I hold open doors for people every day, men included. That's because slamming a slab of wood or glass in the face of a woman with a stroller or a man toting a stack of boxes or a person of any gender who's right fracking behind you is just rude.
I was raised right (and not by parents with scads of money or privilege, either). I still put my napkin on my lap; I stand when people enter the room; I say please, thank you, ma'am, sir, etc., and I don't call my elders by their first names unless they tell me I may. I write thank-you notes. I by God hold open doors, and say thank you when others do so for me. As proud as I am to be from the South, I certainly hope that a child raised in Westchester or Palm Beach or Minot, North Dakota is able to say the same thing.
(And side rant - "bless your heart" or "Isn't that nice" aren't passive-aggressive. They're just courteous. Again, manners are about putting others at ease, not crowing from the rooftops that you've got Emily Post memorized, for pete's sake.)
Friday, October 21, 2011
Entitled
There's a post I've been wanting to write all week, but I just couldn't get it to gel. Sometimes I have no trouble articulating what I think about something, and sometimes I know that if I tried to write about X, all that would come out is a bunch of gibberish. A lot of the time, I just want to keep from writing three identical posts in a row, so I wait until I've figured out some way to unify a couple of different ideas. Basically, this week I almost wrote about a 40-something pro-lifer in Alabama and some BS Mitt Romney pulled back when he was a Mormon bishop, but it took a letter to Slate's "Dear Prudence" for me to bring it all together.
This week, a woman wrote Prudie asking how she could persuade her 21-year-old pregnant sister not to place her upcoming baby in adoption, and instead "impress upon her that she can, and should, take more responsibility for her actions." Prudie (rightly) responded that the woman needs to mind her own business and respect that her sister IS making a responsible choice, and in the process making a dream come true for the couple who will adopt the baby.
But what really jumped out at me is this: the letter-writing sister reports that the pregnant sister, a college student, could have plenty of financial and baby-sitting support from her parents and others while she goes to class (because, as everyone knows, children don't require any care or expense once they're out of diapers). And then she writes this:
"I simply cannot understand why she is choosing adoption when she has support, both financial and otherwise. I think she is being a bit entitled. After all, she got herself into this mess, and it doesn't seem fair that she just gets to put the child up for adoption and resume her life."
DING DING DING! There it is!
Now, Mitt... When he was a Mormon lay leader in the Boston area, Romney (as reported in a 1990 story in Exponent II, a magazine published by Mormon feminists, and this week in the New York Times) barged into the hospital room of a woman whose sixth pregnancy had produced a blood clot that threatened her life. The treatment for the blood clot would terminate her pregnancy, and so the church ok'd an abortion (for, again, a pregnancy that she planned and wanted).
"Her bishop got wind of the situation, she wrote, and showed up unannounced at the hospital, warning her sternly not to go forward," says the Times. According to Judith Dushku, publisher of Exponent II, the exchange went like this:
(By the way, if I'd been that woman and Mitt Romney - hell, if a member of my own family - had said this to me, they'd have left that hospital room with some teeth missing. Seriously, where the frak does he get off? "Easy"???")
I respect the people who genuinely don't want abortion to happen, and who therefore support better family planning and birth control access, and who support funding for those programs that help low-income families feed, clothe and educate their children. (For instance, the Mormon Church does an excellent job helping member families.) My problem is this undercurrent in every single conversation with an anti-choicer I've ever had, which in the above quoted passages spills right out into the open.
Sooner or later, once you've gotten through the debate about when life begins and the ethics of privileging one life above another, eventually it comes out. "Well, you had sex, so you deserve what you get." (Note: only if you're a woman.) Or, as Letter-Writing Big Sister put it, "it doesn't seem fair that she just gets to put the child up for adoption and resume her life." Or, Bishop Mitt: "Well, why do you get off easy?"
Perhaps it's the juxtaposition of "Mitt Romney" and "getting off easy," but this just occurred to me... When progressives talk about race or class privilege - the consequences of which cost actual, walking-around-human lives - we're shouted down as "class warriors" who want to overthrow America and outlaw apple pie or something. But when a woman exercises her natural and (at least for the moment) legal right not to have a kid, she's a selfish, cake-having AND -eating harpy slut who's dodging her scarlet letter and thereby callously subverting the entire human system of right and wrong.
And don't tell me this is about saving fetuses (fetii? I really don't know...). Letter-Writing Big Sister's pregnant sister is, on paper, doing everything that the social conservatives would want her to do: carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the baby for adoption. But still, she's "entitled." Mitt Romney had the gall to tell a married mother of four that she's selfish for having life-saving surgery that would keep her around to mother her real-life children. That was "getting off easy," apparently.
What this is about is shaming women who have the temerity to do what's best for themselves and their families. It's never an easy choice, and for that reason it's a highly personal choice. If the Letter-Writing Big Sisters, the Mitt Romneys and the other scarlet letter-assigners of the world really and truly cared about justice, or saving lives, or anything to do with making it easier for families to have and raise children, then the woman in that hospital room (or adoption agency) is the last person they'd be going after.
Instead, they'll tell you all about how much they cherish life, up until the moment that life emerges from the womb and needs food stamps, health care, after-school care and public school. Then that little rug-rat needs to start pulling herself up by the bootie-straps, 'cause with that slut single mother, you never know, amirite?
So, who's really the entitled one here? The person facing the most profound decision there is, who frankly assesses her life situation and ability to care for a child, and who seeks out the advice of her doctors and spiritual advisers, and who makes a choice? Or the person who's never met that woman, and who will lecture her about the wrongness of her choices without doing anything to actually help?
This week, a woman wrote Prudie asking how she could persuade her 21-year-old pregnant sister not to place her upcoming baby in adoption, and instead "impress upon her that she can, and should, take more responsibility for her actions." Prudie (rightly) responded that the woman needs to mind her own business and respect that her sister IS making a responsible choice, and in the process making a dream come true for the couple who will adopt the baby.
But what really jumped out at me is this: the letter-writing sister reports that the pregnant sister, a college student, could have plenty of financial and baby-sitting support from her parents and others while she goes to class (because, as everyone knows, children don't require any care or expense once they're out of diapers). And then she writes this:
"I simply cannot understand why she is choosing adoption when she has support, both financial and otherwise. I think she is being a bit entitled. After all, she got herself into this mess, and it doesn't seem fair that she just gets to put the child up for adoption and resume her life."
DING DING DING! There it is!
Now, Mitt... When he was a Mormon lay leader in the Boston area, Romney (as reported in a 1990 story in Exponent II, a magazine published by Mormon feminists, and this week in the New York Times) barged into the hospital room of a woman whose sixth pregnancy had produced a blood clot that threatened her life. The treatment for the blood clot would terminate her pregnancy, and so the church ok'd an abortion (for, again, a pregnancy that she planned and wanted).
"Her bishop got wind of the situation, she wrote, and showed up unannounced at the hospital, warning her sternly not to go forward," says the Times. According to Judith Dushku, publisher of Exponent II, the exchange went like this:
DING DING DING! There it is!He said – What do you think you're doing?
She said – Well, we have to abort the baby because I have these blood clots.
And he said something to the effect of – Well, why do you get off easy when other women have their babies?
And she said – What are you talking about? This is a life threatening situation.
And he said – Well what about the life of the baby?
And she said – I have four other children and I think it would be really irresponsible to continue the pregnancy.
(By the way, if I'd been that woman and Mitt Romney - hell, if a member of my own family - had said this to me, they'd have left that hospital room with some teeth missing. Seriously, where the frak does he get off? "Easy"???")
I respect the people who genuinely don't want abortion to happen, and who therefore support better family planning and birth control access, and who support funding for those programs that help low-income families feed, clothe and educate their children. (For instance, the Mormon Church does an excellent job helping member families.) My problem is this undercurrent in every single conversation with an anti-choicer I've ever had, which in the above quoted passages spills right out into the open.
Sooner or later, once you've gotten through the debate about when life begins and the ethics of privileging one life above another, eventually it comes out. "Well, you had sex, so you deserve what you get." (Note: only if you're a woman.) Or, as Letter-Writing Big Sister put it, "it doesn't seem fair that she just gets to put the child up for adoption and resume her life." Or, Bishop Mitt: "Well, why do you get off easy?"
Perhaps it's the juxtaposition of "Mitt Romney" and "getting off easy," but this just occurred to me... When progressives talk about race or class privilege - the consequences of which cost actual, walking-around-human lives - we're shouted down as "class warriors" who want to overthrow America and outlaw apple pie or something. But when a woman exercises her natural and (at least for the moment) legal right not to have a kid, she's a selfish, cake-having AND -eating harpy slut who's dodging her scarlet letter and thereby callously subverting the entire human system of right and wrong.
And don't tell me this is about saving fetuses (fetii? I really don't know...). Letter-Writing Big Sister's pregnant sister is, on paper, doing everything that the social conservatives would want her to do: carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the baby for adoption. But still, she's "entitled." Mitt Romney had the gall to tell a married mother of four that she's selfish for having life-saving surgery that would keep her around to mother her real-life children. That was "getting off easy," apparently.
What this is about is shaming women who have the temerity to do what's best for themselves and their families. It's never an easy choice, and for that reason it's a highly personal choice. If the Letter-Writing Big Sisters, the Mitt Romneys and the other scarlet letter-assigners of the world really and truly cared about justice, or saving lives, or anything to do with making it easier for families to have and raise children, then the woman in that hospital room (or adoption agency) is the last person they'd be going after.
Instead, they'll tell you all about how much they cherish life, up until the moment that life emerges from the womb and needs food stamps, health care, after-school care and public school. Then that little rug-rat needs to start pulling herself up by the bootie-straps, 'cause with that slut single mother, you never know, amirite?
So, who's really the entitled one here? The person facing the most profound decision there is, who frankly assesses her life situation and ability to care for a child, and who seeks out the advice of her doctors and spiritual advisers, and who makes a choice? Or the person who's never met that woman, and who will lecture her about the wrongness of her choices without doing anything to actually help?
Monday, October 10, 2011
Hank Williams Jr. is mad, y'all
Can I be on Hank Williams Jr.'s side while completely disagreeing with him?
Nutshell: last week while appearing on "Fox & Friends," Williams made some comments that appeared to compare President Obama with Adolf Hitler, saying that Rep. John Boehner shouldn't have played golf with him. ESPN then removed Williams' singing intro from its "Monday Night Football" broadcast. Williams has now responded by re-recording his song "Keep the Change" (which he first wrote following Obama's inauguration), adding a verse specifically calling out "Fox & Friends" and ESPN.
The original song, while being unapologetic conservative propaganda that described some socialist hell that doesn't resemble actual reality, was at least kind of catchy. The extra verse could be more artful, but that's what happens when you write angry.
For the record, I thought Williams' statement was kind of naive and uninformed - regardless of what you think of either of them, if the president and the Speaker of the House aren't on speaking terms, not a lot gets done. Yes, there was a tinge of "let them eat cake" to that golf game when our country was on the verge of default, but that's politics. And comparing Obama to the guy who murdered six million people is just dumb.
That said, I am not a fan of this recent trend where some public figure says something boneheaded, and the only way his/her employer can think to distance themselves is to fire that person. (Because what our country needs right now is more unemployed people.) When I first read about what Williams said, I didn't think to myself "OMG, I'm never watching 'Monday Night Football" again!!!" because frankly, the presence of Jon Gruden's voice is way more off-putting than the political opinions of the guy who sings the intro song.
It's a free country. There's a big difference between actual government censorship and a private company trying to get rid of a potential PR headache, so I'm not saying Williams is some 1st Amendment martyr... but I don't think what happened to him is fair.
Corporations like ESPN need to either take the step of restricting what their employees can say on external programs, or build a thicker skin and a more nimble PR strategy.
Nutshell: last week while appearing on "Fox & Friends," Williams made some comments that appeared to compare President Obama with Adolf Hitler, saying that Rep. John Boehner shouldn't have played golf with him. ESPN then removed Williams' singing intro from its "Monday Night Football" broadcast. Williams has now responded by re-recording his song "Keep the Change" (which he first wrote following Obama's inauguration), adding a verse specifically calling out "Fox & Friends" and ESPN.
The original song, while being unapologetic conservative propaganda that described some socialist hell that doesn't resemble actual reality, was at least kind of catchy. The extra verse could be more artful, but that's what happens when you write angry.
For the record, I thought Williams' statement was kind of naive and uninformed - regardless of what you think of either of them, if the president and the Speaker of the House aren't on speaking terms, not a lot gets done. Yes, there was a tinge of "let them eat cake" to that golf game when our country was on the verge of default, but that's politics. And comparing Obama to the guy who murdered six million people is just dumb.
That said, I am not a fan of this recent trend where some public figure says something boneheaded, and the only way his/her employer can think to distance themselves is to fire that person. (Because what our country needs right now is more unemployed people.) When I first read about what Williams said, I didn't think to myself "OMG, I'm never watching 'Monday Night Football" again!!!" because frankly, the presence of Jon Gruden's voice is way more off-putting than the political opinions of the guy who sings the intro song.
It's a free country. There's a big difference between actual government censorship and a private company trying to get rid of a potential PR headache, so I'm not saying Williams is some 1st Amendment martyr... but I don't think what happened to him is fair.
Corporations like ESPN need to either take the step of restricting what their employees can say on external programs, or build a thicker skin and a more nimble PR strategy.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Ides of Zzzzzzzzz…
Oh, dear.
First let me say that I always enjoy the films that George Clooney directs, and I usually always find them interesting (with the exception of “Leatherheads,” which was pretty much an “I know where that was shot” exercise for me). But… Clooney has kind of a pacing issue. I remember being a little surprised when I read the screenplay for “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” and found that the CIA recruitment scene does not, in fact, occur an hour in, which is what it felt like when actually slogging through the movie. It’s wonderful that Clooney gives the actors in his films so much space to work, but I feel like his respect for their work makes him reluctant to actually cut any of it.
You’ve probably read a lot about “The Ides of March,” and it’s really worth seeing, so I don’t want you to think that I hated it. It’s based on a play, “Farragut North,” which is remarkable because the film didn’t seem at all stagy to me. That’s hard to do, so, kudos. The story takes place in the final days before a Democratic primary election in Ohio, which (shades of Obama v. Clinton) is going down to the wire. It focuses on Pennsylvania’s Gov. Mike Morris (Clooney) and his campaign staff, mainly Steve (Ryan Gosling), who’s a communication consultant of some kind, and campaign head Paul (my boyfriend, Phillip Seymour Hoffman).
Tthis is a hard movie to discuss without spoiling it for people who haven’t seen it. So, if you haven’t seen it, you’re just going to have to take my word for it that, while the actors are all wonderful, their characters are a liiiiiii-ttle too stock: Cynical Reporter! Hot-to-trot Intern! If you’ve ever worked on a campaign at any level, there are definitely moments that are enjoyable because they’re so true – “I have TOTALLY been there.” Except… I have totally been there. And so have you. And so has anyone else who’s ever seen an episode of “The West Wing.” Original – nah. Subtle – not as much as it thinks it is. If this movie had come out 30 or 40 years ago, it would rock.
Oh, dear, I haven’t talked about the giant plot issues yet.
***HERE BE SPOILERS***
Ok, so for the first 45 minutes or so, I was so flabbergasted that I almost walked out of the theatre and demanded my money back. It was just that frakking laughable. I kept thinking to myself, is this supposed to be a parody of a political thriller? Does it perhaps take place in an alternate universe where making a national service program mandatory for 18-year-olds will actually win widespread voter support? I mean, this is a country where large numbers of people think that buying health insurance is on par with exile to a Soviet gulag, but they’ll be ok with making their kids plant trees on the side of a highway for two years. Nothing at all implausible about THAT.
Also, and I can tell you this from experience, primary voters do not care in the slightest who’s employed to run the campaign, or with whom these people meet to chitchat in a bar. I can buy that a paranoid campaign manager would care about this, but not really anyone else. Seriously, me to that NY Times reporter who’s trying to blackmail me: “Go the f*** ahead. Who gives a sh*t?” If you think I’m being nitpicky, I’ll remind you that this is like 75 percent of the conflict of the entire movie.
But my main issue – once the big Evan Rachel Wood twist comes out, the movie becomes roughly 87,000 times more interesting. (No, I’m not going to completely spoil it for you.) All kinds of character problems (for me anyway) suddenly made sense. Two things, though: petty cash? Why petty cash? Ryan still needed to use some of his own money anyway. Moreover, I absolutely jumped off the logic train when Ryan, playing supposedly “the best media mind in the country,” walks you-know-who into you-know-where. Absolutely no way, no how, never FAIL FAIL FAIL. This simply would never happen, and if it did, someone would notice. The only way this would be remotely redeemable is, later on, when Ryan could really use some concrete documentation for a certain incident, either the petty cash thing or the public appearance thing had even slightly come up again. (And was nothing written on those prescription bottles?)
***END SPOILERS***
My overwhelming takeaway was that “The Ides of March” needed to percolate just a little while longer before being released to the masses. Individual scenes are engrossing, but the parts just don’t add up to a cohesive whole. The “cut to the lounge singer” thing is directly ripped from “Goodnight, and Good Luck,” where it worked far better, and the “lap sound from the next scene before the visual cut from the scene you’re watching” thing just got annoying after the 47th time.
But… for real, it’s a movie worth seeing. I didn’t hate it, I promise. I just felt that it could’ve been so, so much better.
Also – points for casting Jeffrey Wright and Gregory Itzin, but demerits for criminal wasting of Jennifer Ehle. She makes everything better. (Ehle worked with Clooney in “Michael Clayton,” but her role was cut from the film. High-five to Clooney for casting her here, though I would’ve loved for her to have had more to do.)
R.J. Reynolds and Occupy Wall Street
On Saturday, I stopped by the first public meeting of Occupy Winston-Salem, one of reportedly 200 groups across the country looking to expand the Occupy Wall Street protest that’s been taking place in New York City’s financial district since mid-September.
I was equal parts curious and dubious. Occupy Wall Street prides itself on being a leaderless grassroots movement that isn’t affiliated with any political party or group, and they’ve been criticized by some in the media as not having clear demands other than “greed is bad.” That isn’t entirely fair… but I’ll say more about that in a moment. I wasn’t sure what to expect from the meeting – I had a vague expectation that it would be a handful of college students who just wanted to be able to tell people they were involved, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that this was far from true.
For starters, in the crowd of 150+, there appeared to be as many people over 60 as under 30. I counted exactly two other people that I know from volunteering with the local Democratic Party. In its coverage, the Winston-Salem Journal even quotes one attendee saying he hopes Occupy W-S doesn’t get wrapped up with local Dems or labor unions. Second, the people facilitating the discussion were clear that Occupy W-S is a non-violent movement, but in terms of other specific actions, the group would be what the members of the group wanted it to be. Everyone is heard. It’s not enough to say “OMG, we have to DO SOMETHING!!!” – you need to think about exactly what you want to do and why.
While I still think that the Occupy movement needs to define its aims a little better – because if you don’t define yourself others will be happy to do it for you – I think there’s tremendous value in building a coalition where people don’t have to agree 100 percent with one another to participate.
So let me tell you what I think:
For some time, I’ve been thinking about R.J. Reynolds. Apologies to my Moravian ancestors who literally built this city, but Reynolds is arguably the person who made Winston-Salem what it is today. It wasn’t just his business (and note: this is not the place to make judgments about that business’s products), it was the way he ran that business.
Reynolds chose Winston-Salem for his tobacco company’s HQ because of its railroad hub (HELLO, infrastructure!), and employed a hell of a lot of locals in his factories and, later, at his private home, Reynolda. Reynolda Village was originally meant to house the estate’s workers, and the family provided basic services, a school and a church for that staff (and today the Village is a high-end shopping center/ office space, still generating revenue). Reynolds offered his employees short working hours and relatively high pay, and housing for some. Moreover, his wife Katherine started a literacy tutoring program for employees and their families. And here’s the best part – in the late 19th century, Reynolds was a city commissioner in Winston (this was before the merger with Salem), and he pushed for creation of property taxes and income taxes.
In other words, one of the wealthiest men in North Carolina, who after his marriage would build his own fiefdom, and who could’ve at any time pulled up stakes for anywhere else in the country, essentially volunteered to fork over part of his personal wealth to the public. At one point, Reynolds was the single-largest taxpayer in North Carolina. And this isn’t even taking into account the millions that Reynolds and his family donated to area schools, social service groups, museums, arts organizations and more – philanthropy that his descendants continue even today.
Why do all that? It’s possible that Reynolds was moved out of pure altruism. But I have to believe that the businessman who was savvy enough to add sugar to chewing tobacco and invent pre-rolled cigarettes understood – like Henry Ford would later – that taking care of the other 99 percent is ultimately good for business.
And that’s why I’m attracted to Occupy Wall Street. I’m not remotely anti-business or socialist; I like getting paid, and owning my own home for the past six years has made me understand even more than I already did the importance of having an incentive to keep improving what you have. The problem is that too many corporations don’t have that incentive, because their models are driven by the quarter, as opposed to the quarter-century. Plenty of businesses contribute to building their communities, and they’re wonderful neighbors. I don’t have any interest in tearing them down; the opposite, in fact.
It just seems to me that, for the last half-century or so, a handful of corporations have been working hand-in-glove with a permanent federal government establishment to rig public incentives in their favor. In doing so, they’re making it harder and harder for smaller businesses to operate. They’re the ones who are anti-business, not me.
Meanwhile, this establishment has been successful in keeping us, that other 99 percent, divided against one another by exploiting differences on social issues or just outright creating fictions like the Welfare Queen or the Evil Big Brother Regulator That’s Cramping My Invisible Hand. I’ve got news for you: in terms of regulations, it isn’t the ones about how much lead you can leave in your tuna fish that are driving companies out of business. (If so, I’m kind of glad you’re out of business, because… um, LEAD IN MY FOOD.) Dealing with building codes in both of the counties that your distribution hub straddles is a far bigger headache for a business.
There was a time in this country when businesses and the public (either through a government or just as individuals) were willing to cooperate with one another for their mutual benefit. It wasn’t the public that changed. For me, Occupy Wall Street isn’t about bringing down “the man.” It’s about stripping away this plutocracy that simultaneously strangles small businesses, frees governments from real accountability and locks the very largest corporations together in an ever-downward-spiraling suicide pact.
I don’t want to eliminate capitalism; I want to return to it in its most functional form. There is no better system for stabilizing a society and incentivizing growth. But capitalism can’t work in a country where a small business can’t get a loan or a customer can’t finance a major purchase, or where entire industries exist only because you and I subsidize them, or where our elected officials happily cut public services so we can keep those subsidies coming to companies that couldn’t hack it on a truly free market.
It’s time to hit the “reboot” button.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)