I just got back from my cousin Zach's wedding up in the mountains. Zach's the first one of us cousins to get married, and I have to say he's going to be a tough act to follow! The ceremony was gorgeous, taking place on top of a mountain southwest of Asheville - and I do mean a mountain: to get to the ceremony site, you had to take a shuttle. My sisters and I hitched a ride with the juggler (more on this in a minute...) in the bed of his pick-up truck, and we were just about vertical for a few minutes there.
Zach and Perfect Karen (that's her official name, btw) married on the peak of Big Butte Mountain, with a picture-perfect view of the surrounding Smokey Mountains right at sun-set. They incorporated traditions from Karen's Cherokee heritage. And then we paraded back down to the reception site, led by a quartet of local entertainers including a unicyle-mounted juggler, a fire-spinner, a drummer and "The Girl," who had the rare talent of hula-hooping while walking downhill.
At the reception, we enjoyed a meal that only a Comer could devise - chicken tenders, tater-tots, etc., and a perfect first dance, sung by my cousin Jon, Zach's older brother. Then, instead of the typical round-robin of wedding party dances, we had one big family dance, with everyone on the floor at the same time.
This morning, Zach and Karen both gave moving remarks at the family brunch, and we watched a video made by Zach's father, my Uncle David, chronicling their relationship. It was a reminder that Zach and Karen are so beautifully perfect *because* of their human flaws, not despite them. They took the time to explore and test their relationship before taking the plunge.
The whole weekend confirmed for me what I want from my eventual life partner: be silly with me, be goofy with me; trust me, believe in me, and let me believe in you. And above all, love my family and be part of them; play the card games, and the board games; play in the river; sing and dance - because those things are fleeting, and yet those are the things we remember once they're gone.
On the ride up, I passed the time telling my nephew the same stories my mother used to distract me with on those long trips to see family. And I thought, that's what lasts, that's what matters. The guy who finally gets me to walk down that aisle has to appreciate that as much as he loves me.
Good luck, Zach and Karen, and welcome to the family, Karen! You're beautiful and funny and fun, and we're so unspeakably lucky to have you!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ted
I’m sad… It’s not like we didn’t know Senator Edward M. Kennedy was going to die from the brain cancer diagnosed last year. I guess I’m more – for lack of a better word – awed. For me, Teddy Kennedy’s been a constant presence in Congress and as the spiritual head of my party for my entire life – hell, almost for my mother’s entire life, too.
So the notion that Ted Kennedy may be one of the most influential American politicians in history is kind of mundane, like saying that Meryl Streep is a great actress. It’s true, but easy to take for granted. Until you start reading the eulogies.
Here’s a partial list of things that Americans of my generation think of as self-evident that we wouldn’t have if not for Ted Kennedy:
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964;
- The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished quotas and resulted in the explosion of immigration from non-European nations;
- The National Cancer Act of 1971, which started the “war on cancer” and increased federal funding for prevention and research;
- The Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which condemned the South African government and demanded the release of Nelson Mandela;
- The Americans with Disability Act;
- The Ryan White Care Act, which funds care for low-income AIDS patients;
- The State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP, which funds health care for low-income children;
- “Borking,” or the politically motivated torpedoing of a presidential appointee, named after Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, whom Kennedy just destroyed in a committee hearing.
- OSHA, which keeps your employer from setting you on fire;
- And of course, the idea that health care is a right, not a privilege.
It’s kind of ironic that Ted, the youngest Kennedy brother, isn’t worshipped like his brothers John or Bobby. No one’s written songs about Teddy. And yet he’s the Kennedy who’ll go down in history as changing the face of America in many ways. And though he was a proud liberal, never dissembling or insisting that he was a moderate, Kennedy was rarely partisan (except for the Bork thing). In fact, when President George W. Bush took office, the first legislator he approached on a major issue was Ted Kennedy, who bears some of the responsibility (or blame, depending on your viewpoint) for passing No Child Left Behind.
His personal issues have been well documented, and I’m not going to defend him for those. To paraphrase Kennedy himself, I don’t have any interest in politicians’ private lives as long as their issues don’t affect their work.
Instead, I’m grateful for the leadership and service of a man who unapologetically insisted that the “haves” are obligated to serve the country and help lift up the “have-nots.” We’ll miss that leadership in the days and years to come.
So the notion that Ted Kennedy may be one of the most influential American politicians in history is kind of mundane, like saying that Meryl Streep is a great actress. It’s true, but easy to take for granted. Until you start reading the eulogies.
Here’s a partial list of things that Americans of my generation think of as self-evident that we wouldn’t have if not for Ted Kennedy:
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964;
- The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished quotas and resulted in the explosion of immigration from non-European nations;
- The National Cancer Act of 1971, which started the “war on cancer” and increased federal funding for prevention and research;
- The Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which condemned the South African government and demanded the release of Nelson Mandela;
- The Americans with Disability Act;
- The Ryan White Care Act, which funds care for low-income AIDS patients;
- The State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP, which funds health care for low-income children;
- “Borking,” or the politically motivated torpedoing of a presidential appointee, named after Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, whom Kennedy just destroyed in a committee hearing.
- OSHA, which keeps your employer from setting you on fire;
- And of course, the idea that health care is a right, not a privilege.
It’s kind of ironic that Ted, the youngest Kennedy brother, isn’t worshipped like his brothers John or Bobby. No one’s written songs about Teddy. And yet he’s the Kennedy who’ll go down in history as changing the face of America in many ways. And though he was a proud liberal, never dissembling or insisting that he was a moderate, Kennedy was rarely partisan (except for the Bork thing). In fact, when President George W. Bush took office, the first legislator he approached on a major issue was Ted Kennedy, who bears some of the responsibility (or blame, depending on your viewpoint) for passing No Child Left Behind.
His personal issues have been well documented, and I’m not going to defend him for those. To paraphrase Kennedy himself, I don’t have any interest in politicians’ private lives as long as their issues don’t affect their work.
Instead, I’m grateful for the leadership and service of a man who unapologetically insisted that the “haves” are obligated to serve the country and help lift up the “have-nots.” We’ll miss that leadership in the days and years to come.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Damned lies and statistics
Something that happened at work today reminded me of the college journalism class where my professor was warning us about the pitfalls that come along with reporting statistics. She told us about how, a few years back, UNC Chapel Hill did a survey of the salaries earned by alumni in different majors a certain number of years after graduating. And guess what the top-earning major was? Geography.
We digested that for a moment, and then somebody said that they had no idea that geology majors earned so much later in life. They don’t, the professor said. But one UNC geography major did quite well for himself, and his name was Michael Jordan.
She told us this in order to drive home how meaningless stats such as “average” can be if they’re not reported correctly. I think all of us are aware of how statistics can be manipulated to show one thing or its exact opposite.
For example: the college where I work was founded by members of a religious group – let’s call them… Oh, hell, I can never think of anything in these situations. How about The Ramones? Sure. Okay, so we’re no longer governed by the Ramones, but Ramone values are still a large part of our identity. Today I asked the religious studies coordinator, a Ramone himself, how many self-identified Ramones are in the student body this year.
So, last year, nine percent of the student body were Ramones. This year it’s eight percent. BUT, the actual number of Ramones has gone up. The student body is also larger, so the Ramone percentage of the total is smaller… even though there are more of them – 25 percent more, actually. See how fun this is? Have a headache yet?
(For the record – last year there were 27 Ramones, and this year 36, with 200ish more total students.)
I think of this every time I see another college report that its “average” SAT score is up, or that its student body has grown X-percent. I think of it when I see a corporation brag that its profits have gone up X-percent. It *really* chaps my ass when I see sloppy stats applied to sports, removed from all context or common sense.
It happens with political reporting all the time. Take, for instance, a survey asking random people if Sarah Palin’s resignation affected one’s view of her. Well, if I’m asked that question and I answer honestly – Nope, not one bit. But I already didn’t like her. That survey doesn’t really reveal what it claims to reveal.
The next time you see a stat, demand the whole story: sample size, wording of questions, all of it.
We digested that for a moment, and then somebody said that they had no idea that geology majors earned so much later in life. They don’t, the professor said. But one UNC geography major did quite well for himself, and his name was Michael Jordan.
She told us this in order to drive home how meaningless stats such as “average” can be if they’re not reported correctly. I think all of us are aware of how statistics can be manipulated to show one thing or its exact opposite.
For example: the college where I work was founded by members of a religious group – let’s call them… Oh, hell, I can never think of anything in these situations. How about The Ramones? Sure. Okay, so we’re no longer governed by the Ramones, but Ramone values are still a large part of our identity. Today I asked the religious studies coordinator, a Ramone himself, how many self-identified Ramones are in the student body this year.
So, last year, nine percent of the student body were Ramones. This year it’s eight percent. BUT, the actual number of Ramones has gone up. The student body is also larger, so the Ramone percentage of the total is smaller… even though there are more of them – 25 percent more, actually. See how fun this is? Have a headache yet?
(For the record – last year there were 27 Ramones, and this year 36, with 200ish more total students.)
I think of this every time I see another college report that its “average” SAT score is up, or that its student body has grown X-percent. I think of it when I see a corporation brag that its profits have gone up X-percent. It *really* chaps my ass when I see sloppy stats applied to sports, removed from all context or common sense.
It happens with political reporting all the time. Take, for instance, a survey asking random people if Sarah Palin’s resignation affected one’s view of her. Well, if I’m asked that question and I answer honestly – Nope, not one bit. But I already didn’t like her. That survey doesn’t really reveal what it claims to reveal.
The next time you see a stat, demand the whole story: sample size, wording of questions, all of it.
“Playing with fire,” indeed
I’m pleasantly surprised to see someone in the MSM come right out and say that certain ultra-ultra right-wing talking points – like this Baptist minister who prays for Obama to die – could incite violence against him or others. Because it seems like our country has developed a serious case of short-term amnesia lately.
Fact: people were actually arrested for wearing critical T-shirts at Bush events only five years ago. Almost two thousand protesters were arrested at the 2004 Republican National Convention. People who went to Bush town hall events were pre-selected. And yet it’s okay to show up at an Obama appearance with an assault rifle?
Earlier this year (as alluded to in the clip), Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came under fire for warning that the same climate that produced a surge of domestic terrorism in the 90s was developing at present. And yet – assassins target doctors and museums and ministers openly beg for the president’s death, and no one sees a connection. (I totally love the madrassa concept that the MSNBC contributor brought up.)
Can I ask something? I genuinely, non-snarkily want to know from anyone out there who’s gone tea-bagging or has said something along the lines of “I want my country back” – what has Obama done that scares you so much? (Please answer without referencing either birth certificates or the anti-Christ.)
I mean, we’ve still got “don’t ask/don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act provisions. We’ve got pretty much the same restrictions on abortion. We’ve handed over power in Iraq, as Bush planned. We’ve actually sent more troops to Afghanistan to find the people who attacked us. The Bush tax cuts are still in place, and will expire no sooner than they were going to anyway. Obama continued the pattern of federal bail-out that Bush started. He even kept Bush’s Secretary of Defense and today nominated Bush’s Federal Reserve chair to another term. And the president has asked Congress to reform the health insurance system. Other than that last part, how exactly is America different than it was a year ago?
It’s really not. But we’re still getting the kind of distracting hysteria that stymied federal leadership during the 90s, when yet another conservative Democrat was in the White House. (And if you honestly think that Bill Clinton was a liberal, talk to a few of the thousands of people he booted off welfare or kicked out of the military because they liked boys.) Even though Obama: Month Eight doesn’t look that different from Bush: Year Eight, you’d think we were in the middle of Armageddon. Why? Because America’s memory sucks.
In the immortal words of Columbo, one more thing… Detroit came to Obama, not the other way around… the Nazis weren’t socialist… Health care rationing already exists… Nobody’s trying to take your guns… The next person who calls Obama a socialist can feel free to sign his or her Social Security check over to me… and, of course…
If something happens to Obama, you know what you get?
President Biden and Vice President Pelosi. Suck on that.
Fact: people were actually arrested for wearing critical T-shirts at Bush events only five years ago. Almost two thousand protesters were arrested at the 2004 Republican National Convention. People who went to Bush town hall events were pre-selected. And yet it’s okay to show up at an Obama appearance with an assault rifle?
Earlier this year (as alluded to in the clip), Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came under fire for warning that the same climate that produced a surge of domestic terrorism in the 90s was developing at present. And yet – assassins target doctors and museums and ministers openly beg for the president’s death, and no one sees a connection. (I totally love the madrassa concept that the MSNBC contributor brought up.)
Can I ask something? I genuinely, non-snarkily want to know from anyone out there who’s gone tea-bagging or has said something along the lines of “I want my country back” – what has Obama done that scares you so much? (Please answer without referencing either birth certificates or the anti-Christ.)
I mean, we’ve still got “don’t ask/don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act provisions. We’ve got pretty much the same restrictions on abortion. We’ve handed over power in Iraq, as Bush planned. We’ve actually sent more troops to Afghanistan to find the people who attacked us. The Bush tax cuts are still in place, and will expire no sooner than they were going to anyway. Obama continued the pattern of federal bail-out that Bush started. He even kept Bush’s Secretary of Defense and today nominated Bush’s Federal Reserve chair to another term. And the president has asked Congress to reform the health insurance system. Other than that last part, how exactly is America different than it was a year ago?
It’s really not. But we’re still getting the kind of distracting hysteria that stymied federal leadership during the 90s, when yet another conservative Democrat was in the White House. (And if you honestly think that Bill Clinton was a liberal, talk to a few of the thousands of people he booted off welfare or kicked out of the military because they liked boys.) Even though Obama: Month Eight doesn’t look that different from Bush: Year Eight, you’d think we were in the middle of Armageddon. Why? Because America’s memory sucks.
In the immortal words of Columbo, one more thing… Detroit came to Obama, not the other way around… the Nazis weren’t socialist… Health care rationing already exists… Nobody’s trying to take your guns… The next person who calls Obama a socialist can feel free to sign his or her Social Security check over to me… and, of course…
If something happens to Obama, you know what you get?
President Biden and Vice President Pelosi. Suck on that.
Friday, August 21, 2009
It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you
Ah, the tender days of 2004. We’re three years past 9/11, though it feels like a week. We’re a little over a year into war with
Fast-forward five years. Oops! It turns out that DHS *did* in fact raise the threat level in order to manipulate public fears about terrorist attacks, knowing that this would play into the hands of the Chicken Little wing of the GOP. At least, that’s what Ridge claims in his new book. (Which I'm sure he's giving away for free...)
I kind of feel about this the way I felt about former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, and, as much as I personally respect him, Colin Powell. Either Ridge didn’t fight hard enough back in ’04 for what he now says he knew was right, or he’s shading the truth to make himself look better in hindsight. Either way, he’s chickensh*t.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Aaaaand, the title says it all
I feel like I’m jumping on Sandra Bullock lately. I don’t want to – I like her a lot, and I’m glad to see a woman over the age of 40 get roles other than “mom” in a Hollywood movie. But, Sandy, WTF? First there was the trailer for the literally whitewashed “The Blind Side,” and now a particularly nasty-looking rom-com called “All About Steve.”
And, apparently it is. Judging by the film’s trailer*, Bullock is a lovelorn cross-word puzzle instructor (really?) who falls for Steve after a single blind date. She trails him across the country as he follows news stories (he’s a TV journalist or something). According to the plot summary on my trusty friend Wikipedia, Sandy’s unself-conscious zaniness teaches the men in her life valuable lessons and helps her “find her own place in the world.” Presumably with a dude.
Yes, I’m being snarky. I’m really, REALLY tired of Hollywood only making woman-centered films when they revolve around the female character’s Search for Love ™. Newsflash: Women have many, many other things going on in our lives, and we’re willing to pay money to see those stories depicted on film. I’m sick and tired of seeing skinny white women oriented to nothing but available men.
I swear on my FinalDraft screenwriting software that I will never, ever contribute to this exhausted BS.
*Standard disclaimer: the trailer is NOT the movie, but merely a marketing tool. In a way, that’s more disturbing. “All About Steve” could possibly be a wonderful story of female empowerment, but the Hollywood marketing folks still think that the only way to get butts in the seats is to show us… this.
And, apparently it is. Judging by the film’s trailer*, Bullock is a lovelorn cross-word puzzle instructor (really?) who falls for Steve after a single blind date. She trails him across the country as he follows news stories (he’s a TV journalist or something). According to the plot summary on my trusty friend Wikipedia, Sandy’s unself-conscious zaniness teaches the men in her life valuable lessons and helps her “find her own place in the world.” Presumably with a dude.
Yes, I’m being snarky. I’m really, REALLY tired of Hollywood only making woman-centered films when they revolve around the female character’s Search for Love ™. Newsflash: Women have many, many other things going on in our lives, and we’re willing to pay money to see those stories depicted on film. I’m sick and tired of seeing skinny white women oriented to nothing but available men.
I swear on my FinalDraft screenwriting software that I will never, ever contribute to this exhausted BS.
*Standard disclaimer: the trailer is NOT the movie, but merely a marketing tool. In a way, that’s more disturbing. “All About Steve” could possibly be a wonderful story of female empowerment, but the Hollywood marketing folks still think that the only way to get butts in the seats is to show us… this.
“It was never our intent to be out front on this story”
So says ESPN’s senior VP and news director, Vince Doria, in a Q&A with new ombudsman Dan Ohlmeyer, regarding ESPN’s total blackout of the Ben Roethlisberger civil lawsuit filed last month. You may recall that ESPN’s various platforms refused to report on the lawsuit for two and a half days after it broke. I and many other sports fans called BS.
And, a month later, that’s still a pretty BS position to take. Your NEWS organization didn’t feel any particular pressure to report on NEWS? Really? And, I’m sorry, Doria’s defense of prior reporting of civil cases is also BS: “…there were civil claims made against Mike Tyson for reportedly groping a woman in a bar -- because he had spent time in jail for rape, we felt there was a pattern, so ESPN reported it.” In other words, a civil case TOTALLY UNRELATED to Tyson’s criminal past was fair game, just because. Is this reporting, or just sensationalist piling on?
Ohlmeyer’s reaction hits some good points, but it still leaves a little to be desired. For instance, his reference to the Duke lacrosse case – which, if memory serves, ESPN reported – isn’t on point. That was an abuse of power so severe it got the prosecutor disbarred. And ESPN was part of that circus – it can’t now use the circus as an excuse not to report on another story. If ESPN felt the players' innocence was "an aside," then why didn't they do more with it? It's not like they don't have control over their own coverage.
But Ohlmeyer’s right that ESPN still owes its audience a non-hair-splitting explanation for violating their trust.
But the more I thought about it, the more that mantra rang in my ears: "Serve the audience." Even if ESPN judged that it should not report the Roethlisberger suit, not acknowledging a sports story that's blanketing the airways requires an explanation to your viewers, listeners and readers. And in today's world they are owed that explanation right away -- to do otherwise is just plain irresponsible. It forces your audience to ask why the story was omitted. It forces them to manufacture a motive. And it ultimately forces them to question your credibility.
Yep, and question ESPN’s credibility I always will.
And, a month later, that’s still a pretty BS position to take. Your NEWS organization didn’t feel any particular pressure to report on NEWS? Really? And, I’m sorry, Doria’s defense of prior reporting of civil cases is also BS: “…there were civil claims made against Mike Tyson for reportedly groping a woman in a bar -- because he had spent time in jail for rape, we felt there was a pattern, so ESPN reported it.” In other words, a civil case TOTALLY UNRELATED to Tyson’s criminal past was fair game, just because. Is this reporting, or just sensationalist piling on?
Ohlmeyer’s reaction hits some good points, but it still leaves a little to be desired. For instance, his reference to the Duke lacrosse case – which, if memory serves, ESPN reported – isn’t on point. That was an abuse of power so severe it got the prosecutor disbarred. And ESPN was part of that circus – it can’t now use the circus as an excuse not to report on another story. If ESPN felt the players' innocence was "an aside," then why didn't they do more with it? It's not like they don't have control over their own coverage.
But Ohlmeyer’s right that ESPN still owes its audience a non-hair-splitting explanation for violating their trust.
But the more I thought about it, the more that mantra rang in my ears: "Serve the audience." Even if ESPN judged that it should not report the Roethlisberger suit, not acknowledging a sports story that's blanketing the airways requires an explanation to your viewers, listeners and readers. And in today's world they are owed that explanation right away -- to do otherwise is just plain irresponsible. It forces your audience to ask why the story was omitted. It forces them to manufacture a motive. And it ultimately forces them to question your credibility.
Yep, and question ESPN’s credibility I always will.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
More of this, please
It's about time a Democrat in Congress stood up to the crazies. Read the story here.
(By the way, for those who aren't familiar with Rep. Barney Frank... he's both Jewish and gay. So... pretty much the polar opposite of a Nazi.)
Monday, August 17, 2009
Thank you, Mayfields...
...for making us NASCAR folks look like the worst caricature of dumb rednecks. Meth, fueds, blowing stuff up for fun, and now apeshit mugshots.
I promise, some of us just really, really like cars.
(Disclaimer: yes, I think blowing up watermelons would kinda rock. But I would NEVER let someone videotape me doing it for national TV.)
I promise, some of us just really, really like cars.
(Disclaimer: yes, I think blowing up watermelons would kinda rock. But I would NEVER let someone videotape me doing it for national TV.)
Safe following distance
This morning on my way to work, I noticed a car coming up behind me pretty quickly. We aggressive drivers learn how to ID cop cars at all angles, so I instantly knew this was a State Trooper. At first I thought, hey, he's just driving like I would if I had a giant engine whose upkeep I didn't have to pay for. But, as he came up beside me (I'd moved to the right hand lane by this point), I realized he was going WAY faster even than that.
The trooper (I'm assuming it was a guy, but it might not have been) had to lock it down to keep from running into the back of the car that had been in front of me, which was still in the left lane. Car 1 was running roughly parallel to Car 2 (in front of me), but Trooper was almost a full car-length ahead of me, even with my casual definition of "safe following distance." Then Trooper got even closer to Car 1, postively drafting it for a solid minute. Then Trooper swerved over into the gap between Car 2 and me, then swerved back to the left lane. Car 1 managed to get around Car 2, out of Trooper's way, and Trooper cruised off... until he hit another phalanx of cars 100 feet up the road. (This was morning rush hour, after all.) He proceeded to bully them out of the way, one by one, until I lost sight of him. (But not his tag: SHP-1254.)
This pisses me off. As I wrote in an e-mail to the Highway Patrol later that morning, if I got caught driving like this, I'd be lucky to get out of it with a ticket. More likely, I'd risk losing my license, or even criminal charges for wreckless driving.
When we see law enforcement officers blatantly violating the law, it undermines the public's trust in them. If I, as a taxpayer, am paying a cop to enforce the law, I expect him or her to follow it, too.
The trooper (I'm assuming it was a guy, but it might not have been) had to lock it down to keep from running into the back of the car that had been in front of me, which was still in the left lane. Car 1 was running roughly parallel to Car 2 (in front of me), but Trooper was almost a full car-length ahead of me, even with my casual definition of "safe following distance." Then Trooper got even closer to Car 1, postively drafting it for a solid minute. Then Trooper swerved over into the gap between Car 2 and me, then swerved back to the left lane. Car 1 managed to get around Car 2, out of Trooper's way, and Trooper cruised off... until he hit another phalanx of cars 100 feet up the road. (This was morning rush hour, after all.) He proceeded to bully them out of the way, one by one, until I lost sight of him. (But not his tag: SHP-1254.)
This pisses me off. As I wrote in an e-mail to the Highway Patrol later that morning, if I got caught driving like this, I'd be lucky to get out of it with a ticket. More likely, I'd risk losing my license, or even criminal charges for wreckless driving.
When we see law enforcement officers blatantly violating the law, it undermines the public's trust in them. If I, as a taxpayer, am paying a cop to enforce the law, I expect him or her to follow it, too.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
BREAKING: Vick signs with Eagles
ESPN and SI are both reporting that Michael Vick has signed a two-year deal with the Philadelphia Eagles. That opening day game vs. my Panthers just got a lot more interesting. (Of course, Vick will still be serving a six-week suspension, but it'll still giving me booing inspiration.)
On the radio today, they were speculating about Vick signing with the Panthers (shudder), which Coach Fox didn't do a whole heck of a lot to dispel. I didn't really see it. A: sign Vick? With what cap room? B: at what position in an offense built around power runs and bombs to Steve Smith? C: sign with the same team that cut loose Rae Carruth? Right. D: sign the former QB of a division blood rival? Not seeing it.
My problem with Vick isn't Puppygate. He served his time for that one. And anyone who knows me will tell you that I hated Vick with a passion long before that because he represents everything about football - sports in general - that I despise. He's a shitty player and teammate who'd rather rely on his flashy physical skills than lower himself to spending time in the film room. He got a lot of praise for impressive, but unsustainable, results that evaporated once opponents learned his tricks. And he's not exactly demonstrated a great deal of character thus far in his career.
Ironically, I used to compare Vick to Donovan McNabb, another "scrambling" QB who nevertheless manages to complete more than half his passes. Inevitably, the memory-impaired PBP crew of the Cardinals-Steelers game on ESPN (where I first heard this a short time ago) are already praising Philly for the acquisition. I don't know how the Iggles plan on using Vick, but I can guarantee that they'll regret him.
On the radio today, they were speculating about Vick signing with the Panthers (shudder), which Coach Fox didn't do a whole heck of a lot to dispel. I didn't really see it. A: sign Vick? With what cap room? B: at what position in an offense built around power runs and bombs to Steve Smith? C: sign with the same team that cut loose Rae Carruth? Right. D: sign the former QB of a division blood rival? Not seeing it.
My problem with Vick isn't Puppygate. He served his time for that one. And anyone who knows me will tell you that I hated Vick with a passion long before that because he represents everything about football - sports in general - that I despise. He's a shitty player and teammate who'd rather rely on his flashy physical skills than lower himself to spending time in the film room. He got a lot of praise for impressive, but unsustainable, results that evaporated once opponents learned his tricks. And he's not exactly demonstrated a great deal of character thus far in his career.
Ironically, I used to compare Vick to Donovan McNabb, another "scrambling" QB who nevertheless manages to complete more than half his passes. Inevitably, the memory-impaired PBP crew of the Cardinals-Steelers game on ESPN (where I first heard this a short time ago) are already praising Philly for the acquisition. I don't know how the Iggles plan on using Vick, but I can guarantee that they'll regret him.
What's up with the Nazi renaissance?
In the other room, I've got the preseason game between the Cardinals and Steelers on the tube, and the trailer for the new Tarantino film, "Ingluorious Basterds," just came on. Earlier today I read Andrew O'Hehir's take. Basically, he's not sure what to make of the WWII-set film that depicts European Jews, led by an American soldier (Brad Pitt), who go medieval on some Nazi ass. His general feeling is that Tarantino's not trying to make some grand statement about the war or anti-Semitism; he's just using the Holocaust as a backdrop for his signature ultra-violence.
Which I find a little troubling. Coupled with the recent rash of pundits calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi and people drawing swastikas at the offices of U.S. Congresspeople, it seems like a lot of people are - how do I say this? - getting a little too comfortable with the idea of Nazis. Not that I think people are going to run out and join up or anything. Far from it. Lately we're treating Nazis as if they were merely bogeymen, or maybe just really bad people.
I think it's dangerous to dumb down the Nazis. Their idealogy was amongst the most truly evil ideas to ever exist in our world. They weren't just totalitarian, the frakking murdered several million people in an unprecendentedly methodical way. They used IBM-designed technology to identify and categorize Jews and other objectionable populations, and then set about systematically removing them from society - first by herding them into ghettoes, and then finally into camps. And we know about this because they kept detailed records, which to me suggests that they didn't feel that anything they were doing was wrong.
One of the most meaningful experiences of my young life was taking part in my local community theatre's productions of "The Diary of Anne Frank," which happened to coincide with the release of "Schindler's List" and various WWII anniversaries, and the attendent books and documentaries. As a teen myself, I identified with Anne's relationships with her family and fellow attic-captives, but fortunately didn't really grasp the horror of what happened to her (another member of our cast had nightmares).
When I think about what it must have been like for one's government to literally hunt you down, enslave and murder you and everyone you knew, I just want to walk into the nearest anti-tax tea party and start slapping people. Aw, you have to pay taxes! Go f*ck yourselves. When President Obama starts inking number tats on your arms, then we'll talk. In the meantime, get some frakking perspective.
Which I find a little troubling. Coupled with the recent rash of pundits calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi and people drawing swastikas at the offices of U.S. Congresspeople, it seems like a lot of people are - how do I say this? - getting a little too comfortable with the idea of Nazis. Not that I think people are going to run out and join up or anything. Far from it. Lately we're treating Nazis as if they were merely bogeymen, or maybe just really bad people.
I think it's dangerous to dumb down the Nazis. Their idealogy was amongst the most truly evil ideas to ever exist in our world. They weren't just totalitarian, the frakking murdered several million people in an unprecendentedly methodical way. They used IBM-designed technology to identify and categorize Jews and other objectionable populations, and then set about systematically removing them from society - first by herding them into ghettoes, and then finally into camps. And we know about this because they kept detailed records, which to me suggests that they didn't feel that anything they were doing was wrong.
One of the most meaningful experiences of my young life was taking part in my local community theatre's productions of "The Diary of Anne Frank," which happened to coincide with the release of "Schindler's List" and various WWII anniversaries, and the attendent books and documentaries. As a teen myself, I identified with Anne's relationships with her family and fellow attic-captives, but fortunately didn't really grasp the horror of what happened to her (another member of our cast had nightmares).
When I think about what it must have been like for one's government to literally hunt you down, enslave and murder you and everyone you knew, I just want to walk into the nearest anti-tax tea party and start slapping people. Aw, you have to pay taxes! Go f*ck yourselves. When President Obama starts inking number tats on your arms, then we'll talk. In the meantime, get some frakking perspective.
More on health care reform...
Bad news for Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, who wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal bashing not the specifics of health care reform, but the entire concept of reform - I'm not a socialist, John. I'm a capitalist. And in the grand capitalist tradition of freely choosing within the marketplace, I'm choosing to boycott the hell out of your little store (not that I could afford to shop there anyway) and tell all my little progressive friends about it, too. (via Americablog.)
Two interesting tidbits I read in the last few days: First of all, there is no health care proposal in Congress. There are at least five different health care proposals floating around D.C., including at least three different bills in Congress. So anyone who claims that this thing or that thing is in "the" health care reform bill, they're either lying or uninformed.
Second, the New York Times points out that only a small number of Americans purchase their own health insurance on the open market. The rest are on Medicare, Medicaid, VA plans, private plans selected by their employers or have no insurance at all. The reform-opponents fretting about the government taking away their freedoms apparently have no qualms about HMOs or their own bosses making decisions for them.
Two interesting tidbits I read in the last few days: First of all, there is no health care proposal in Congress. There are at least five different health care proposals floating around D.C., including at least three different bills in Congress. So anyone who claims that this thing or that thing is in "the" health care reform bill, they're either lying or uninformed.
Second, the New York Times points out that only a small number of Americans purchase their own health insurance on the open market. The rest are on Medicare, Medicaid, VA plans, private plans selected by their employers or have no insurance at all. The reform-opponents fretting about the government taking away their freedoms apparently have no qualms about HMOs or their own bosses making decisions for them.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Glenn Beck is a racist
So Glenn Beck, who thinks President Obama is a racist, says that Obama's entire agenda (including health care reform) boils down to "reparations." That's a term that usually refers to money given to, say, racial minorities targeted for state-sponsored sterilization, or (in theory) to any group victimized by society in the past.
At the root of opposition to "reparations" is, as I've written before, a deep anger at the idea that the have-nots will take from the haves. It's the belief that opportunity is a finite package, and that if those who didn't "give" to it get something out of it, then it stands to reason that the ones who DID put in won't get their rightful share out.
But I don't concede that health care reform is a "reparation." It's interesting that Beck thinks of equitable health care as only benefitting minorities. There's so much racism here that I don't know where to begin... Let's start with the fact that plenty of white people lack decent health care for various reasons, including the fact that millions of Americans (of every race) are out of work through no fault of their own. But Beck's line of reasoning seems to be that only irresponsible people don't have private health insurance, and since only racial minorities are irresponsible, ergo - reform only benefits minorities.
(Horseshit. I don't know what ivory tower this dipshit lives in, but I know dozens of people, just off the top of my head, who don't have adequate health care, usually because they've lost the jobs that provided their insurance. None of them are uninsured by choice, and none aer just itching to bilk Uncle Sam.)
In Beck's mind, something that benefits the have-nots automatically penalizes the haves. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Personally, I think we live in a marvelous country with few, if any, limits. Where government programs leave gaps, the private sector (profit and non-profit) fill them. Where the private sector leaves gaps (especially in the rural areas where I grew up), government (local, state, federal) programs fill them. I don't see the two in opposition; rather, they promote one another.
For a bunch of supposedly pro-America folks, Beck and the other reform-haters seem to seriously doubt the ability of Americans to make it work. C'mon, we put a man on the moon, but we can't pay for my grandmather's anti-biotics?
And, BTW, capitalists... what exactly do you think a person with extra money (from not having back-breaking medical bills) will do with that money? Stuff it under the damned mattress?
At the root of opposition to "reparations" is, as I've written before, a deep anger at the idea that the have-nots will take from the haves. It's the belief that opportunity is a finite package, and that if those who didn't "give" to it get something out of it, then it stands to reason that the ones who DID put in won't get their rightful share out.
But I don't concede that health care reform is a "reparation." It's interesting that Beck thinks of equitable health care as only benefitting minorities. There's so much racism here that I don't know where to begin... Let's start with the fact that plenty of white people lack decent health care for various reasons, including the fact that millions of Americans (of every race) are out of work through no fault of their own. But Beck's line of reasoning seems to be that only irresponsible people don't have private health insurance, and since only racial minorities are irresponsible, ergo - reform only benefits minorities.
(Horseshit. I don't know what ivory tower this dipshit lives in, but I know dozens of people, just off the top of my head, who don't have adequate health care, usually because they've lost the jobs that provided their insurance. None of them are uninsured by choice, and none aer just itching to bilk Uncle Sam.)
In Beck's mind, something that benefits the have-nots automatically penalizes the haves. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Personally, I think we live in a marvelous country with few, if any, limits. Where government programs leave gaps, the private sector (profit and non-profit) fill them. Where the private sector leaves gaps (especially in the rural areas where I grew up), government (local, state, federal) programs fill them. I don't see the two in opposition; rather, they promote one another.
For a bunch of supposedly pro-America folks, Beck and the other reform-haters seem to seriously doubt the ability of Americans to make it work. C'mon, we put a man on the moon, but we can't pay for my grandmather's anti-biotics?
And, BTW, capitalists... what exactly do you think a person with extra money (from not having back-breaking medical bills) will do with that money? Stuff it under the damned mattress?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Double-standard much?
That last post reminded me… Let’s pretend for a moment that it was Bristol Palin conspicuously attending the Teen Choice Awards with some male comedian, say, Sacha Baron Cohen, and then joking about having sex with him the next night on Larry King Live.
Meanwhile, it’s Levi Johnston dividing his time between taking care of their child and talking with other teens about why they should wait to have sex.
Crazy, right?
Meanwhile, it’s Levi Johnston dividing his time between taking care of their child and talking with other teens about why they should wait to have sex.
Crazy, right?
My Price of Admission
I’m probably not the only person disturbed by George Soldini, the man who shot up a gym near Pittsburgh, killing three women and then himself. What’s more disturbing is the fact that this man wasn’t some delusional psycho, but a gainfully employed, fairly attractive guy who directed his rage at the young women whom he felt disrespected him, as detailed in his online diary.
That part’s disturbing for many reasons, not the least of which is that there are plenty of other men in this country who blame women for their own personal problems. Check out the “True Forced Loneliness” folks when you have a chance. It’s not a stretch to imagine one of these guys popping off a couple of rounds at whatever women are available.
There’s a common denominator among them: an attitude that women are objects to which they’re entitled. That’s why the men in those TFL YouTube videos get so angry when they talk about a female sexuality that doesn’t depend on them. That’s why they don’t bother to self-reflect upon what they could do differently to attract other people. Well, I'm not an object. And I've done plenty of self-reflection concerning the type of person I want to attract, and what I need to do to make myself appealing to that person. (Hint: it involves actually growing as a person.)
A few years ago, a guy friend told me I needed to create a hard and fast list of requirements for an acceptable partner. He insisted that I be as specific as height, eye color and education level, but I kind of felt like that was a bit shallow. What, I’m gonna ditch the perfect Johnny Cash-loving progressive craftsman because he’s not 6-foot-four? It felt very superficial, like I was treating potential romantic partners like cogs in a machine, and I didn’t like it. Having an idea of what you want in a relationship is a great thing. But summarily ruling out all people who don’t meet select criteria is just weird.
Another guy friend (at least virtually) has much more realistic advice: come up with no more than a handful of “deal-breakers,” and the rest of it is just the price of admission you pay for being in a supportive relationship with another human being. You can NOT treat other people as though they exist only to please you.
I have deal-breakers: someone who’s bigoted, overly cynical, overly passive, abusive, dishonest or any combination of the above will get an emphatic ‘bye. I have things I want to see: a person who cares about something (your cat, your church, your hobby restoring old cars, whatever), who cares that I care about things, and who treats people well. And that’s pretty much it. Everything else is negotiated within the relationship.
I feel sorry for men like Soldini and the TFL crowd, but I don’t have much sympathy for them. It’s too easy nowadays to seek out people and interests, whether online or by relocating. That’s what I have done, and still do – I moved from my hometown to a larger city to broaden my social and professional prospects, and I do quite a bit of on-line networking.
But I also force myself out of my house – even when I don’t always feel like it – to get involved with issues that are important to me. The bottom line is this: You’re responsible for your own happiness. If you’re miserable, start by looking in the mirror.
That part’s disturbing for many reasons, not the least of which is that there are plenty of other men in this country who blame women for their own personal problems. Check out the “True Forced Loneliness” folks when you have a chance. It’s not a stretch to imagine one of these guys popping off a couple of rounds at whatever women are available.
There’s a common denominator among them: an attitude that women are objects to which they’re entitled. That’s why the men in those TFL YouTube videos get so angry when they talk about a female sexuality that doesn’t depend on them. That’s why they don’t bother to self-reflect upon what they could do differently to attract other people. Well, I'm not an object. And I've done plenty of self-reflection concerning the type of person I want to attract, and what I need to do to make myself appealing to that person. (Hint: it involves actually growing as a person.)
A few years ago, a guy friend told me I needed to create a hard and fast list of requirements for an acceptable partner. He insisted that I be as specific as height, eye color and education level, but I kind of felt like that was a bit shallow. What, I’m gonna ditch the perfect Johnny Cash-loving progressive craftsman because he’s not 6-foot-four? It felt very superficial, like I was treating potential romantic partners like cogs in a machine, and I didn’t like it. Having an idea of what you want in a relationship is a great thing. But summarily ruling out all people who don’t meet select criteria is just weird.
Another guy friend (at least virtually) has much more realistic advice: come up with no more than a handful of “deal-breakers,” and the rest of it is just the price of admission you pay for being in a supportive relationship with another human being. You can NOT treat other people as though they exist only to please you.
I have deal-breakers: someone who’s bigoted, overly cynical, overly passive, abusive, dishonest or any combination of the above will get an emphatic ‘bye. I have things I want to see: a person who cares about something (your cat, your church, your hobby restoring old cars, whatever), who cares that I care about things, and who treats people well. And that’s pretty much it. Everything else is negotiated within the relationship.
I feel sorry for men like Soldini and the TFL crowd, but I don’t have much sympathy for them. It’s too easy nowadays to seek out people and interests, whether online or by relocating. That’s what I have done, and still do – I moved from my hometown to a larger city to broaden my social and professional prospects, and I do quite a bit of on-line networking.
But I also force myself out of my house – even when I don’t always feel like it – to get involved with issues that are important to me. The bottom line is this: You’re responsible for your own happiness. If you’re miserable, start by looking in the mirror.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Coming Soon: another Hollywood schlock-fest to save the day!
I am decidedly non-plussed at the trailer for the film adaptation of one of my favorite books, "The Blind Side." The book is an analysis of the evolution of the left tackle position, using the story of why seemingly every rich white person in Memphis was willing to bend over backwards for a young, disadvantaged man who perfectly fit the physical specs of an LT. It tells the story of Michael Oher, a black teen who out of sheer luck ends up at a nearly all-white prep school. His coaches and other school parents see his potential as a pro athlete and take him under their wing.
I loved Michael Lewis' book for a couple of reasons. First of all, I love football, and offensive linemen are my favorite unsung heroes of the game, so the fact that Lewis focused on their work was fascinating for me. But the book also brings up some pretty heavy issues for discussion (though certainly not as in-depth as I would've liked), namely: if Michael Oher weighed 90 pounds soaking wet and showed zero athletic ability, would the well-off families who helped him still have put so much effort into his rescue? Would his adoptive parents and school officials have worked so hard to get him into college? Had the family who wanted to pull him out of his horrific upbringing NOT been wealthy, influential and white, would they have been able to quasi-adopt him?
There are several places in the book where Michael is torn between returning home to his estranged mother and staying with his adoptive family. He also wants to play basketball, but his benefactors push him into football because he's such a perfectly prototypical left tackle. Football FYI: after quarterbacks, left tackles are the highest-paid (on average) offensive players in the NFL.)
This story is tailor-made for Hollywood, with all the big issues - race, class, redemption. Unfortunately, from the looks of the trailer, the film version of "The Blind Side" seems to center on the wife and mother of the family who takes Michael in. Not surprising, since she's played by Sandra Bullock. Sure, it's easier to get a film made if you can turn it into a vehicle for a star. But I'm disappointed to see that Michael's voice appears to be many rungs down on the importance scale, as compared to Sandra. He's the compelling character here.
Race, and class-based racism, played such enormous roles in Michael Oher's youth. As a teen, the kid had something like a first-grade reading level. That scene in the trailer about him never having had his own bed was true. And the social agencies that were supposed to protect him lost track of him for years. I'm glad that Oher managed to get out of this situation (after a few years at Ole Miss, the Baltimore Ravens drafted him in the first round earlier this year). But there are thousands of other kids out there in the same circumstances who don't have his luck and physical gifts that, at the moment, happen to be in demand.
I sincerely hope that this movie version doesn't ignore those realities in favor of giving us yet another iteration of Caucasian Mighty Mouse is Here to Save the Day.
I loved Michael Lewis' book for a couple of reasons. First of all, I love football, and offensive linemen are my favorite unsung heroes of the game, so the fact that Lewis focused on their work was fascinating for me. But the book also brings up some pretty heavy issues for discussion (though certainly not as in-depth as I would've liked), namely: if Michael Oher weighed 90 pounds soaking wet and showed zero athletic ability, would the well-off families who helped him still have put so much effort into his rescue? Would his adoptive parents and school officials have worked so hard to get him into college? Had the family who wanted to pull him out of his horrific upbringing NOT been wealthy, influential and white, would they have been able to quasi-adopt him?
There are several places in the book where Michael is torn between returning home to his estranged mother and staying with his adoptive family. He also wants to play basketball, but his benefactors push him into football because he's such a perfectly prototypical left tackle. Football FYI: after quarterbacks, left tackles are the highest-paid (on average) offensive players in the NFL.)
This story is tailor-made for Hollywood, with all the big issues - race, class, redemption. Unfortunately, from the looks of the trailer, the film version of "The Blind Side" seems to center on the wife and mother of the family who takes Michael in. Not surprising, since she's played by Sandra Bullock. Sure, it's easier to get a film made if you can turn it into a vehicle for a star. But I'm disappointed to see that Michael's voice appears to be many rungs down on the importance scale, as compared to Sandra. He's the compelling character here.
Race, and class-based racism, played such enormous roles in Michael Oher's youth. As a teen, the kid had something like a first-grade reading level. That scene in the trailer about him never having had his own bed was true. And the social agencies that were supposed to protect him lost track of him for years. I'm glad that Oher managed to get out of this situation (after a few years at Ole Miss, the Baltimore Ravens drafted him in the first round earlier this year). But there are thousands of other kids out there in the same circumstances who don't have his luck and physical gifts that, at the moment, happen to be in demand.
I sincerely hope that this movie version doesn't ignore those realities in favor of giving us yet another iteration of Caucasian Mighty Mouse is Here to Save the Day.
Quickie: A Love Story
This story about a same-sex couple in a medical crisis made me cry.
(Via Savage Love)
(Via Savage Love)
RIP, John Hughes
In honor of the great filmmaker's death yesterday, a clip from which I quote every time I wake up with a really bad hangover:
Thursday, August 6, 2009
But – but – I’m a White Guy!
I have sooooo much I want to say about George Soldini’s shooting rampage in a gym near Pittsburgh, in which three women were killed. I have to give the press credit for correctly labeling Soldini a woman-hater, but I also want to point out Renee’s post on the shooter’s racist motives.
As Renee notes, Soldini’s online diary used plenty of racist tropes, particularly the passage she quotes with his rant about white women attracted to sex with black men. And the fact that he relates this so casually to President Obama’s election is pretty telling. For at least some Americans, black man in the White House = the black menz are comin’ to steal our lily-white womenz! The way he so naturally ties together his inability to get laid with the threat of black men – it’s as if he assumes that a connection is self-evident.
While it seems to me that perceived rejection by young, attractive women was Soldini’s primary obsession, we can’t deny that he was also wrapped up in an outdated understanding of his general privilege as an upper-class white man in America. What do you mean, black people are equal to me? What do mean, a 20-year-old doesn’t want to go out with me? I own a matching couch and chair set!
It’s all just so sad. Not just this man’s depression and crippling loneliness, but also the fact that he felt the need to take others with him. It’s also sad to know that Sodini isn’t the only person angry that the supremacy he was promised just didn’t happen. As much as I want to feel sorry for George Soldini, I also remember reading passages of his blog where he mentions dates, attending parties and neighbors who were nice to him.
As much as he despaired, his big worry was that these niceties would convince him to not carry out his murderous plan. George Sodini was lonely, and likely mentally ill. But George Sodini also wanted to kill people. He planned it for at least a year, and he fretted about losing his nerve. Planning and implementing this shooting was the only thing in Sodini’s pathetic life that made him feel complete, and there’s not much we can do to fix that.
As Renee notes, Soldini’s online diary used plenty of racist tropes, particularly the passage she quotes with his rant about white women attracted to sex with black men. And the fact that he relates this so casually to President Obama’s election is pretty telling. For at least some Americans, black man in the White House = the black menz are comin’ to steal our lily-white womenz! The way he so naturally ties together his inability to get laid with the threat of black men – it’s as if he assumes that a connection is self-evident.
While it seems to me that perceived rejection by young, attractive women was Soldini’s primary obsession, we can’t deny that he was also wrapped up in an outdated understanding of his general privilege as an upper-class white man in America. What do you mean, black people are equal to me? What do mean, a 20-year-old doesn’t want to go out with me? I own a matching couch and chair set!
It’s all just so sad. Not just this man’s depression and crippling loneliness, but also the fact that he felt the need to take others with him. It’s also sad to know that Sodini isn’t the only person angry that the supremacy he was promised just didn’t happen. As much as I want to feel sorry for George Soldini, I also remember reading passages of his blog where he mentions dates, attending parties and neighbors who were nice to him.
As much as he despaired, his big worry was that these niceties would convince him to not carry out his murderous plan. George Sodini was lonely, and likely mentally ill. But George Sodini also wanted to kill people. He planned it for at least a year, and he fretted about losing his nerve. Planning and implementing this shooting was the only thing in Sodini’s pathetic life that made him feel complete, and there’s not much we can do to fix that.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
My (hopefully) last word on birth certificates
I'm sitting here comparing my printed copy of my own "Certificate of Live Birth" with the scanned copy of Barack Obama's, posted on his Web site last year. (This is the certificate that the birthers say is invalid, doesn't prove anything, etc.)
Title: Me - "Certificate of Live Birth;" Obama - "Certification of Live Birth"
Child's name and sex: Me - present; Obama - present
Birthdate and filing date: Me - present; Obama - present
Birthplace: Me - Forsyth County; Obama - Oahu (island), Honolulu (city), Honolulu (county)
Mother's info: Me - name, age and state of birth (DoB left blank); Obama - name and race
Father's info: Me - ditto; Obama - ditto
Filing info: Me - "This certifies that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of a record which appears in the Office of the Register of Deeds on: Roll 0032 Page 1370;" Obama - "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding" and a redacted certificate number.
Mine also includes the date that this particular copy was granted to me, which doesn't appear on Obama's. Other than that, they're pretty similar to one another. Obama's certificate actually has a little more detail than mine, including not just the county, but the city of birth. Note that mine doesn't say anything about a hospital or attending physician.
And again - this is all I have to legally document my age and place of birth. If I need to do so for a job or passport application, this certificate is it. No "long form" blah blah blah. Just this. And I find it hard to believe that many other Americans have something different.
Title: Me - "Certificate of Live Birth;" Obama - "Certification of Live Birth"
Child's name and sex: Me - present; Obama - present
Birthdate and filing date: Me - present; Obama - present
Birthplace: Me - Forsyth County; Obama - Oahu (island), Honolulu (city), Honolulu (county)
Mother's info: Me - name, age and state of birth (DoB left blank); Obama - name and race
Father's info: Me - ditto; Obama - ditto
Filing info: Me - "This certifies that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of a record which appears in the Office of the Register of Deeds on: Roll 0032 Page 1370;" Obama - "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding" and a redacted certificate number.
Mine also includes the date that this particular copy was granted to me, which doesn't appear on Obama's. Other than that, they're pretty similar to one another. Obama's certificate actually has a little more detail than mine, including not just the county, but the city of birth. Note that mine doesn't say anything about a hospital or attending physician.
And again - this is all I have to legally document my age and place of birth. If I need to do so for a job or passport application, this certificate is it. No "long form" blah blah blah. Just this. And I find it hard to believe that many other Americans have something different.
Ugly stuff
Rachel Maddow reported last night on the involvement of professional lobbysists in drumming up "grassroots" opposition to health care reform, including a how-to-disrupt-meetings guide written by a lobbyist.
This just pisses me off. It's one thing for citizens to organize themselves to support or protest against government policy - in fact, that ability is one of the things that makes our country great. But for people within the health care industry to once again undermine efforts at reform - this time by outright making sh*t up and concealing the source of the made-up sh*t - turns our right to question our elected officials on its head.
It reminds me of the companies who hired Pinkerton Agency detectives to bust up strikes and infiltrate labor unions a hundred years ago. Maybe I'm naive, but I have to wonder... If your ideas can't stand up to the light of day, and therefore you have to lie and manipulate in order to get your way, then what does that say about your ideas? (Not to mention what it says about you...)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
This just pisses me off. It's one thing for citizens to organize themselves to support or protest against government policy - in fact, that ability is one of the things that makes our country great. But for people within the health care industry to once again undermine efforts at reform - this time by outright making sh*t up and concealing the source of the made-up sh*t - turns our right to question our elected officials on its head.
It reminds me of the companies who hired Pinkerton Agency detectives to bust up strikes and infiltrate labor unions a hundred years ago. Maybe I'm naive, but I have to wonder... If your ideas can't stand up to the light of day, and therefore you have to lie and manipulate in order to get your way, then what does that say about your ideas? (Not to mention what it says about you...)
Quick hit: Birther Gone Wild
I'm calling it: Orly Taitz is Sacha Baron Cohen's newest character. C'mon, this person cannot possibly be real.
Oh yeah, before I forget... Happy Birthday, President Obama!
UPDATE: I do agree with Taitz on one thing... the MSNBC guy does need to "show some decency and integrity as a journalist," and so does the rest of the mainstream press. If they want to continue reporting on this, hiw abut some actual, you know, reporting? (As opposed to shooting wacky fish in a barrel, I mean.) Here are some questions that an enterprising reporter could look into answering:
- We keep hearing a lot about "long-form" birth certificates. What exactly is this? Is it considered a legal document? I don't have one of these. Did Hawaii even issue them in 1961 when Obama was born? In other words, could he even be expected to have one?
- I've heard that Hawaiian state law doesn't typically allow public release of "long-form" anything. True?
- For that matter, we could use a primer on both U.S. law with respect to citizenship and on how birth certificates are handled. The certificates in particular seem to vary from state to state, as I would expect. How about, instead of Orly Taitz, MSNBC puts on the air a sane person who's willing to say, Hey, Birther Person, I don't care what your mommy has stuck in the family Bible, Hawaii does X. (Or, did X 48 years ago.)
- Repeating for emphasis: can someone other than left-wing bloggers PLEASE remind all the people who apparently slept through 9th grade civics what makes someone a natural-born citizen? Kthanx. (Short version: Obama could've been born in the frakking Kremlin and he'd still be a natural-born citizen because of his mother, provided that he then established residency in the U.S.)
- All of Obama's immediate relatives are dead, but surely there's someone alive who can speak at least in generalities about how Hawaii handled issuing birth certificates and newspaper birth announcements in 1961. It wasn't that long ago.
I don't like this trend that's taken over the news, especially TV news, where "journalists" sit in a studio and let anyone with a mouth push an agenda, rather than going on and discovering actual facts.
Oh yeah, before I forget... Happy Birthday, President Obama!
UPDATE: I do agree with Taitz on one thing... the MSNBC guy does need to "show some decency and integrity as a journalist," and so does the rest of the mainstream press. If they want to continue reporting on this, hiw abut some actual, you know, reporting? (As opposed to shooting wacky fish in a barrel, I mean.) Here are some questions that an enterprising reporter could look into answering:
- We keep hearing a lot about "long-form" birth certificates. What exactly is this? Is it considered a legal document? I don't have one of these. Did Hawaii even issue them in 1961 when Obama was born? In other words, could he even be expected to have one?
- I've heard that Hawaiian state law doesn't typically allow public release of "long-form" anything. True?
- For that matter, we could use a primer on both U.S. law with respect to citizenship and on how birth certificates are handled. The certificates in particular seem to vary from state to state, as I would expect. How about, instead of Orly Taitz, MSNBC puts on the air a sane person who's willing to say, Hey, Birther Person, I don't care what your mommy has stuck in the family Bible, Hawaii does X. (Or, did X 48 years ago.)
- Repeating for emphasis: can someone other than left-wing bloggers PLEASE remind all the people who apparently slept through 9th grade civics what makes someone a natural-born citizen? Kthanx. (Short version: Obama could've been born in the frakking Kremlin and he'd still be a natural-born citizen because of his mother, provided that he then established residency in the U.S.)
- All of Obama's immediate relatives are dead, but surely there's someone alive who can speak at least in generalities about how Hawaii handled issuing birth certificates and newspaper birth announcements in 1961. It wasn't that long ago.
I don't like this trend that's taken over the news, especially TV news, where "journalists" sit in a studio and let anyone with a mouth push an agenda, rather than going on and discovering actual facts.
Monday, August 3, 2009
On hair.
I really enjoy reading the blog Womanist Musings, written by a Canadian mother named Renee who describes herself as a "pacifist, anti-racist, WOC." Because of our different cultures and races, Renee often picks up on things that I never would've noticed, and I really appreciate that her voice is out there.
Take, for instance, her recent post on the criticism of Angelina Jolie's and Brad Pitt's daughter, Zahara, and her "nappy" hair. First of all, I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that people out there in Internet Comment Land feel they have the right to pick on a child's appearance. But Renee's right - this is part of a larger box that our culture puts black people - particularly women - in. As a white woman, I've done all manner of crazy mess to my hair - spiked it, bleached it, permed it, chopped it all off. And I've never felt pressure to do any certain thing to it. I've never worried, for instance, that people will look at something I've done with my hair and assume I hold radical political beliefs (a stereotype played on in last year's New Yorker cover with Michelle Obama wearing an afro).
I never gave much thought to African American hair until I read The Autobiography of Malcolm X in my teens. At one point, Malcolm writes about getting his reddish-colored hair "processed," or straightened, and how painful the chemical process was. I got to see the modern version first-hand in college when I went with my roommate to get her hair straightened (funny enough, the only salon in our corner of BFE Virginia that did this was run by a 400-year-old white woman). Two things I will never, ever forget as long as I live: one, how long it took, what it smelled like, the look of pain on my friend's face; and two, how happy she was afterward, laughing when her "white girl hair" (her words) blew in the breeze.
People do a lot of expensive and sometimes uncomforatble things in the name of beauty. Like many (I suppose), I like to think that adults can make their own decisions about what to do with their own bodies. But when I girl like Zahara Jolie Pitt (who's what, mybe 8 years old? 10?) is already hearing people tell her there's something wrong with what her hair does naturally, that's just gross.
It's not something that I and a lot of others here in our little white bubble encounter too often. In the absense of diverse points of view in our lives or mainstream media, I'm glad I live in a time where access to the 'net and dedicated bloggers like Renee can show me things I may not have thought about before.
Take, for instance, her recent post on the criticism of Angelina Jolie's and Brad Pitt's daughter, Zahara, and her "nappy" hair. First of all, I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that people out there in Internet Comment Land feel they have the right to pick on a child's appearance. But Renee's right - this is part of a larger box that our culture puts black people - particularly women - in. As a white woman, I've done all manner of crazy mess to my hair - spiked it, bleached it, permed it, chopped it all off. And I've never felt pressure to do any certain thing to it. I've never worried, for instance, that people will look at something I've done with my hair and assume I hold radical political beliefs (a stereotype played on in last year's New Yorker cover with Michelle Obama wearing an afro).
I never gave much thought to African American hair until I read The Autobiography of Malcolm X in my teens. At one point, Malcolm writes about getting his reddish-colored hair "processed," or straightened, and how painful the chemical process was. I got to see the modern version first-hand in college when I went with my roommate to get her hair straightened (funny enough, the only salon in our corner of BFE Virginia that did this was run by a 400-year-old white woman). Two things I will never, ever forget as long as I live: one, how long it took, what it smelled like, the look of pain on my friend's face; and two, how happy she was afterward, laughing when her "white girl hair" (her words) blew in the breeze.
People do a lot of expensive and sometimes uncomforatble things in the name of beauty. Like many (I suppose), I like to think that adults can make their own decisions about what to do with their own bodies. But when I girl like Zahara Jolie Pitt (who's what, mybe 8 years old? 10?) is already hearing people tell her there's something wrong with what her hair does naturally, that's just gross.
It's not something that I and a lot of others here in our little white bubble encounter too often. In the absense of diverse points of view in our lives or mainstream media, I'm glad I live in a time where access to the 'net and dedicated bloggers like Renee can show me things I may not have thought about before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)