To paraphrase Tolstoy, all good football teams resemble one another, but each bad football team is bad in its own way.
This year's Carolina Panthers have (so far - one game left!) only one more win than the 2001 team that won its first game and then dropped the next 15 straight, but the two squads are very different. Watching the 2001 Panthers at the time, it was obvious that Coach Seifert was biding time until he could get fired and go back to shuffleboard or whatever, and one couldn't blame the players for returning the feeling.
But, if there's one thing you can say about the 2010 Panthers, it's that they never quit on one another. They're frighteningly young, and by extension inexperienced, and that means they make mistakes. But they never just rolled over. And that tells us everything we need to know about how much those players respect John Fox.
I respect Fox, too. Firing him, as the Panthers did today, is probably the right decision, but it still sucks. It sucks because - and believe me, I know how cheesy this sounds, but - that team is a family. The fans who sit in that stadium every week are part of that family, too. It was easy to say good riddance to George Seifert. It was kind of easy to do the same for Dom Capers, just because I was so young in my football fandom. But I still have the journal where I wrote about the Panthers hiring John Fox. I was there when he beat the Cowboys in the playoffs after getting outcoached by them in the regular season, I was there for Steve Smith's double-OT touchdown over the Rams and the murder of the Eagles, and I was there when we just barely lost the Super Bowl. I was there for a lot of frustrating decisions on playcalling and personnel, but I never stopped respecting him.
The Panthers won Fox's last home game, and I hope he leaves N.C. with a lot of good memories. I genuinely hope he continues his NFL career, and I wish him all the best.
Because as long as I live I will never forget sitting in section 529 watching the Panthers beat the Jaguars by one point, coming back from a 17-point deficit at the half (Jake Delhomme's first game). I was there with my parents, and we knew we were watching something special. And I'll never forget sitting in my dad's basement a few months later watching this. I will most definitely never forget.
So long, Foxy. Thanks for the good times.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Size matters, at least for your amygdala
Scientists at the University of London have found a correlation between political conservatism and having a larger "fear center" in the brain, according to a study that will be published next year. They examined brain scans of two members of Parliament, one Conservative and one Labour (what we in the U.S. would call liberal), and also questioned 90 college students who'd previously been scanned about their political beliefs.
They found that people identifying themselves as conservative in their political beliefs tended to have a larger amygdala, which is the part of your brain that controls fear responses and arousal. But hey, the same people are very popular, also according to science.
When I read this, my first thought was, "Well, that explains a lot." I tend to lean toward the notion that a person's experiences may shape their brain chemistry, not that anyone is hard-wired to only think one way for the rest of his or her entire life. And while, anecdotally, the people I know who don't feel safe without a loaded gun in every room of the house tend to be conservative and the people who have Ph.D's tend to be liberal, it's just too easy to think that an amygdala is the explanation for all our differences. Or that one brain make-up is better than another.
It would also be really condescending for anyone to look at this report and say to themselves, "Oh, well, no wonder x is conservative - his brain is just made that way. Poor dear." For one thing, brain researchers have also found what they call a "liberal gene," that, in the words of the Telegraph, "makes people more likely to seek out less conventional political views." A neurotransmitter does not trump an amygdala.
How about this - let's not use scientific research to score political points. Let's let scientific research do what it's supposed to - namely, tell us something about our amazing world that we didn't know before, and appreciate that difference.
Full disclosure, though: I probably have one of those liberal genes.
They found that people identifying themselves as conservative in their political beliefs tended to have a larger amygdala, which is the part of your brain that controls fear responses and arousal. But hey, the same people are very popular, also according to science.
When I read this, my first thought was, "Well, that explains a lot." I tend to lean toward the notion that a person's experiences may shape their brain chemistry, not that anyone is hard-wired to only think one way for the rest of his or her entire life. And while, anecdotally, the people I know who don't feel safe without a loaded gun in every room of the house tend to be conservative and the people who have Ph.D's tend to be liberal, it's just too easy to think that an amygdala is the explanation for all our differences. Or that one brain make-up is better than another.
It would also be really condescending for anyone to look at this report and say to themselves, "Oh, well, no wonder x is conservative - his brain is just made that way. Poor dear." For one thing, brain researchers have also found what they call a "liberal gene," that, in the words of the Telegraph, "makes people more likely to seek out less conventional political views." A neurotransmitter does not trump an amygdala.
How about this - let's not use scientific research to score political points. Let's let scientific research do what it's supposed to - namely, tell us something about our amazing world that we didn't know before, and appreciate that difference.
Full disclosure, though: I probably have one of those liberal genes.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Why Michael Moore is not a journalist
While we’re on the subject… on those few occasions (most of them within the last week) that I’ve written about Michael Moore, I’ve referred to him as a filmmaker. If I’m pissed off, I call him a propagandist. But I don’t think of him as a journalist. Here’s why.
(No, it’s not because you disagree with him.)
Journalists are objective. They are finders and reporters of facts, some of them more reliably than others. Ideally (and no, I’m not naïve enough to believe that this is true of everyone) a journalist starts by accumulating facts and points of view and then – only then – ciphers a narrative from them. (Insert standard caveats about human fallibility, including deadline pressures, here.) Moore, on the other hand, starts with a nugget and then searches out facts and sources that support it.
And you know what? There’s not a thing wrong with that. It’s a free country, and Moore has every right to make films that promote his point of view. But that doesn’t make him a journalist. When you’re watching one of Moore’s films, you need to know that he’s starting from a set point of view, and that he’s going to use an army of production techniques to manipulate you into agreeing with that point of view.
As an example, let me tell you about the particular technique that was the last straw for me, Moore-wise. My all-time favorite movie is “Broadcast News,” which you should absolutely watch if you haven’t seen it, and I don’t think the giant spoiler I’m about to write about will ruin it for you. Long story short, you have a network news producer (Holly Hunter) in a bit of a love triangle between her BFF, a geeky reporter (Albert Brooks), and the shiny new anchor-in-training who, while hot, is also kind of dim (William Hurt).
The thing that really put Holly over the top for Team William was his sensitive story about date rape victims (which I would love to believe was only an issue in the mid-80s, but hahahahaha), in which he’s shown tearing up listening to one of the women he’s interviewing. That story makes William, both professionally and personally as far as Holly’s concerned. Unfortunately, she learns at the end of the movie that William only had one camera for the interview.
For those of you that never took a production class, that means that the camera was pointed at the woman throughout the interview. Only after the whole thing was over was the camera turned around to face William to shoot those cutaway shots of the reporter during the interview… and he faked crying. This is too big a violation of journalistic integrity for Holly, and she dumps him.
Now take the climax of “Bowling for Columbine,” where Moore confronts then-NRA head Charlton Heston (who was also suffering from Alzheimer’s as we know now) about the proliferation of guns in the U.S. At one point Heston has had enough and he starts off down a walkway (staring at about 7:30 in the linked clip). Moore calls to him, and Heston turns around. Moore shows him a picture of a child killed in a school shooting by another child, saying “This is the girl!” and Heston just walks away, and ZOMG Charlton Heston is such a jerk! Michael Moore is so righteous! I hate guns!
Oh, wait, no I don’t. Because… where was the second camera? There’s the camera shooting Heston walking away, and there should be another camera behind him that’s aiming at Moore. But there isn’t. So, where did the “This is the girl!” reaction cutaway come from? Either Moore had a second camera hidden in the bushes, or he shot it once Heston had scooted off. In other words, that cathartic anger at an insensitive man far removed from the consequences of his gun advocacy… fake. Ahem, acted.
Journalists don’t act. Period.
(No, it’s not because you disagree with him.)
Journalists are objective. They are finders and reporters of facts, some of them more reliably than others. Ideally (and no, I’m not naïve enough to believe that this is true of everyone) a journalist starts by accumulating facts and points of view and then – only then – ciphers a narrative from them. (Insert standard caveats about human fallibility, including deadline pressures, here.) Moore, on the other hand, starts with a nugget and then searches out facts and sources that support it.
And you know what? There’s not a thing wrong with that. It’s a free country, and Moore has every right to make films that promote his point of view. But that doesn’t make him a journalist. When you’re watching one of Moore’s films, you need to know that he’s starting from a set point of view, and that he’s going to use an army of production techniques to manipulate you into agreeing with that point of view.
As an example, let me tell you about the particular technique that was the last straw for me, Moore-wise. My all-time favorite movie is “Broadcast News,” which you should absolutely watch if you haven’t seen it, and I don’t think the giant spoiler I’m about to write about will ruin it for you. Long story short, you have a network news producer (Holly Hunter) in a bit of a love triangle between her BFF, a geeky reporter (Albert Brooks), and the shiny new anchor-in-training who, while hot, is also kind of dim (William Hurt).
The thing that really put Holly over the top for Team William was his sensitive story about date rape victims (which I would love to believe was only an issue in the mid-80s, but hahahahaha), in which he’s shown tearing up listening to one of the women he’s interviewing. That story makes William, both professionally and personally as far as Holly’s concerned. Unfortunately, she learns at the end of the movie that William only had one camera for the interview.
For those of you that never took a production class, that means that the camera was pointed at the woman throughout the interview. Only after the whole thing was over was the camera turned around to face William to shoot those cutaway shots of the reporter during the interview… and he faked crying. This is too big a violation of journalistic integrity for Holly, and she dumps him.
Now take the climax of “Bowling for Columbine,” where Moore confronts then-NRA head Charlton Heston (who was also suffering from Alzheimer’s as we know now) about the proliferation of guns in the U.S. At one point Heston has had enough and he starts off down a walkway (staring at about 7:30 in the linked clip). Moore calls to him, and Heston turns around. Moore shows him a picture of a child killed in a school shooting by another child, saying “This is the girl!” and Heston just walks away, and ZOMG Charlton Heston is such a jerk! Michael Moore is so righteous! I hate guns!
Oh, wait, no I don’t. Because… where was the second camera? There’s the camera shooting Heston walking away, and there should be another camera behind him that’s aiming at Moore. But there isn’t. So, where did the “This is the girl!” reaction cutaway come from? Either Moore had a second camera hidden in the bushes, or he shot it once Heston had scooted off. In other words, that cathartic anger at an insensitive man far removed from the consequences of his gun advocacy… fake. Ahem, acted.
Journalists don’t act. Period.
The mountain moved
Some time after his interview with Rachel Maddow last night, Michael Moore contacted TigerBeatdown's Sady Doyle to (sort of) acknowledge that he'd f-ed up. Which is kind of all that we wanted, really.
As Doyle writes in her post today, it does matter for someone of Moore's stature to admit on national TV that rape culture exists. Saying that rape victims deserve to be taken seriously sure seems like a no-brainer, but unfortunately it isn't as evident to far too many people.
Moreover, Doyle reminds us of the power of grassroots activism:
That’s the most important lesson of #MooreandMe, for me, the most important take-away: The next time something is this fucked up, and we feel like we have to fight it, we will. The next time we feel like we have to fight something, we will know fighting can make a difference. The chief thing #MooreandMe gave me, the girl who started out a week ago just writing an irritated Tweet and then eventually hearing a “thank you” from Michael Moore, was faith in the idea that activism can change things. Faith in the idea that you matter. Faith in the idea that, next time we set out to oppose rape culture in our media or our lives, we can do so with that most precious, most rare, most essential of qualities: We can fight rape, and we can have hope.
Doyle is a hero for going up against the dominant left-wing narrative of the Assange rape allegations, and taking on a couple of the left's biggest icons in the process.
As Doyle writes in her post today, it does matter for someone of Moore's stature to admit on national TV that rape culture exists. Saying that rape victims deserve to be taken seriously sure seems like a no-brainer, but unfortunately it isn't as evident to far too many people.
Moreover, Doyle reminds us of the power of grassroots activism:
That’s the most important lesson of #MooreandMe, for me, the most important take-away: The next time something is this fucked up, and we feel like we have to fight it, we will. The next time we feel like we have to fight something, we will know fighting can make a difference. The chief thing #MooreandMe gave me, the girl who started out a week ago just writing an irritated Tweet and then eventually hearing a “thank you” from Michael Moore, was faith in the idea that activism can change things. Faith in the idea that you matter. Faith in the idea that, next time we set out to oppose rape culture in our media or our lives, we can do so with that most precious, most rare, most essential of qualities: We can fight rape, and we can have hope.
Doyle is a hero for going up against the dominant left-wing narrative of the Assange rape allegations, and taking on a couple of the left's biggest icons in the process.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The first draft of history
I'm an editor, and I've screwed up. I've misspelled names, run the wrong names, gotten basic facts wrong and more. I've had to come to peace with the fact that every single magazine I put out - no matter how much time I spend on it, no matter how many people I ask to proof it - will have something (hopefully tiny and un-noticeable to the average reader) wrong with it. Human beings will always miss something.
There's this saying that journalism is the first draft of history, and that's absolutely true. Sometimes the initial story emphasizes the aspects of the story that turn out to not be that significant, and sometimes the really signficant bit gets lost because we don't have the distance needed to properly evaluate it. Sometimes the story changes as facts emerge, and sometimes you simply have to go to press even as you know the story is still breaking. And sometimes, in the heat of the moment and operating in the dark, you print or broadcast things that later prove to be flat-out wrong.
I may've been educated as a journalist, but I work on the other side of the aisle (so to speak) now. There have been plenty of times when I've wished a reporter spent more time with a story or went with a different quote. But I can honestly say that, on those few occasions when what was reported was outright inaccurate, I've always gotten corrections. And for more of those occasions than not, I haven't had to ask for them.
That last point is important. The media get a lot of flack, some of it deserved, but on the whole they get it right more than they get it wrong. We can certainly critique the weight they give some stories and not others, or their interpretations of facts. But the facts themselves? Usually correct, once it all comes out in the wash. And reporters who do get it wrong almost always correct themselves one way or another.
Reporting on the WikiLeaks releases of classified diplomatic cables and the accusations against the site's founder, Julian Assange, has been cloudy. I have to confess that I'm still not 100 percent certain what terminology to use here just because it's so hard (as a mere blogger) to find a single source detailing exactly what's happening. Assange is accused, but not criminally charged, with raping two women. Personally, I think it's possible to separate objective reporting on both the substance of the WikiLeaks documents and the rape accusations from commentary on both of those things. Maybe I'm alone here.
That's where Keith Olbermann screwed up. In my opinion, he's allowed his emotional response to WikiLeaks to color his reporting on the leaks and the rape allegations. He retweeted a link to a story accusing one of the accusers of having CIA ties (since debunked) and which named the accusers (a journalistic no-no). Then last week he welcomed left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore onto his show to talk about the controversy. I did a post with my initial reaction, and in a sec I'm going to expand on my thoughts.
Blogger Sady Doyle launched a Twitter protest against Moore, which Olbermann promptly made all about himself, and he still won't admit that he screwed up. As Doyle wrote today, it's allowable that Olbermann made a mistake in his reporting. But you know what? Journalists make mistakes. And when they become aware of those mistakes, journalists correct themselves and apologize.
Here's a small sampling of what Olbermann did that would've gotten him a D in every journalism class I ever took from elementary school on through college:
- Asking a question that doesn't really reflect the legit opposing viewpoints on an issue, like "Are [the accusations] a ruse? Are they a front for something else?" which was Olbermann's first question to Moore. This is no different than when somebody on Fox News asks if President Obama is really a socialist or just under the remote control of martians.
- Saying "Uh-huh" when Moore repeated the falsehood that the allegations against Assange are "about a broken condom," instead of pointing out that this had already been reported as being inaccurate.
- Not inviting onto this same show a single person who might offer a legit opposing viewpoint. Yes it's true, as Christiane Amanpour has said, that there aren't two sides to a genocide. But there are sure as hell multiple sides to this issue, and Olbermann damn well knows it. For instance... a) of course it's suspicious that Sweden ignored the rape accusations against Assange until he pissed off the U.S., but that doesn't mean those accusations aren't true; b) isn't this ignoring itself problematic? etc.
And I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think it's ethical for a journalist to advocate/argue via Twitter. It's not exactly a medium that lends itself to thorough exploration of an issue. Most of the journalists I know who have Twitter accounts use them to preview stories or share personal information. To do otherwise risks making the news rather than covering it, and that's something with which I will never, ever, ever be okay. Sorry.
Not that Olbermann has ever been anything resembling objective, but reporting inaccurate information and then steadfastly refusing to apologize is a different animal.
For the record, I had a very emotional reaction to Olbermann's interview, and to what I consider his flippant attitude toward the people who've asked him to correct it. Olbermann and Moore may not be aware of this, but what they broadcast last week is exactly what every rape victim hears in her head, from people she thought were her friends and even from law enforcement. For a survivor, it was incredibly triggering to hear it coming from two men who, by virtue of their progressive cred, I thought I could trust just a little bit. Thank goodness this didn't happen two years ago when being able to write "today I washed the dishes" in my journal was a huge victory over my depression.
I'm not the only one who's written that Moore's comments and Olbermann's dismissive reaction contribute to a larger cultural atmosphere where rape victims know we'll never get even a sliver of the benefit of the doubt. But their admission that they were wrong and their apology really will go a long way to healing this problem. And, for a couple of alleged defenders of the truth, it's just the right thing to do.
There's this saying that journalism is the first draft of history, and that's absolutely true. Sometimes the initial story emphasizes the aspects of the story that turn out to not be that significant, and sometimes the really signficant bit gets lost because we don't have the distance needed to properly evaluate it. Sometimes the story changes as facts emerge, and sometimes you simply have to go to press even as you know the story is still breaking. And sometimes, in the heat of the moment and operating in the dark, you print or broadcast things that later prove to be flat-out wrong.
I may've been educated as a journalist, but I work on the other side of the aisle (so to speak) now. There have been plenty of times when I've wished a reporter spent more time with a story or went with a different quote. But I can honestly say that, on those few occasions when what was reported was outright inaccurate, I've always gotten corrections. And for more of those occasions than not, I haven't had to ask for them.
That last point is important. The media get a lot of flack, some of it deserved, but on the whole they get it right more than they get it wrong. We can certainly critique the weight they give some stories and not others, or their interpretations of facts. But the facts themselves? Usually correct, once it all comes out in the wash. And reporters who do get it wrong almost always correct themselves one way or another.
Reporting on the WikiLeaks releases of classified diplomatic cables and the accusations against the site's founder, Julian Assange, has been cloudy. I have to confess that I'm still not 100 percent certain what terminology to use here just because it's so hard (as a mere blogger) to find a single source detailing exactly what's happening. Assange is accused, but not criminally charged, with raping two women. Personally, I think it's possible to separate objective reporting on both the substance of the WikiLeaks documents and the rape accusations from commentary on both of those things. Maybe I'm alone here.
That's where Keith Olbermann screwed up. In my opinion, he's allowed his emotional response to WikiLeaks to color his reporting on the leaks and the rape allegations. He retweeted a link to a story accusing one of the accusers of having CIA ties (since debunked) and which named the accusers (a journalistic no-no). Then last week he welcomed left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore onto his show to talk about the controversy. I did a post with my initial reaction, and in a sec I'm going to expand on my thoughts.
Blogger Sady Doyle launched a Twitter protest against Moore, which Olbermann promptly made all about himself, and he still won't admit that he screwed up. As Doyle wrote today, it's allowable that Olbermann made a mistake in his reporting. But you know what? Journalists make mistakes. And when they become aware of those mistakes, journalists correct themselves and apologize.
Here's a small sampling of what Olbermann did that would've gotten him a D in every journalism class I ever took from elementary school on through college:
- Asking a question that doesn't really reflect the legit opposing viewpoints on an issue, like "Are [the accusations] a ruse? Are they a front for something else?" which was Olbermann's first question to Moore. This is no different than when somebody on Fox News asks if President Obama is really a socialist or just under the remote control of martians.
- Saying "Uh-huh" when Moore repeated the falsehood that the allegations against Assange are "about a broken condom," instead of pointing out that this had already been reported as being inaccurate.
- Not inviting onto this same show a single person who might offer a legit opposing viewpoint. Yes it's true, as Christiane Amanpour has said, that there aren't two sides to a genocide. But there are sure as hell multiple sides to this issue, and Olbermann damn well knows it. For instance... a) of course it's suspicious that Sweden ignored the rape accusations against Assange until he pissed off the U.S., but that doesn't mean those accusations aren't true; b) isn't this ignoring itself problematic? etc.
And I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think it's ethical for a journalist to advocate/argue via Twitter. It's not exactly a medium that lends itself to thorough exploration of an issue. Most of the journalists I know who have Twitter accounts use them to preview stories or share personal information. To do otherwise risks making the news rather than covering it, and that's something with which I will never, ever, ever be okay. Sorry.
Not that Olbermann has ever been anything resembling objective, but reporting inaccurate information and then steadfastly refusing to apologize is a different animal.
For the record, I had a very emotional reaction to Olbermann's interview, and to what I consider his flippant attitude toward the people who've asked him to correct it. Olbermann and Moore may not be aware of this, but what they broadcast last week is exactly what every rape victim hears in her head, from people she thought were her friends and even from law enforcement. For a survivor, it was incredibly triggering to hear it coming from two men who, by virtue of their progressive cred, I thought I could trust just a little bit. Thank goodness this didn't happen two years ago when being able to write "today I washed the dishes" in my journal was a huge victory over my depression.
I'm not the only one who's written that Moore's comments and Olbermann's dismissive reaction contribute to a larger cultural atmosphere where rape victims know we'll never get even a sliver of the benefit of the doubt. But their admission that they were wrong and their apology really will go a long way to healing this problem. And, for a couple of alleged defenders of the truth, it's just the right thing to do.
Adventures in camping
Seven or eight years ago, my then-boyfriend and I went on a road trip through Virginia that involved a little couch surfing at relatives' houses and a lot of camping. Our first stop was at Comers Rock, a small 10-site campground near Wytheville. At the time, Comers Rock was classified as semi-primitive, meaning that it had enclosed vault toilets (basically port-o-johns with a foundation), but no flush toilets or running water.
It didn't bother us. I mean, I was raised to believe that "roughing it" means "no toilet paper," so a vault toilet 100 feet from our (free!) campsite was damn near luxury accommodations, camping-wise. (The only thing I didn't like was that, even in the middle of summer, the campground was completely deserted. I got a little horror-movie vibe from that, but that's just me.)
Anyway, prior to leaving on what was our first camping trip together, the BF and I went to Wal-Mart to stock up. He insisted on buying a couple of cans of Sterno, saying that we could light them on fire for cooking. Well, I thought this was terrible. Cooking over a frakking CAN when you're supposed to be existing on a primitive level in the wilderness is just cheating. I'm of the school that, if you can't get a fire going with matches and twigs, then you don't deserve to eat hot food. He bought the Sterno anyway, and I made fun of him.
So, fast-forward to Comers Rock. It had been drizzling all day, but that's really not a big deal if you have enough kindling to start a larger (albeit smoky) fire. And, I don't mean to brag, but I'm a champion finder of kindling (we'd also packed newspaper). One problem - there was not one single downed branch or pile of brush in this entire campground. I have never seen anything like it before or since. It was as if the surrounding woods had been blasted with the world's largest leaf-blower. When I say there was nothing on the ground, I mean there was NOTHING on the ground. The whole place had been swept. WTF, Parks Service?
As it turned out, it had been swept. The BF eventually found, in a gap between hills, a giant mass of branches, dead leaves, brush. It was the mother lode of fire-building material... or, at least it would've been if it hadn't been sopping wet from being all piled up like it was. Again, WTF, Parks Service?
The upshot is that now I know how long it takes to cook Hamburger Helper over a can of Sterno in the pouring rain. About an hour, for al dente anyway. It was one of the best meals I've ever had.
I thought of that camping trip yesterday when I saw this. Nowhere in my definition of "camping" will you find an RV (that's called "RVing"), or, for the love of pete, a frakking VACUUM CLEANER.
By the way, Michelle Obama didn't tell people not to eat dessert. There's a big difference between working with public institutions (like schools) to see what policy changes could make it easier for them to provide healthier food and ordering you personally what not to feed your family in the privacy of your own home, you paranoiac ninny.
It didn't bother us. I mean, I was raised to believe that "roughing it" means "no toilet paper," so a vault toilet 100 feet from our (free!) campsite was damn near luxury accommodations, camping-wise. (The only thing I didn't like was that, even in the middle of summer, the campground was completely deserted. I got a little horror-movie vibe from that, but that's just me.)
Anyway, prior to leaving on what was our first camping trip together, the BF and I went to Wal-Mart to stock up. He insisted on buying a couple of cans of Sterno, saying that we could light them on fire for cooking. Well, I thought this was terrible. Cooking over a frakking CAN when you're supposed to be existing on a primitive level in the wilderness is just cheating. I'm of the school that, if you can't get a fire going with matches and twigs, then you don't deserve to eat hot food. He bought the Sterno anyway, and I made fun of him.
So, fast-forward to Comers Rock. It had been drizzling all day, but that's really not a big deal if you have enough kindling to start a larger (albeit smoky) fire. And, I don't mean to brag, but I'm a champion finder of kindling (we'd also packed newspaper). One problem - there was not one single downed branch or pile of brush in this entire campground. I have never seen anything like it before or since. It was as if the surrounding woods had been blasted with the world's largest leaf-blower. When I say there was nothing on the ground, I mean there was NOTHING on the ground. The whole place had been swept. WTF, Parks Service?
As it turned out, it had been swept. The BF eventually found, in a gap between hills, a giant mass of branches, dead leaves, brush. It was the mother lode of fire-building material... or, at least it would've been if it hadn't been sopping wet from being all piled up like it was. Again, WTF, Parks Service?
The upshot is that now I know how long it takes to cook Hamburger Helper over a can of Sterno in the pouring rain. About an hour, for al dente anyway. It was one of the best meals I've ever had.
I thought of that camping trip yesterday when I saw this. Nowhere in my definition of "camping" will you find an RV (that's called "RVing"), or, for the love of pete, a frakking VACUUM CLEANER.
By the way, Michelle Obama didn't tell people not to eat dessert. There's a big difference between working with public institutions (like schools) to see what policy changes could make it easier for them to provide healthier food and ordering you personally what not to feed your family in the privacy of your own home, you paranoiac ninny.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Truth to power: A rare two-asshole post
On roughly every other episode of "Law & Order," the cops suspect someone of murder or something and arrest the suspect on a minor charge so that they can buy time to find evidence on the more serious crime. That's basically what the authorities have done with Julian Assange, arresting him on long-standing rape charges (likely with pressure from the U.S.) until someone can figure out if it's possible to charge him with somethimh bigger.
A lot of people have questioned the timing of the arrest, coming so soon after Assange's WikiLeaks website published thousands of classified diplomatic cables. But... is it not possible to do that without also insulting the women involved?
Both of these wealthy, privileged men are full of shit. They both love to believe that they are paragons of progressive integrity. But, sorry, boys. If you're starting with the assumption (as Olbermann's opening question clearly does) that the rape accusations simply have to be false, and that therefore the women are lying, then you don't get to call yourself a progressive anything. Progressive raging asshole, maybe.
Moore continues to disappoint. Does this man honestly think he's the voice of the downtrodden or powerless? Powerless is seeing the laws that are supposed to protect you, ignore you. But instead of calling out the authorities who blew off the rape allegations against Assange until they needed an excuse to hold him, Moore hops on the "they're lying" bandwagon. Let me tell you something, Mike - "Roger & Me" was a long frakking time ago. All you've cared about for a long time - maybe ever - is hearing the sound of your on voice ever more amplified. You forgot what the expression "telling truth to power" meant some time ago.
And all this for Julian frakking Assange? This guy is NOT the second coming of Daniel Ellsburg. He didn't reveal where U.S. officials lied to the American public or Congress; he published mashnotes - but mashnotes that will unravel the diplomatic relationships that keep us safe. President Clinton was right - people are going to die over this.
UPDATE: Tiger Beatdown says all the above far more articulately.
A lot of people have questioned the timing of the arrest, coming so soon after Assange's WikiLeaks website published thousands of classified diplomatic cables. But... is it not possible to do that without also insulting the women involved?
Both of these wealthy, privileged men are full of shit. They both love to believe that they are paragons of progressive integrity. But, sorry, boys. If you're starting with the assumption (as Olbermann's opening question clearly does) that the rape accusations simply have to be false, and that therefore the women are lying, then you don't get to call yourself a progressive anything. Progressive raging asshole, maybe.
Moore continues to disappoint. Does this man honestly think he's the voice of the downtrodden or powerless? Powerless is seeing the laws that are supposed to protect you, ignore you. But instead of calling out the authorities who blew off the rape allegations against Assange until they needed an excuse to hold him, Moore hops on the "they're lying" bandwagon. Let me tell you something, Mike - "Roger & Me" was a long frakking time ago. All you've cared about for a long time - maybe ever - is hearing the sound of your on voice ever more amplified. You forgot what the expression "telling truth to power" meant some time ago.
And all this for Julian frakking Assange? This guy is NOT the second coming of Daniel Ellsburg. He didn't reveal where U.S. officials lied to the American public or Congress; he published mashnotes - but mashnotes that will unravel the diplomatic relationships that keep us safe. President Clinton was right - people are going to die over this.
UPDATE: Tiger Beatdown says all the above far more articulately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)