Congrats to the Mankato West Football Team that took the Class 4AAAA State Title up in Minneapolis earlier today!
Go SCARLETS!
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Take The Ballot Challenge!
You too, can get in on the wacky fun of the Minnesota Senate Recount:
Take the Star Tribune's Ballot Challenge!
Take the Star Tribune's Ballot Challenge!
Mumbai Update
A rare bit of holiday blogging on my part, but I thought I'd post an update of the aftermath of the devastating attacks in Mumbai yesterday. This totally escaped my notice, as the Missus and I were traveling yesterday, but 110 people were killed and 300 were injured.
All I can say is that I hope they got those bastards- and we should all say a prayer for the people of Mumbai and count our blessings.
All I can say is that I hope they got those bastards- and we should all say a prayer for the people of Mumbai and count our blessings.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving!
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! If you're traveling, drive (or fly) safely and get back safely- and enjoy the food and family!
I'm out until the 2nd.
Impeachment for a Quick Fix?
Column(Drivel) in the Detroit Free Press calls for Pelosi to start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Company 'for economy's sake.'
Um, no. First of all, be patient- Obama, despite being just a President-Elect is moving the markets- they liked his choice of treasury secretary and he probably needs some breathing room to get a plan in place and have it ready to go as soon as his hand's come off the Bible January 20th.
Second of all: really? Still? When are people going to give up the ghost on the whole 'hatred of Bush' thing. It's tiresome and besides, he's just swinging there like a dead hunk of meat. If you must indulge in schadenfreude, then for cryin' out loud, do it quietly.
Um, no. First of all, be patient- Obama, despite being just a President-Elect is moving the markets- they liked his choice of treasury secretary and he probably needs some breathing room to get a plan in place and have it ready to go as soon as his hand's come off the Bible January 20th.
Second of all: really? Still? When are people going to give up the ghost on the whole 'hatred of Bush' thing. It's tiresome and besides, he's just swinging there like a dead hunk of meat. If you must indulge in schadenfreude, then for cryin' out loud, do it quietly.
More Bailouts
Apparently, more bailouts are in the offing. The economy is the leakiest EVER. And Citigroup still has a $400 Million naming rights deal for the Mets new ballpark! STILL! After being BAILED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT!
Argh. According to NPR this afternoon, the Fed just upped and decided to create the money to pay for the latest infusion into the economy. (The prospect of inflation apparently being an OK risk by them.) Another billion dollar ($800 Billion!) boondoggle that has no impact on people down at this level who are struggling just to get by. No one is bailing out college grads. No one is helping people who are losing their jobs. No one is helping PEOPLE. Oh, I know talking heads will tell you that in the end, it does have a very real effect on Main Street, because if John and Jane Q. Public can't get a loan, they can't get a house, car, etc. But are John and Jane Q. Public going to be trying to get those things if they can barely pay their bills to begin with?
The logic, despite my lack of knowledge about the economy, seems to be a little fuzzy. But who am I to argue- it's just the future of my generation being mortgaged down the river. No biggie.
Argh. According to NPR this afternoon, the Fed just upped and decided to create the money to pay for the latest infusion into the economy. (The prospect of inflation apparently being an OK risk by them.) Another billion dollar ($800 Billion!) boondoggle that has no impact on people down at this level who are struggling just to get by. No one is bailing out college grads. No one is helping people who are losing their jobs. No one is helping PEOPLE. Oh, I know talking heads will tell you that in the end, it does have a very real effect on Main Street, because if John and Jane Q. Public can't get a loan, they can't get a house, car, etc. But are John and Jane Q. Public going to be trying to get those things if they can barely pay their bills to begin with?
The logic, despite my lack of knowledge about the economy, seems to be a little fuzzy. But who am I to argue- it's just the future of my generation being mortgaged down the river. No biggie.
Heading for a Break-Up?
What a way to start the morning- Via Drudge cheerful predictions from a Russian analyst that the United States is heading for an economic downfall and a total break-up. Into six separate parts!
I'm not sure I buy the six parts thesis- or the prediction of a break-up in general. And I don't think 'a growing Chinese population' is what will send the West Coast on it's merry way- I think it's the simple fact that by itself alone, California is (or was) the fifth largest economy in the world, I believe- or some oft-quoted stat like that.
But this guy is all smiley and happy, that's for sure.
Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."
He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."
He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.
I'm not sure I buy the six parts thesis- or the prediction of a break-up in general. And I don't think 'a growing Chinese population' is what will send the West Coast on it's merry way- I think it's the simple fact that by itself alone, California is (or was) the fifth largest economy in the world, I believe- or some oft-quoted stat like that.
But this guy is all smiley and happy, that's for sure.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Must-Netflix #1
[IMAGINE A FLOSSY YOUTUBE CLIP RIGHT HERE AND THEN GO TO YOUTUBE, SEARCH FOR 'SHAMELESS' AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES. SELF-DISCOVERY AND THE JOYS OF EXPLORATION AWAIT AND ARE BEAUTIFUL THINGS. ENJOY.]
When they were up a couple of weeks back, my parents mentioned a British show they had stumbled across called 'Shameless' and were raving about it, insisting that we should get ahold of it somehow and watch it. I figured it's got to be something fairly special to make both Mom AND Dad insist upon its quality and watchability. I'm still slightly agog at the fact that both of them are newly converted Battlestar Galactica fans.
So I got ahold of it- and the Missus and I have spent the last week or so working our way through the first series and it is as advertised: brilliant and a must see for anyone that just likes damn good television. The story of a dysfunctional family who lives in a Manchester housing estate, Shameless follows the lives of Frank Gallagher (alcoholic), his eldest daughter Fiona (surrogate mother), her brothers Lip (smart-ass) and Ian (in the closet), sister Debbie (kinda strange), little brother Liam (cute), neighbors Veronica and Kevin and Fiona's boyfriend Steve (played by, of all people, James McAvoy- and played very well indeed.)
This is a show that sort of defies conventional description, because it walks an incredibly fine line: the family itself seems crazy dysfunctional and some of the stuff that happens just leaves your jaw on the floor- but despite that, the writing, the characters, the sheer talent of the acting makes these people very, very real and identifiable. Probably the realest people on television that I can think of.
If CSI is boring you now that Grissom is leaving or if Bones doesn't hold the charm it used too and you're tired of waiting for Battlestar Galactica to come back or even if Heroes has just complete lost you, get out the old Netflix and get ahold of 'Shameless'- award-winning British television that totally lives up to the hype.
When they were up a couple of weeks back, my parents mentioned a British show they had stumbled across called 'Shameless' and were raving about it, insisting that we should get ahold of it somehow and watch it. I figured it's got to be something fairly special to make both Mom AND Dad insist upon its quality and watchability. I'm still slightly agog at the fact that both of them are newly converted Battlestar Galactica fans.
So I got ahold of it- and the Missus and I have spent the last week or so working our way through the first series and it is as advertised: brilliant and a must see for anyone that just likes damn good television. The story of a dysfunctional family who lives in a Manchester housing estate, Shameless follows the lives of Frank Gallagher (alcoholic), his eldest daughter Fiona (surrogate mother), her brothers Lip (smart-ass) and Ian (in the closet), sister Debbie (kinda strange), little brother Liam (cute), neighbors Veronica and Kevin and Fiona's boyfriend Steve (played by, of all people, James McAvoy- and played very well indeed.)
This is a show that sort of defies conventional description, because it walks an incredibly fine line: the family itself seems crazy dysfunctional and some of the stuff that happens just leaves your jaw on the floor- but despite that, the writing, the characters, the sheer talent of the acting makes these people very, very real and identifiable. Probably the realest people on television that I can think of.
If CSI is boring you now that Grissom is leaving or if Bones doesn't hold the charm it used too and you're tired of waiting for Battlestar Galactica to come back or even if Heroes has just complete lost you, get out the old Netflix and get ahold of 'Shameless'- award-winning British television that totally lives up to the hype.
War on Turkeys?
Via Althouse, apparently Rush Limbaugh is ready to blow his top over this article.
God knows why- I mean of course the story of the first Thanksgiving is a myth. A national myth, but a myth nonetheless- just as Britain has Queen Boadicea and King Arthur. Doesn't make the story any less important. Doesn't take away from the tradition. Just means that it's not historically accurate.
(Just like the statue of Queen Boadicea in London, while very 'girl power' and down right scary, is all about the heroic traditions of national myth, but in reality, she probably didn't look quite that good in her chariot. If she had a chariot at all.)
God knows why- I mean of course the story of the first Thanksgiving is a myth. A national myth, but a myth nonetheless- just as Britain has Queen Boadicea and King Arthur. Doesn't make the story any less important. Doesn't take away from the tradition. Just means that it's not historically accurate.
(Just like the statue of Queen Boadicea in London, while very 'girl power' and down right scary, is all about the heroic traditions of national myth, but in reality, she probably didn't look quite that good in her chariot. If she had a chariot at all.)
Shout Out #1
I got a bit moody and depressed towards the end of the day today, and as the kiddies ran through the lobby after the last bell had rung, I found myself with endless loops of the Pixies running through my head, thinking what an apt metaphor their music is for the mindless idiocy of high school. That is high school, I thought: a Pixies song. One of the ones with the gory visual metaphors.
For the record- today:
1. I was called a racist jerk.
2. Apparently my facial hair looks like pubic hair.
3. I'm fat.
4. I'm pregnant. (My gut being so firm and all.)
So it was a banner day for my self-esteem. Hence, the shout-out to the Pixies.
(P.S.: For the record, I'm going to work out, feel better and head out of town to Wyoming for Thanksgiving with the fam tomorrow. So things will look up. And the cable is working and strangely enough, 'Gilmore Girls' is on and it's oddly comforting.)
(P.P.S.: And there are people who had much worse weekends than I did- there was a Golden Gophers fan at work that ended up cleaning out his septic tank instead of watching the second half of the 55-0 walloping Iowa gave 'em.)
(P.P.P.S.: No, I don't know who the weird guy in the video is. I just think the song rocks!)
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Car Trouble
The clock is ticking on the auto industry, I think- and we're starting to see the effects closer to Main Street: a GM dealership in Waseca is shutting down (Waseca's about twenty minutes east of Mankato) and a major Twin Cities dealer, Denny Hecker shut down about six dealerships I think- and the follow-on effects of that move are still being felt.
I still stand by my original thought on the auto industry though: if we're going to have the government start cutting checks, it should be to help the employees of these companies, not to prop up the companies that will probably merge or collapse at some point anyway. Again, look at the airline industry: we bailed them out after 9-11, but rising fuel costs and pressures on the industry have lead to price spikes, bankruptcies and mergers. I'm not an expert, but I think that's probably where the industry is headed anyway. And if Congress isn't going to pony-up the cash, then the Big 3 should just lay it out there and go home, say if we don't get help by such and such a date, then we're going under.
I still stand by my original thought on the auto industry though: if we're going to have the government start cutting checks, it should be to help the employees of these companies, not to prop up the companies that will probably merge or collapse at some point anyway. Again, look at the airline industry: we bailed them out after 9-11, but rising fuel costs and pressures on the industry have lead to price spikes, bankruptcies and mergers. I'm not an expert, but I think that's probably where the industry is headed anyway. And if Congress isn't going to pony-up the cash, then the Big 3 should just lay it out there and go home, say if we don't get help by such and such a date, then we're going under.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Strike 2?
Argh. Another Hollywood Strike?
Please no.
I suppose even actors have to get paid, but when some of them are raking in multi-million dollar paychecks for movies and some of the more highly paid television actors can rake in almost as much, I have to ask: how bad can they really have it?
Of course, those are the established actors- I'm sure the struggling ones trying to break into the industry could probably use the help- but even so. Another strike? Really? Can Hollywood afford it?
Please no.
I suppose even actors have to get paid, but when some of them are raking in multi-million dollar paychecks for movies and some of the more highly paid television actors can rake in almost as much, I have to ask: how bad can they really have it?
Of course, those are the established actors- I'm sure the struggling ones trying to break into the industry could probably use the help- but even so. Another strike? Really? Can Hollywood afford it?
Cats.
The cats, caught in a compromising position. (This would be a fab tabloid shot, wouldn't it?) Anyway, just a shout out to our feline friends here in 1347 #4. Moxie (the orange one) is recovering from a declaw and Sampson (black one) is slowly recuperating from a distressing brush with death. (He developed a urinary blockage and started peeing blood everywhere. Poor guy had to be flushed about 15 times via catheter and it still on special food to get his piss back to normal. But he's doing lots better.)
Plus, Sampson looks totally stoned in that second picture.
V is for Victory!
The big news in Mankato this week (or what passes for a significant change in the landscape, at any rate) was the completion of the grandiose 'Victory Drive Project.' It's taken them 14 years, an interchange, a bridge and finally this little chunk to get it done, but it's done. The construction circus that's been gumming up the road since early summer is finally over.
The view from my car:
You see, behind those concrete barriers is where the road used to run. Straight until it intersected with Madison by the McDonald's and across from the decrepit mall of Mankato, Madison East. Instead, they moved the road over here:
All total, they spent who knows how much money shifting the road maybe 100 feet. All in the name of sparing people the horror of having to turn at a set of stop lights, drive 100 feet and... turn again! Happily, I know nothing about why such things are decided- but apparently it's all in the name of future development.
But- you decide: waste of time or useful planning for the future?
The view from my car:
You see, behind those concrete barriers is where the road used to run. Straight until it intersected with Madison by the McDonald's and across from the decrepit mall of Mankato, Madison East. Instead, they moved the road over here:
All total, they spent who knows how much money shifting the road maybe 100 feet. All in the name of sparing people the horror of having to turn at a set of stop lights, drive 100 feet and... turn again! Happily, I know nothing about why such things are decided- but apparently it's all in the name of future development.
But- you decide: waste of time or useful planning for the future?
Fun Tools
TalkLeft posted these fun little sites for blog analysis:
1. A Gender Analyzer
2. A Readability Analyzer.
So I plugged my blog into both and this is what I got:
70% man! Yeaaaaa!
College! Post-Grad! (Though I'm not sure that's a good thing. Or is it?)
1. A Gender Analyzer
2. A Readability Analyzer.
So I plugged my blog into both and this is what I got:
70% man! Yeaaaaa!
College! Post-Grad! (Though I'm not sure that's a good thing. Or is it?)
Sexual Harassment
The question of sexual harassment has been on my mind lately: the University of Iowa has seen two professors commit suicide this year after allegations of sexual harassment and I stumbled across this column in the LA Times by a University of California Professor who has refused point blank to comply with state-mandated sexual harassment training and is now apparently under threat of suspension if not outright termination of his employment with the University.
As a man, I resent absolutist leftist PC doctrine that stigmatizes me for the crime of having a penis. I remember walking throughout the UI Campus and always seeing that interesting bit of graffiti: 'men can end rape.' That always struck me as slightly offensive, because I don't rape, I don't know- nor would I associate with anyone who does- and as an undergraduate the whole culture of alcohol induced hook-ups and the potential consequences that go along with it just seemed completely alien to me, so I never bothered to participate. Having a penis, I thought, is a responsibility, not a right and I refused to consider misusing mine in any way. Why then, is it my responsibility to 'end rape'?
I don't think it is- individuals have to be held accountable for their actions- and not a whole group of people. Such stereotyping and stigmatization is the very essence of the things that the PC-crowd are trying to overcome- but of course, it's perfectly OK to stereotype and stigmatize men. (A sort of counter-patriarchal attitude that merely reinforces patriarchy rather than overcomes it, I think.) BUT WAIT: (I can hear some people saying this) The fact of the matter is that guys don't call each other on behavior like that. They make jokes about the 'good lay' they had the night before and make remarks that are frankly demeaning to women and so on and so forth. Until men police themselves, these problems will never go away- therefore men CAN end rape.
OK, fine- guys don't call each other on stuff like that. But again, I refuse to be lumped in with the pricks and assholes that participate in that culture that demeans women. I simply refuse- and I resent being lumped in with them just because I share the same biological characteristics as them. It's offensive, because I never bought in to the 'hook-up' culture on college campuses. I didn't want to go and get blind drunk and find someone in a similar state to share a bed with. I simply did NOT do it- and I didn't really run with the crowd that did. Maybe that makes me an outlier of some kind, but there it is.
And therin lies the problem with the tricky question of sexual harassment: I think the pro-PC, cloyingly liberal atmosphere you can find on some college campuses means that automatically, allegations of harassment are like a scarlet letter on the face of the accused. The collectivism of the PC crowd means that the right of the individual to present evidence to potentially refute these allegations is shouted down. And even if said individual is actually innocent- the mob has spoken and the career of the accused has been forever tarred- unjustly.
Such mob mentality obscures the objectivity necessary to sort out allegations from honest-to-God harassment in the workplace- which is what we need to fight against. And Universities, in their fear of liability need to grow a set and insist on objective investigations of these allegations- (the accused should be suspended- with or without pay, depending on the seriousness of the accusations) and if proven true- the harassers should be terminated. End of discussion.
Now, I know what some people might say: 'You're just a guy insisting that 'you're different'' And granted, re-reading this post, it may come across that way- but I think in order to move into a post-patriarchal world, we need to look at the actions of individuals and not groups, move away from stigmatizing people- and honestly, we need more men to stand up and say 'I'm different. I don't do that.' And maybe if enough guys do that, then we can counter this pervasive culture of mob rule that demeans women and is seemingly starting to scapegoat men.
As a man, I resent absolutist leftist PC doctrine that stigmatizes me for the crime of having a penis. I remember walking throughout the UI Campus and always seeing that interesting bit of graffiti: 'men can end rape.' That always struck me as slightly offensive, because I don't rape, I don't know- nor would I associate with anyone who does- and as an undergraduate the whole culture of alcohol induced hook-ups and the potential consequences that go along with it just seemed completely alien to me, so I never bothered to participate. Having a penis, I thought, is a responsibility, not a right and I refused to consider misusing mine in any way. Why then, is it my responsibility to 'end rape'?
I don't think it is- individuals have to be held accountable for their actions- and not a whole group of people. Such stereotyping and stigmatization is the very essence of the things that the PC-crowd are trying to overcome- but of course, it's perfectly OK to stereotype and stigmatize men. (A sort of counter-patriarchal attitude that merely reinforces patriarchy rather than overcomes it, I think.) BUT WAIT: (I can hear some people saying this) The fact of the matter is that guys don't call each other on behavior like that. They make jokes about the 'good lay' they had the night before and make remarks that are frankly demeaning to women and so on and so forth. Until men police themselves, these problems will never go away- therefore men CAN end rape.
OK, fine- guys don't call each other on stuff like that. But again, I refuse to be lumped in with the pricks and assholes that participate in that culture that demeans women. I simply refuse- and I resent being lumped in with them just because I share the same biological characteristics as them. It's offensive, because I never bought in to the 'hook-up' culture on college campuses. I didn't want to go and get blind drunk and find someone in a similar state to share a bed with. I simply did NOT do it- and I didn't really run with the crowd that did. Maybe that makes me an outlier of some kind, but there it is.
And therin lies the problem with the tricky question of sexual harassment: I think the pro-PC, cloyingly liberal atmosphere you can find on some college campuses means that automatically, allegations of harassment are like a scarlet letter on the face of the accused. The collectivism of the PC crowd means that the right of the individual to present evidence to potentially refute these allegations is shouted down. And even if said individual is actually innocent- the mob has spoken and the career of the accused has been forever tarred- unjustly.
Such mob mentality obscures the objectivity necessary to sort out allegations from honest-to-God harassment in the workplace- which is what we need to fight against. And Universities, in their fear of liability need to grow a set and insist on objective investigations of these allegations- (the accused should be suspended- with or without pay, depending on the seriousness of the accusations) and if proven true- the harassers should be terminated. End of discussion.
Now, I know what some people might say: 'You're just a guy insisting that 'you're different'' And granted, re-reading this post, it may come across that way- but I think in order to move into a post-patriarchal world, we need to look at the actions of individuals and not groups, move away from stigmatizing people- and honestly, we need more men to stand up and say 'I'm different. I don't do that.' And maybe if enough guys do that, then we can counter this pervasive culture of mob rule that demeans women and is seemingly starting to scapegoat men.
Friday, November 21, 2008
WTF!
First this ridiculous bailout- then automakers and now Citigroup?
NO MORE BAILOUTS! I'm tired of this bullshit- because that's exactly what this is- and if we're going to be a capitalist country, then for God's sake can we please act like it? I don't see why rich fat cats get plump old checks from the government while the rest of us go hang. I'm really seriously tired of this- I get than companies are going to go under and that means real jobs getting lost, but we should be using money to help those workers, not prop up badly run companies!
It's socialism for the rich and good luck to the rest of us, I guess. I just wish the government would be willing to help out people like me now and again. Or ever.
NO MORE BAILOUTS! I'm tired of this bullshit- because that's exactly what this is- and if we're going to be a capitalist country, then for God's sake can we please act like it? I don't see why rich fat cats get plump old checks from the government while the rest of us go hang. I'm really seriously tired of this- I get than companies are going to go under and that means real jobs getting lost, but we should be using money to help those workers, not prop up badly run companies!
It's socialism for the rich and good luck to the rest of us, I guess. I just wish the government would be willing to help out people like me now and again. Or ever.
End Dome
Hey, not only is it another chapter of the Iowa-Minnesota clash, but believe it or not, the curtain sets on 'Kinnick North' this weekend as well! (Yes, that's right Gopher Fans. I said it. AGAIN.) It's the Last Gopher game in the Metrodome- and here: a retrospective. Color me crazy, but I did not know that the Lou Holtz was a Coach at Minnesota and I didn't know how woeful Minnesota has been since signing the long-term lease at the Dome. (Holtz kind of sold them on it and promptly bolted for Notre Dame.)
And Minnesota's worse loss in the dome: 84-13 to Nebraska back in the '83. 84? Wow.
Next season, the Gophers move over to the clunkily named TCF Bank Stadium and football 'comes back to campus.' Old School Gopher fans are already thinking of it 'The New Memorial Stadium' and frankly, I'm more inclined to think of it as 'Bank Stadium' because that at least sounds like a name someone could put on a stadium. Stadium names to me should mean something, be named after someone or at least add to the ambiance of the place. I really don't like this whole trend of corporate naming of stadiums. Memorial Stadium, to me, sounds a heckuva lot better than 'TCF Bank Stadium.' And I think maybe Killibrew Field- or heck, even Puckett Park would be better than 'Target Field' which is what the new Twins Park is going to be named when it opens. (Why do we need a 'Target Field?' We have a 'Target Center' and the Timberwolves have consistently, oh, what's the word... sucked. Maybe we should put the kybosh on Target getting to name things.)
Now that the Gophers are safely on their way to a new home, next up, we get to see Zygi Wilf and the Vikings Ownership try and sell the state legislature on the need for gobs of cash for a new stadium. That should be fun.
And Minnesota's worse loss in the dome: 84-13 to Nebraska back in the '83. 84? Wow.
Next season, the Gophers move over to the clunkily named TCF Bank Stadium and football 'comes back to campus.' Old School Gopher fans are already thinking of it 'The New Memorial Stadium' and frankly, I'm more inclined to think of it as 'Bank Stadium' because that at least sounds like a name someone could put on a stadium. Stadium names to me should mean something, be named after someone or at least add to the ambiance of the place. I really don't like this whole trend of corporate naming of stadiums. Memorial Stadium, to me, sounds a heckuva lot better than 'TCF Bank Stadium.' And I think maybe Killibrew Field- or heck, even Puckett Park would be better than 'Target Field' which is what the new Twins Park is going to be named when it opens. (Why do we need a 'Target Field?' We have a 'Target Center' and the Timberwolves have consistently, oh, what's the word... sucked. Maybe we should put the kybosh on Target getting to name things.)
Now that the Gophers are safely on their way to a new home, next up, we get to see Zygi Wilf and the Vikings Ownership try and sell the state legislature on the need for gobs of cash for a new stadium. That should be fun.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Coming Soon...
...to a courtroom and probably a ballot box near you!
Gay marriage has, thus far, avoided breaking into the Heartland as of yet- but not for much longer. A trial court judge in Polk County (was it last year? Or the year before?) Anyway, he ruled in favor of a gay couple who managed to get married (I'm pretty sure) before the judge issued a stay, pending a ruling from the Iowa Supreme Court, who looks to be getting set to take up the case next month.
So how's this going to go? Eh, I wouldn't hold my breath, but Iowa has been known to surprise me now and again. There have been precedents in other states for Supreme Courts merely punting to legislatures and telling them to do something about this, pronto. If they don't do that, then there will, (should they rule in favor) inevitably, be a challenge- and it'll go to the voters. My read is that Western Iowa/Northwestern Iowa will probably go solidly no, Des Moines and the central will probably split- and if there is a core area of support for gay marriage, it'd be in the East. Proponents should concentrate on the urban areas to run up the margins- and whoever heads up that campaign (because I think, regardless of the court decision, it'll end up with the voters anyway) had better have looked at the Prop 8 Debacle and had taken damn good notes.
It'll be a difficult sell in Iowa, potentially- but the refreshing part about Iowa is that it's been known to surprise me now and again. I think it might have an easier time in Minnesota, but then again, that depends on how the proponents run the campaign. Minnesota has an advantage in that you have the metro area, which I'd imagine would probably vote heavily yes- and the real battle will be for the more Republican areas of the state (2nd, 6th Districts in the exurbs of the Cities)- keeping the margins close their and running up big margins in the smaller cities across the state (Mankato, St. Cloud, Owatonna, Albert Lea, Austin, Winona, Worthington) and snagging Rochester and Duluth solidly.
BUT: no matter what, proponents have to put a human face on it!! Politically, I think it's hard to pin down the upper Midwest. It's hard to quantify it as solidly Republican or solidly Democrat, which makes questions like these hard to predict. Of course, California was supposed to be an easy win for gay marriage proponents- hence things may not be what the pundits say they are. I think done correctly, it might have a chance- but it's hard to say what 'the correct way' would be, here in the Heartland.
Gay marriage has, thus far, avoided breaking into the Heartland as of yet- but not for much longer. A trial court judge in Polk County (was it last year? Or the year before?) Anyway, he ruled in favor of a gay couple who managed to get married (I'm pretty sure) before the judge issued a stay, pending a ruling from the Iowa Supreme Court, who looks to be getting set to take up the case next month.
So how's this going to go? Eh, I wouldn't hold my breath, but Iowa has been known to surprise me now and again. There have been precedents in other states for Supreme Courts merely punting to legislatures and telling them to do something about this, pronto. If they don't do that, then there will, (should they rule in favor) inevitably, be a challenge- and it'll go to the voters. My read is that Western Iowa/Northwestern Iowa will probably go solidly no, Des Moines and the central will probably split- and if there is a core area of support for gay marriage, it'd be in the East. Proponents should concentrate on the urban areas to run up the margins- and whoever heads up that campaign (because I think, regardless of the court decision, it'll end up with the voters anyway) had better have looked at the Prop 8 Debacle and had taken damn good notes.
It'll be a difficult sell in Iowa, potentially- but the refreshing part about Iowa is that it's been known to surprise me now and again. I think it might have an easier time in Minnesota, but then again, that depends on how the proponents run the campaign. Minnesota has an advantage in that you have the metro area, which I'd imagine would probably vote heavily yes- and the real battle will be for the more Republican areas of the state (2nd, 6th Districts in the exurbs of the Cities)- keeping the margins close their and running up big margins in the smaller cities across the state (Mankato, St. Cloud, Owatonna, Albert Lea, Austin, Winona, Worthington) and snagging Rochester and Duluth solidly.
BUT: no matter what, proponents have to put a human face on it!! Politically, I think it's hard to pin down the upper Midwest. It's hard to quantify it as solidly Republican or solidly Democrat, which makes questions like these hard to predict. Of course, California was supposed to be an easy win for gay marriage proponents- hence things may not be what the pundits say they are. I think done correctly, it might have a chance- but it's hard to say what 'the correct way' would be, here in the Heartland.
No Navels!
She doesn't have a belly button! This is FREAKY S--T MAN! Aliens are walking among us, apparently- and they're... supermodels?
Petland and Puppy Mills
This wasn't news to me- but it's about time it went national: Petland, a national pet store chain has been accused by the Humane Society of the United States of getting their animals from puppy mills and selling them at stores across the country. Of course, they always inform customers that their animals come from 'regulated breeders' and charge obscene prices for them.
Like I said- not news: the Petland in Iowa City has been the target of protests and activism for at least a year, probably two years by now, alleging just what the Humane Society has come out and accused Petland of- getting puppies from puppy mills. And quite frankly, I'd never get a pet from Petland to begin with. They charge ridiculous prices and I've met more than one person who's gotten a puppy from Petland only to have medical problems crop up all over the place- which naturally, costs people still more money than the $1200 (at least) it costs to get the animal in the first place.
Petland rips you off to begin with.
And now, it seems they get their puppies from puppy mills.
Just another reason NOT to shop there!
Like I said- not news: the Petland in Iowa City has been the target of protests and activism for at least a year, probably two years by now, alleging just what the Humane Society has come out and accused Petland of- getting puppies from puppy mills. And quite frankly, I'd never get a pet from Petland to begin with. They charge ridiculous prices and I've met more than one person who's gotten a puppy from Petland only to have medical problems crop up all over the place- which naturally, costs people still more money than the $1200 (at least) it costs to get the animal in the first place.
Petland rips you off to begin with.
And now, it seems they get their puppies from puppy mills.
Just another reason NOT to shop there!
Political Monarchs?
Hopefully the longevity of the Windsor Women will ensure that this never, ever comes to pass- Charles as King has the potential to be a total disaster for the British Monarchy and could ride the venerable institution right off the rails. Potentially. Republicans have been saying that for years and it has yet to happen- but if Charles thinks he can be a 'political monarch' in a more 'activist' role someone should take him aside quietly and with a great deal of respect beat him silly with a rubber hose.
The Royals can have their playgrounds, I think- Charles has been outspoken in areas of the environment, architecture and charitable organizations and the like- but monarchs, especially unelected, symbolic ones should leave the politics to the people who get elected and confine themselves to advice given behind closed doors. The Queen knows how this show is run- she symbolically 'governs' with the 'consent and advice' of her Ministers- but she's also got decades of experience in government and if I was Prime Minister, I wouldn't hesitate to ask her for advice.
Subtlety is the order of the day. And self-sufficiency for the future. I think if a British Monarchy can one day more or less function without tax payer money- and certainly confine that to a salary for members of the Royal Family with Constitutional Obligations only, then I think the future could be assured. It's hard, I think, to make the argument for a monarchy, when it's your money paying for flossy palaces, valets and the like. But you can argue that, like the wise man said, 'tourists are money.' And the Royal Family brings 'em in.
But still: Chuck should shut his trap. And hopefully the Queen has the ear of young William and is filling his head with something resembling common sense.
The Royals can have their playgrounds, I think- Charles has been outspoken in areas of the environment, architecture and charitable organizations and the like- but monarchs, especially unelected, symbolic ones should leave the politics to the people who get elected and confine themselves to advice given behind closed doors. The Queen knows how this show is run- she symbolically 'governs' with the 'consent and advice' of her Ministers- but she's also got decades of experience in government and if I was Prime Minister, I wouldn't hesitate to ask her for advice.
Subtlety is the order of the day. And self-sufficiency for the future. I think if a British Monarchy can one day more or less function without tax payer money- and certainly confine that to a salary for members of the Royal Family with Constitutional Obligations only, then I think the future could be assured. It's hard, I think, to make the argument for a monarchy, when it's your money paying for flossy palaces, valets and the like. But you can argue that, like the wise man said, 'tourists are money.' And the Royal Family brings 'em in.
But still: Chuck should shut his trap. And hopefully the Queen has the ear of young William and is filling his head with something resembling common sense.
Out Sick
Out sick today, so blogging might be more active than usual, depending on my mood. I don't know what's up with me- I felt something coming on Tuesday, so I went home early, looking (and feeling) like crap- rested and dosed myself and came back for a half-day Wednesday (I had to wait for the cable guy) and now today, took Moxie into get declawed and suddenly became a massive snot production factory, complete with my head feeling like a balloon, aching and plugged ears- the whole she-bang. So this time, I went home and have totally dosed myself up. Plus, am gonna get some soup and more vitamin C here in a second.
(Oh, and I get to watch West Brom Albion take on Chelsea on FSC. We're about 20 minutes in and West Brom is, so far, holding their own- they've had some pretty good chances thus far. But they are playing Chelsea.)
If one must be miserable on the couch, lots of vitamin C and Fox Soccer Channel are musts, I think.
(Oh, and I get to watch West Brom Albion take on Chelsea on FSC. We're about 20 minutes in and West Brom is, so far, holding their own- they've had some pretty good chances thus far. But they are playing Chelsea.)
If one must be miserable on the couch, lots of vitamin C and Fox Soccer Channel are musts, I think.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
An incredible sequel to Star Trek 1, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan stands as one of the gems of the Trek Franchise, as well as surely one of the best sequels in modern movie history. Ably directed by Nicholas Meyer, the writing of this second Trek installment particularly stands out to me, as not only do our heroes have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous space opera, but the characters have their own inner struggles and conflicts to confront and overcome.
Kirk is feeling old, chafing behind a desk and jumping at the chance to take the Enterprise out on a training cruise, even if his beloved ship has been reduced to a training vessel for raw green cadets. Over the course of the movie, he has to confront his past (including a son) and deal with the sacrifice and loss of his comrade, Mr. Spock at the beautifully written end of the movie. The themes of age, loss, growth and life itself are captured beautifully in this movie- with even the main 'tech hook', the Genesis Device igniting debates over the creation versus the destruction of life itself. Probably the most complex of all the Trek movies, Star Trek II is as close to perfection as the Trek franchise could hope for. A perfect blend of the humanistic and optimistic vision of the original Trek franchise, with the core of fundamental humanity at the heart of Trek shining through.
As for the adventure/guns and shooting side of the movie, this sequel sets up the pattern of 'odd movies sucking and even movies rocking' that would continue throughout the Trek movie franchise- with Ricardo Montablan (yes, the guy from Fantasy Island) reprising his role as Khan Noonien Singh- a role he played in the episode of the original television show entitled 'Space Seed'- a mad, genetically engineered superman from the late 90s- a darker period in Earth's history, who having been marooned by Kirk 15 years before, wants revenge on Kirk- and is hell bent on getting it.
An iconic villain, eagerly chewing scenery with glorious piz-azz, Khan leads Kirk on a hard chase before their final confrontation- providing Trek with it's villain extraordinaire- as well as one of the great movie bad guys of all time. Then, of course, there are the brain slugs- one of the more skin-crawling moments of this movie is where we get to watch as 2 slugs slither into the ears of hapless captives of Khan- and then later on, when they slither out. If people remember nothing about this movie, they usually remember those slugs.
With the traumatic death of Mr. Spock at the end of this movie, Trek II proves that the writers are willing to take chances with their characters to make them grow and change- put them through the wringer a bit. And even though killing off Spock was so controversial, that a movie about bringing him back (Star Trek III) became all but inevitable, it was nice to see actual, honest-to-goodness evolution in the characters of the Trek franchise.
What was, of course, unfortunate is that Star Trek X tried to use the very same gambit of a sacrificial death, only to resurrect the character, after a fashion, not five minutes later- making that entire movie seem nothing more than a pale homage to this one and effectively ending the franchise- until now.
But a brilliant movie- better than I remembered it.
Kirk is feeling old, chafing behind a desk and jumping at the chance to take the Enterprise out on a training cruise, even if his beloved ship has been reduced to a training vessel for raw green cadets. Over the course of the movie, he has to confront his past (including a son) and deal with the sacrifice and loss of his comrade, Mr. Spock at the beautifully written end of the movie. The themes of age, loss, growth and life itself are captured beautifully in this movie- with even the main 'tech hook', the Genesis Device igniting debates over the creation versus the destruction of life itself. Probably the most complex of all the Trek movies, Star Trek II is as close to perfection as the Trek franchise could hope for. A perfect blend of the humanistic and optimistic vision of the original Trek franchise, with the core of fundamental humanity at the heart of Trek shining through.
As for the adventure/guns and shooting side of the movie, this sequel sets up the pattern of 'odd movies sucking and even movies rocking' that would continue throughout the Trek movie franchise- with Ricardo Montablan (yes, the guy from Fantasy Island) reprising his role as Khan Noonien Singh- a role he played in the episode of the original television show entitled 'Space Seed'- a mad, genetically engineered superman from the late 90s- a darker period in Earth's history, who having been marooned by Kirk 15 years before, wants revenge on Kirk- and is hell bent on getting it.
An iconic villain, eagerly chewing scenery with glorious piz-azz, Khan leads Kirk on a hard chase before their final confrontation- providing Trek with it's villain extraordinaire- as well as one of the great movie bad guys of all time. Then, of course, there are the brain slugs- one of the more skin-crawling moments of this movie is where we get to watch as 2 slugs slither into the ears of hapless captives of Khan- and then later on, when they slither out. If people remember nothing about this movie, they usually remember those slugs.
With the traumatic death of Mr. Spock at the end of this movie, Trek II proves that the writers are willing to take chances with their characters to make them grow and change- put them through the wringer a bit. And even though killing off Spock was so controversial, that a movie about bringing him back (Star Trek III) became all but inevitable, it was nice to see actual, honest-to-goodness evolution in the characters of the Trek franchise.
What was, of course, unfortunate is that Star Trek X tried to use the very same gambit of a sacrificial death, only to resurrect the character, after a fashion, not five minutes later- making that entire movie seem nothing more than a pale homage to this one and effectively ending the franchise- until now.
But a brilliant movie- better than I remembered it.
Latest Recount
Early days yet- both campaigns- Coleman and Franken are challenging ballots, but about 18% of the vote has been recounted and Coleman's lead, incredible is down to 174 votes.
174.
Gonna be a long recount.
174.
Gonna be a long recount.
Porcine Pride
The college football season is coming to a close, and for us in the Big 10 (that apparently lamentable conference according to the snobby pundits of the sports world) that means that it's time for a few rivalries and key games- Michigan and Ohio State meet this weekend (should be fairly blah), Penn State and Michigan State meet (has potential to be both fairly blah and fairly exciting) and then there's (at least to me) the marquee rivalry of the week: Iowa vs. Minnesota. (Which should be a game to watch- is usually is!)
Honestly, having grown up in Iowa City, I was only vaguely aware that we always played Minnesota dead last- no matter what. Gradually, I learned that, like the Cy-Hawk Trophy that Iowa and Iowa State did battle for every year, Iowa and Minnesota did indeed play for a trophy- a pig. Named Floyd of Rosedale.
Yet, honestly, I never got all that geared up for the Minnesota game. Iowa State, on the other hand, was the bitter in-state battle, where we (usually) sent the Cyclones crying into the locker room. Refreshingly, as I got older, the rivalry between ISU and Iowa got a little more evenly-matched, with ISU actually winning one now and again. Which made the game that much more important, every year. I still remembering learning with open-mouthed incredulity that the ROTC Chapters at each University would run the game ball from one campus to the campus where the game was to be played- and its odd, but I recall with strange clarity, the lengthening shadows and deepening twilight one early September, driving down the Coralville Strip, when I saw a ROTC Cadet, staggering with weariness, an escort vehicle discreetly following behind, running the game ball in towards Kinnick Stadium.
Yes, the Iowa State Game was the rivalry of the year for me- and I never really got all that geared up for the Minnesota game- but then, I found this awesome column in the Star Tribune and learned just how exactly Iowa and Minnesota ended up playing for a bronzed pig named Floyd- and more to the point, why they ended up playing for it.
And, having been marked, inevitably, as an 'Iowegian', this has been a week of inevitable gentle proddings, with remarks about 'securing the Southern border' and 'building the fences a little higher!' And diehard Gopher fans recalling the sight of Iowa fans storming the Metrodome field and attempting to take the goalposts out of the revolving doors. I have to smile: those sound like Hawkeye fans to me.
So, what's going to happen in 'Kinnick North' this weekend? (Yeah, that's right, Gopher fans- I said it!) I think it's going to be one for the ages. Minnesota's at home, playing for better bowl positions- Iowa too is playing for bowl pride points and Minnesota is coming off a vicious loss to Wisconsin. All bets, therefore, are off. Minnesota's defense and special teams were porous last weekend against Wisconsin (2 safeties? Really? And you still kept it close?) and their offense has been hampered by the loss of Decker for the season, yet they still have a potent weapon in their crazy-ass, let's lower the shoulder and bust-out-20-yards of a QB, Adam Weber.
Iowa on the other hand, is intent on reducing the fingernails of every fan out there down to the bone- this being the season of nerve-racking nail-biting games, some of which we've lost (Illinois) and some of which we've won (Penn State, YEA BABY!). This is due to the fact that our offense is erratic and our defense rocks. And therein lies the key to the game, I think- if the defense kicks ass and shuts down Weber- and Shon Greene does his thing on offense- and more to the point, our QB doesn't start tossing interceptions left and right, then I think we'll (Iowa) pull it out.
If not, then Minnesota takes the Pig.
(And go read that column. Find out the lowdown on Floyd of Rosedale.)
Honestly, having grown up in Iowa City, I was only vaguely aware that we always played Minnesota dead last- no matter what. Gradually, I learned that, like the Cy-Hawk Trophy that Iowa and Iowa State did battle for every year, Iowa and Minnesota did indeed play for a trophy- a pig. Named Floyd of Rosedale.
Yet, honestly, I never got all that geared up for the Minnesota game. Iowa State, on the other hand, was the bitter in-state battle, where we (usually) sent the Cyclones crying into the locker room. Refreshingly, as I got older, the rivalry between ISU and Iowa got a little more evenly-matched, with ISU actually winning one now and again. Which made the game that much more important, every year. I still remembering learning with open-mouthed incredulity that the ROTC Chapters at each University would run the game ball from one campus to the campus where the game was to be played- and its odd, but I recall with strange clarity, the lengthening shadows and deepening twilight one early September, driving down the Coralville Strip, when I saw a ROTC Cadet, staggering with weariness, an escort vehicle discreetly following behind, running the game ball in towards Kinnick Stadium.
Yes, the Iowa State Game was the rivalry of the year for me- and I never really got all that geared up for the Minnesota game- but then, I found this awesome column in the Star Tribune and learned just how exactly Iowa and Minnesota ended up playing for a bronzed pig named Floyd- and more to the point, why they ended up playing for it.
And, having been marked, inevitably, as an 'Iowegian', this has been a week of inevitable gentle proddings, with remarks about 'securing the Southern border' and 'building the fences a little higher!' And diehard Gopher fans recalling the sight of Iowa fans storming the Metrodome field and attempting to take the goalposts out of the revolving doors. I have to smile: those sound like Hawkeye fans to me.
So, what's going to happen in 'Kinnick North' this weekend? (Yeah, that's right, Gopher fans- I said it!) I think it's going to be one for the ages. Minnesota's at home, playing for better bowl positions- Iowa too is playing for bowl pride points and Minnesota is coming off a vicious loss to Wisconsin. All bets, therefore, are off. Minnesota's defense and special teams were porous last weekend against Wisconsin (2 safeties? Really? And you still kept it close?) and their offense has been hampered by the loss of Decker for the season, yet they still have a potent weapon in their crazy-ass, let's lower the shoulder and bust-out-20-yards of a QB, Adam Weber.
Iowa on the other hand, is intent on reducing the fingernails of every fan out there down to the bone- this being the season of nerve-racking nail-biting games, some of which we've lost (Illinois) and some of which we've won (Penn State, YEA BABY!). This is due to the fact that our offense is erratic and our defense rocks. And therein lies the key to the game, I think- if the defense kicks ass and shuts down Weber- and Shon Greene does his thing on offense- and more to the point, our QB doesn't start tossing interceptions left and right, then I think we'll (Iowa) pull it out.
If not, then Minnesota takes the Pig.
(And go read that column. Find out the lowdown on Floyd of Rosedale.)
Vaccines?
Jenny McCarthy was just on Chelsea Lately plugging her book 'Generation Rescue' and pushing her whole 'cleaning up vaccines, less vaccines' thing she's doing to fight autism. (Her son has it.) I honestly don't know enough about autism to make a serious comment, but I have been vaguely aware of the controversy over vaccines that's been growing in recent years (people not wanting to vaccine their kids, people shooting them up with every new fangled vaccine that comes out on the market.)
The Missus and I have had some vague conversations about this, in passing- and I think we've both come down on the notion that we don't want our kids to get anything more than what we got. They're vaccinating for chicken pox now, which strikes me as overkill? What happened to the fun neighborhood parties, where every mother from miles around would send their kids too as soon as word got around that Little Johnny had to the chicken pox. I had it- and I'm fine. I don't see why my kid should get vaccinated for it.
BUT: I think some vaccines are necessary- I don't get parents that refuse to vaccinate their kids at all. I think that's just asking for it, really.
And as for the vaccine-autism connection... again, I just don't know enough to be sure. Autism is so damn complex, from what I know, that Doctors have trouble actually making the correct diagnosis- could their be a link? Maybe. But I think more research- a lot more is warranted to help the medical community actually get a solid handle on autism- because if they have trouble diagnosing it, then they obviously don't have a handle on it yet.
(As an aside, yes I do watch Chelsea Lately. Yes, I'm a guy and yes Chelsea Handler is hot, funny and just plain rocks my face off! Honestly, the best late night program out there- with Conan and Craig Ferguson coming in second and third in my book. If NBC is smart, they'd make her an offer for Conan's slot when he moves up- though she may chafe a little at the stuffy restrictions network television has that cable tends to ignore a but.)
The Missus and I have had some vague conversations about this, in passing- and I think we've both come down on the notion that we don't want our kids to get anything more than what we got. They're vaccinating for chicken pox now, which strikes me as overkill? What happened to the fun neighborhood parties, where every mother from miles around would send their kids too as soon as word got around that Little Johnny had to the chicken pox. I had it- and I'm fine. I don't see why my kid should get vaccinated for it.
BUT: I think some vaccines are necessary- I don't get parents that refuse to vaccinate their kids at all. I think that's just asking for it, really.
And as for the vaccine-autism connection... again, I just don't know enough to be sure. Autism is so damn complex, from what I know, that Doctors have trouble actually making the correct diagnosis- could their be a link? Maybe. But I think more research- a lot more is warranted to help the medical community actually get a solid handle on autism- because if they have trouble diagnosing it, then they obviously don't have a handle on it yet.
(As an aside, yes I do watch Chelsea Lately. Yes, I'm a guy and yes Chelsea Handler is hot, funny and just plain rocks my face off! Honestly, the best late night program out there- with Conan and Craig Ferguson coming in second and third in my book. If NBC is smart, they'd make her an offer for Conan's slot when he moves up- though she may chafe a little at the stuffy restrictions network television has that cable tends to ignore a but.)
Whither Education?
Working for nearly two and a half years back in a public high school has been a unique experience for me. I'm not a teacher and I'm not a student, but rather a security guard, which means I'm at a loose, nebulously defined position in the social fabric of the high school- nark, but cool, bring to the job what I'd like to think is a certain amount of vim and panache.
But it's also given me the rare vantage point of being able to view the public education system a bit more objectively than from the point of view of teachers (underpaid, underappreciated and unionized) or students (bitter, cynical and apathetic). And I think I've come to the conclusion that 'No Child Left Behind' was a spectacular failure, not because it was generally useless- because it was, but due it's stunning lack of imagination behind the idea of educational reform.
It's not the standards that need to be changed- it's the model itself. We've got an industrial-factory model for our high schools that takes students in one end and spits them out the other, supposedly prepared for the challenges of college or life ahead- the 180 day school year calendar is a leftover remnant of the agrarian calendar- which may still be very applicable to rural districts, but no so much in towns like Mankato or Iowa City. So, what to do?
Tentatively, I'd do this:
Phase One: 7th-10th Grade- This is where we should attempt to achieve the mythical status of 'a well-rounded education.' Get all the gen-ed type classes out of the way, with the emphasis of building a knowledge base for further education. 10th Grade should culminate with a comprehensive (including a written part) series of tests to see if you advance into the final two years of high school.
Phase Two: 11th-12th Grade- This is solid, hardcore college prep- and it should be about figuring out what students want to go and where they're going to go. You wouldn't believe the amount of people I run in too who spent whole semesters in college (including me) futzing around trying to figure out what to do. I regret not contemplating that more in high school- and I'm trying to make up for it now, but the emphasis should be designing curriculum to meet the post-high school educational needs of any given student. If you're going to end up at a tech college, why do you need to know stuffy English literature? If you're going to a four year college for a liberal arts degree, then why do you need advanced math? You see where I'm going with this? There should be heavy emphasis on college prep and enough creativity and flex in curriculum to allow for the fact that students may not all be fitting into the mould that the industrial-factory model seems to want to put them in.
Flexibility. Diversity. Creativity.
That's what's called for, I think- but, given the almighty powers of teacher's unions, I doubt it will- but it's nice to see a little bit of diversity here in Minnesota- Farmington might be moving to a trimester system (which is what I'm a product of) and Minneapolis is getting 3 new charter schools.
That said: not sure that pouring more money into the system is going to help. They need it, fo'sure- but we need to rebuild the system itself, instead of just pouring money into it.
But it's also given me the rare vantage point of being able to view the public education system a bit more objectively than from the point of view of teachers (underpaid, underappreciated and unionized) or students (bitter, cynical and apathetic). And I think I've come to the conclusion that 'No Child Left Behind' was a spectacular failure, not because it was generally useless- because it was, but due it's stunning lack of imagination behind the idea of educational reform.
It's not the standards that need to be changed- it's the model itself. We've got an industrial-factory model for our high schools that takes students in one end and spits them out the other, supposedly prepared for the challenges of college or life ahead- the 180 day school year calendar is a leftover remnant of the agrarian calendar- which may still be very applicable to rural districts, but no so much in towns like Mankato or Iowa City. So, what to do?
Tentatively, I'd do this:
Phase One: 7th-10th Grade- This is where we should attempt to achieve the mythical status of 'a well-rounded education.' Get all the gen-ed type classes out of the way, with the emphasis of building a knowledge base for further education. 10th Grade should culminate with a comprehensive (including a written part) series of tests to see if you advance into the final two years of high school.
Phase Two: 11th-12th Grade- This is solid, hardcore college prep- and it should be about figuring out what students want to go and where they're going to go. You wouldn't believe the amount of people I run in too who spent whole semesters in college (including me) futzing around trying to figure out what to do. I regret not contemplating that more in high school- and I'm trying to make up for it now, but the emphasis should be designing curriculum to meet the post-high school educational needs of any given student. If you're going to end up at a tech college, why do you need to know stuffy English literature? If you're going to a four year college for a liberal arts degree, then why do you need advanced math? You see where I'm going with this? There should be heavy emphasis on college prep and enough creativity and flex in curriculum to allow for the fact that students may not all be fitting into the mould that the industrial-factory model seems to want to put them in.
Flexibility. Diversity. Creativity.
That's what's called for, I think- but, given the almighty powers of teacher's unions, I doubt it will- but it's nice to see a little bit of diversity here in Minnesota- Farmington might be moving to a trimester system (which is what I'm a product of) and Minneapolis is getting 3 new charter schools.
That said: not sure that pouring more money into the system is going to help. They need it, fo'sure- but we need to rebuild the system itself, instead of just pouring money into it.
Ramsay, He So Shady!
So I've come to like 'Gordan Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares' on Fox. It's cool, it's gross and Ramsay usually can't go for more than two minutes without something being 'bleeped' out. Nine times out of ten, the turnaround is pretty cool to watch and plus, it's a cooking show, after a fashion, so it's interesting.
Thanks to my flossy, flossy new digital cable, I now have BBC America! (YAY!) And what am I watching- Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, the genial British version! And guess what? I think I saw Ramsay go for about 12 minutes without cussing- not once. The difference between the two shows is like night and day- Ramsay still comes across as a hardcore kind of chef, but it's like he took a valium when he did the British show- he's chiller, mellower- and even provides quiet, introspective narration that's lacking for the more 'in your face' attitude of its American counterpart.
I like this version of the show. I really do- Ramsay doesn't come across a total prick- and his intent to be more of a mentor to struggling restaurants, in a gentler, more guru-like mode is very evident here. Ramsay comes across a professional extraordinaire in the British show- in the American version of the show, he's more like a motivational speaker gone wrong- cussing and yelling and being a blunt instrument, an unstoppable, avalanche-like force of change.
Here, he's more subtle. Instead of swinging the baseball bat, he's playing the violin.
Thanks to my flossy, flossy new digital cable, I now have BBC America! (YAY!) And what am I watching- Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, the genial British version! And guess what? I think I saw Ramsay go for about 12 minutes without cussing- not once. The difference between the two shows is like night and day- Ramsay still comes across as a hardcore kind of chef, but it's like he took a valium when he did the British show- he's chiller, mellower- and even provides quiet, introspective narration that's lacking for the more 'in your face' attitude of its American counterpart.
I like this version of the show. I really do- Ramsay doesn't come across a total prick- and his intent to be more of a mentor to struggling restaurants, in a gentler, more guru-like mode is very evident here. Ramsay comes across a professional extraordinaire in the British show- in the American version of the show, he's more like a motivational speaker gone wrong- cussing and yelling and being a blunt instrument, an unstoppable, avalanche-like force of change.
Here, he's more subtle. Instead of swinging the baseball bat, he's playing the violin.
Awesomeness
Courtesy of Feministing, presenting: The Adipositivity Project.
I approve of this. I myself have taken the notion that since I don't have rippled biceps and a chiseled body, it's unreasonable for me to expect another person/partner in my life to fit into a size 0 just because society says she should. I try and eat right and walk around now and again- that's really all I can reasonably ask the Missus to do, in my book. And I think getting thin 'just because that's what society wants' is stupid- do it to get healthy, do it because you want too, do it to be fit- I don't know- but the point is, you should be getting on the weight loss wagon because you want too, not out of some weird desire to conform to what society believes is beauty.
And I think projects like this one are an important first step: if you're ok with you, then the choice to step on the weight-loss wagon is a lot clearer than if you're not ok with you. Plus, I think people should be able to find beauty in themselves no matter who they are or what they look like. I think that's important for everyone as human beings.
I approve of this. I myself have taken the notion that since I don't have rippled biceps and a chiseled body, it's unreasonable for me to expect another person/partner in my life to fit into a size 0 just because society says she should. I try and eat right and walk around now and again- that's really all I can reasonably ask the Missus to do, in my book. And I think getting thin 'just because that's what society wants' is stupid- do it to get healthy, do it because you want too, do it to be fit- I don't know- but the point is, you should be getting on the weight loss wagon because you want too, not out of some weird desire to conform to what society believes is beauty.
And I think projects like this one are an important first step: if you're ok with you, then the choice to step on the weight-loss wagon is a lot clearer than if you're not ok with you. Plus, I think people should be able to find beauty in themselves no matter who they are or what they look like. I think that's important for everyone as human beings.
Recount
And then there were 2: Senator Ted Stevens officially conceded to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich today in the Alaska Senate race- there's a runoff between Saxby Chamblis and Jim Martin in Georgia yet to be decided- and they've started the recount here in Minnesota.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Maybe it's general nostalgia, maybe it's a desire to nerd out before the new Trek movie comes out, but I thought I'd take a walk down memory lane and walk through Trekdom once again- in order and chronologically, dipping my feet into the television shows now and again as well. And, courtesy of Netflix, I started at the beginning, with Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Directed by Hollywood Veteran Robert Wise and written by noted science fiction author Alan Dean Foster,(with another noted science fiction master, Isaac Asimov as science consultant.) I recall Star Trek: TMP (or Star Trek 1) as one of the strangest, weirdest and generally oddest of all the Trek films. I think there's a tendency to view it as a weird abberation of some kind, but I think it deserves fresh consideration. In the context of the late 1970s, Star Trek 1 is a fine example of the design, mood and aesthetic of science fiction films at the time. If you watch it again, closely, you can see shades of Blade Runner and Alien- as well as overtones of such science fiction cheese as 'Logan's Run' or even a little of 'Fantastic Voyage' and '2001' Star Trek 1 fits into its era perfectly, maybe in a retro-cheesy type of way, but it fits nonetheless.
To me, what I think is overlooked about Star Trek 1 is that it's one of the only films where the crew of the Enterprise actually encounters something really and truly alien. Even though the special effects feel anachronistic today, there is
no denying that V'Ger itself is one surreal head trip of a piece of art- and in no other Trek movie do you feel that the Enterprise is actually exploring, really and truly encountering something alien. Sure, they interact with aliens, but all of it has a remarkably hum-drum feel about it. They run into Klingons every other bloody day. This whole wacky V'Ger thing on the other hand is something totally unknown and alien- and that fits with the 'exploration' ethos that Trek originally was about. The film itself vibrates with the fears and dangers of stepping into the unknown. The crew feels it from the word go in Star Trek 1, when Uhura, upon hearing the news that Kirk has taken command once again of the Enterprise remarks that their chances of coming back have just doubled.
As for the characters, they shine nicely. Stephen Collins provides the first connection to 7th Heaven playing the shoved aside Captain, Decker, whom Kirk rather douchily shoves aside so he can get his precious Enterprise back- and Collins
plays nicely off of his character's conflict with Kirk as well as his reunion with lost love Illea, played (with the apparent knowledge that she is probably doomed forever to be an obscure pop culture reference- by Persis Khambatta.) This relationship is a curious precursor to the similar 'past history' shared by Deanna Troi and Riker in TNG. As for the crew well, Kirk, Spock and Bones once again snap back into their familiar trifecta at the heart of Trek: Kirk eagerly back in command and bristling at resentment for being stuck in a desk job as an Admiral. Spock, having resigned from Starfleet to try and purge his emotions back on Vulcan is searching for answers to his inner duality of being Vulcan and human. Bones, as usual, provides his function of essentially saying 'Double-You-Tee-Eff, Man!' whenever Kirk or Spock do something insanely wacky.
The movie climaxes with an ending that some might consider to be truly lame- after all the epic special effects and the mystery, one might left thinking: 'What? Really?' but in the end, it works: it is plausible, believable and ultimately, the entire movie stands as an exploration of the unknown- which is what Trek is about. And afterall if you're living in the future and flying around with aliens and starships, then it's going to take something truly trippy to seem totally alien to all of you.
I think the legacy of Stark Trek 1 is a mixed one: it's pretty trippy, but that was science fiction at the time. The full effects of glorious space opera propelled by Star Wars had not yet been reflected fully on the genre- but really, the opportunity
presented by Star Trek 1 was ultimately a missed one- this movie feels differently from all of the others because it fits its time period (the late 70s) perfectly- even down to the muted colors of the uniforms- if Trek would have evolved with the times, the franchise could have unfolded in a far different manner than how it originally did.
Directed by Hollywood Veteran Robert Wise and written by noted science fiction author Alan Dean Foster,(with another noted science fiction master, Isaac Asimov as science consultant.) I recall Star Trek: TMP (or Star Trek 1) as one of the strangest, weirdest and generally oddest of all the Trek films. I think there's a tendency to view it as a weird abberation of some kind, but I think it deserves fresh consideration. In the context of the late 1970s, Star Trek 1 is a fine example of the design, mood and aesthetic of science fiction films at the time. If you watch it again, closely, you can see shades of Blade Runner and Alien- as well as overtones of such science fiction cheese as 'Logan's Run' or even a little of 'Fantastic Voyage' and '2001' Star Trek 1 fits into its era perfectly, maybe in a retro-cheesy type of way, but it fits nonetheless.
To me, what I think is overlooked about Star Trek 1 is that it's one of the only films where the crew of the Enterprise actually encounters something really and truly alien. Even though the special effects feel anachronistic today, there is
no denying that V'Ger itself is one surreal head trip of a piece of art- and in no other Trek movie do you feel that the Enterprise is actually exploring, really and truly encountering something alien. Sure, they interact with aliens, but all of it has a remarkably hum-drum feel about it. They run into Klingons every other bloody day. This whole wacky V'Ger thing on the other hand is something totally unknown and alien- and that fits with the 'exploration' ethos that Trek originally was about. The film itself vibrates with the fears and dangers of stepping into the unknown. The crew feels it from the word go in Star Trek 1, when Uhura, upon hearing the news that Kirk has taken command once again of the Enterprise remarks that their chances of coming back have just doubled.
As for the characters, they shine nicely. Stephen Collins provides the first connection to 7th Heaven playing the shoved aside Captain, Decker, whom Kirk rather douchily shoves aside so he can get his precious Enterprise back- and Collins
plays nicely off of his character's conflict with Kirk as well as his reunion with lost love Illea, played (with the apparent knowledge that she is probably doomed forever to be an obscure pop culture reference- by Persis Khambatta.) This relationship is a curious precursor to the similar 'past history' shared by Deanna Troi and Riker in TNG. As for the crew well, Kirk, Spock and Bones once again snap back into their familiar trifecta at the heart of Trek: Kirk eagerly back in command and bristling at resentment for being stuck in a desk job as an Admiral. Spock, having resigned from Starfleet to try and purge his emotions back on Vulcan is searching for answers to his inner duality of being Vulcan and human. Bones, as usual, provides his function of essentially saying 'Double-You-Tee-Eff, Man!' whenever Kirk or Spock do something insanely wacky.
The movie climaxes with an ending that some might consider to be truly lame- after all the epic special effects and the mystery, one might left thinking: 'What? Really?' but in the end, it works: it is plausible, believable and ultimately, the entire movie stands as an exploration of the unknown- which is what Trek is about. And afterall if you're living in the future and flying around with aliens and starships, then it's going to take something truly trippy to seem totally alien to all of you.
I think the legacy of Stark Trek 1 is a mixed one: it's pretty trippy, but that was science fiction at the time. The full effects of glorious space opera propelled by Star Wars had not yet been reflected fully on the genre- but really, the opportunity
presented by Star Trek 1 was ultimately a missed one- this movie feels differently from all of the others because it fits its time period (the late 70s) perfectly- even down to the muted colors of the uniforms- if Trek would have evolved with the times, the franchise could have unfolded in a far different manner than how it originally did.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Auto Bailouts?
Bailout for the auto industry? Nope. Won't do it- won't support it. I wasn't wild about the first one and that's turning into fun and games. And I'm tired of socialism for corporations and rich people while the rest of us go hang. It's not that I'm unsympathetic to the idea of all those people (and there are a lot) losing their jobs just in time for Christmas- it's just that I think a bailout delays the inevitable more than anything else.
People say: it's the Unions. Well, that could be true- but it's not the whole problem. Yes, the big 3 pay about $73 per worker per car as a posed to about $48 from other companies, so there's a disparity- (those are the numbers I have seen) but if your product sucks, then you can cut union benefits to a dollar and it won't make the difference in the situation.
We bailed out the airlines after 9-11 and now prices are going up, smaller airlines are going bankrupt and bigger ones are consolidating. Let the Big 3 drop- and if we're going to pony up $25 billion, let's use it to put those soon to be unemployed autoworkers back to work doing something. Whether it's job retraining or infrastructure projects. I'd much rather the money go to that than to companies everyone is pretty much sure are going to go under anyway.
I don't know. It's hard to be totally indifferent to all of those jobs potentially lost and the people that have them, but these struggles in the auto industry have been going on for quite some time and they don't seem to be willing to change all that much. Other major industries (as David Brooks pointed out in his column) have gone through bankruptcy and adjusted. Perhaps the auto industry should as well- but again, I find myself hampered by my lack of knowledge about the field of economics, so it's hard to say what's right and what's the best thing to do.
People say: it's the Unions. Well, that could be true- but it's not the whole problem. Yes, the big 3 pay about $73 per worker per car as a posed to about $48 from other companies, so there's a disparity- (those are the numbers I have seen) but if your product sucks, then you can cut union benefits to a dollar and it won't make the difference in the situation.
We bailed out the airlines after 9-11 and now prices are going up, smaller airlines are going bankrupt and bigger ones are consolidating. Let the Big 3 drop- and if we're going to pony up $25 billion, let's use it to put those soon to be unemployed autoworkers back to work doing something. Whether it's job retraining or infrastructure projects. I'd much rather the money go to that than to companies everyone is pretty much sure are going to go under anyway.
I don't know. It's hard to be totally indifferent to all of those jobs potentially lost and the people that have them, but these struggles in the auto industry have been going on for quite some time and they don't seem to be willing to change all that much. Other major industries (as David Brooks pointed out in his column) have gone through bankruptcy and adjusted. Perhaps the auto industry should as well- but again, I find myself hampered by my lack of knowledge about the field of economics, so it's hard to say what's right and what's the best thing to do.
Beam Me Up!
I am so ready for this movie. SO READY! Star Trek has long been in need of a set of fresh eyes and a total reboot and looking at this trailer, I think there's a very decent chance that J.J. Abrams may have worked his mojo again and done something that could be beyond kick-ass. Everybody looks perfect: Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto of 'Heroes' fame as Spock, Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu! Hell, even the almost unrecognizable Eric Bana as the villain Nero. It just looks so damn good!
One tiny little quibble though: The World knows (and if it doesn't, then it's about too) that James T. Kirk was born in the town of Riverside, IA and grew up there. I'm willing to allow for a suspension of a certain amount of disbelief, but having grown up not 20 minutes from Riverside, I'm hard pressed to think of a gigantic gaping hole in the Earth akin to the one that Kirk's car gets flung into in the opening moments of the trailer.
However: this is what? The 23rd Century, I believe- and I'm willing to allow for the fact that enterprising Iowans might have gone out to the stars and taken their ag skills with them, hence, the lack of copious amounts of corn on the landscape. And Kirk's gaping chasm looks fairly artificial in nature. But all in all, it didn't scream 'Iowa' to me. But for one tiny little quibble, it's not that big of a deal- I'll admit. Just my inner nerd alarm going off.
As for Star Trek: this is really long overdue. I wasn't sure about the decision to make a prequel, hoping instead that Trek would mine it's most creatively fertile territory (Deep Space Nine) for future movies. But having kept half an eye on this movie and seen the casting in action, I think it was the right move. Everything that I see in this trailer seems so new and different and yet so familiar at the same time- in other words, the potentially perfect combination to bring new fans to the franchise and keep the old ones on board.
I'm sure there will be die-hard Trekkers that nit-pick this movie to death- but rest assured, I'm not one of them. I grew up on the movies, flirted with 'The Next Generation' but really fell in love with Trek when I started seriously watch 'Deep Space Nine.' A darker, more dystopian view of the future, DS9 wrestles with political, moral and philosophical questions untouched by most other incarnations of Trek- and while not as grandiose or epic as the other 'space station' show, 'Babylon Five', to me, Deep Space Nine represents the high point of Star Trek.
'Voyager' wasn't all bad- but they should have had the sense to stop after that, and 'Enterprise' just seemed like something we had seen before over and over again- and came close to riding the franchise right off of the cliff. Fresh eyes, fresh thinking and fresh creativity were all called for- and Abrams and Company looked to have delivered just that.
(Though I'm not above hoping for maybe a TV movie or two tying up or revisiting some DS9 and Voyager story lines- provided, of course, that they don't overdo that idea as well.)
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Drivel
Well, I wonder what the StarTrib pays Katharine Kersten for her columns. I hope it's a lot, because if she can make a drivel off columns like these, I wanna piece of that. Because I know damn well I can write better columns than that- and make more entertaining points than her retro-grade reactionary whiny crap does.
Case in point: a meandering attempt of a hit job on 'Sex and The City' citing a Rand study that claims that teenage girls who are exposed to sexual situations on television are more likely to succumb to teenage pregnancy. First of all: I don't have kids. (Not yet, anyway) but I do work in a high school, so I get to see teenage girls in their natural social habitat (kinda like the Crocodile Hunter, but it can be a lot more dangerous. For reelz.) And believe me, I seriously doubt that 'Sex and The City' is the greatest problem facing teenage girls- or teenagers in general.
Second of all: Kersten misses the point, as always. For all her meandering points, she fails to latch on too the main point: in a culture increasingly inclined towards pushing away consequences of any kind, where do the parents fit in? I was blessed with parents that had a truly no bullshit kind of approach to raising us kids, believing until I was about in high school that books were far better than television. For all her whining about the permissiveness portrayed on 'Sex and The City', Kersten doesn't answer that question. If parents don't like what they see on television, why not turn the TV off? And what are your teenagers doing watching 'Sex and the City' to begin with? Kersten warns that such attempts at actually being a parent may lead to 'tears and heartache' and being called 'the meanest mom in the world.' The response o f any parent worth a damn would be and should be: 'So what?' And again, the real question should be: 'what is your teenage daughter doing watching 'Sex and the City' anyway?'
Third of all: In defense of a show that nicely turns the tables on men and portrays them as weird accessories in the orbits of these women (refreshing, since that's what women are often-times consigned too in movies and pop culture) Kersten latches on to the character of Samantha Jones as her target- and maybe rightfully so. Jones is the hedonistic one of the bunch, preferring to be footloose and fancy free, but there are three other characters that portray very different examples and avenues for teenage girls to potentially latch on to. Charlotte searches for the storybook romance and happy ending. Carrie for love. Miranda for a balance between career and dating. There are different facets of the female experience on display in 'Sex and the City'- not all of which are necessarily horrible examples for teenage girls.
(Yes, its very sad that I know that much about 'Sex and the City', but the wife won't tolerate a Netflix cue full of random science-fiction shows, so yeah, I've sat through it like a good husband.)
In the end though, Kersten herself commits the crime she is deploring: by shifting her target to a television show and composing another tiresome screed about the evil influences of pop culture on America's youth, she misses the real target: what are parents doing about this? Only parents can set good examples. Only parents can turn off the television- and instead of the tired old chestnut of ranting against the television how about a plea for the parents of America to act a little more like parents and not join the lamentable national trend of pushing consequences away.
Case in point: a meandering attempt of a hit job on 'Sex and The City' citing a Rand study that claims that teenage girls who are exposed to sexual situations on television are more likely to succumb to teenage pregnancy. First of all: I don't have kids. (Not yet, anyway) but I do work in a high school, so I get to see teenage girls in their natural social habitat (kinda like the Crocodile Hunter, but it can be a lot more dangerous. For reelz.) And believe me, I seriously doubt that 'Sex and The City' is the greatest problem facing teenage girls- or teenagers in general.
Second of all: Kersten misses the point, as always. For all her meandering points, she fails to latch on too the main point: in a culture increasingly inclined towards pushing away consequences of any kind, where do the parents fit in? I was blessed with parents that had a truly no bullshit kind of approach to raising us kids, believing until I was about in high school that books were far better than television. For all her whining about the permissiveness portrayed on 'Sex and The City', Kersten doesn't answer that question. If parents don't like what they see on television, why not turn the TV off? And what are your teenagers doing watching 'Sex and the City' to begin with? Kersten warns that such attempts at actually being a parent may lead to 'tears and heartache' and being called 'the meanest mom in the world.' The response o f any parent worth a damn would be and should be: 'So what?' And again, the real question should be: 'what is your teenage daughter doing watching 'Sex and the City' anyway?'
Third of all: In defense of a show that nicely turns the tables on men and portrays them as weird accessories in the orbits of these women (refreshing, since that's what women are often-times consigned too in movies and pop culture) Kersten latches on to the character of Samantha Jones as her target- and maybe rightfully so. Jones is the hedonistic one of the bunch, preferring to be footloose and fancy free, but there are three other characters that portray very different examples and avenues for teenage girls to potentially latch on to. Charlotte searches for the storybook romance and happy ending. Carrie for love. Miranda for a balance between career and dating. There are different facets of the female experience on display in 'Sex and the City'- not all of which are necessarily horrible examples for teenage girls.
(Yes, its very sad that I know that much about 'Sex and the City', but the wife won't tolerate a Netflix cue full of random science-fiction shows, so yeah, I've sat through it like a good husband.)
In the end though, Kersten herself commits the crime she is deploring: by shifting her target to a television show and composing another tiresome screed about the evil influences of pop culture on America's youth, she misses the real target: what are parents doing about this? Only parents can set good examples. Only parents can turn off the television- and instead of the tired old chestnut of ranting against the television how about a plea for the parents of America to act a little more like parents and not join the lamentable national trend of pushing consequences away.
Reality Shows and Property Taxes
I have a small confession to make- and I make this confession feeling totally secure in my manhood- but 'Extreme Makeover: Home Edition' usually makes me cry. Primarily because they always dig up the most deserving families- who genuinely do need the help and do mind-blowing things to houses sorely in need of repair.
But looking at tonight's episode, I have to wonder about something: what happens afterwards? Tonight, they've taken a family of 13 from a shoebox to a properly sized house- and here's the kicker: they tripled the size! I am no accountant, by any stretch of the imagination, but I would imagine if you triple the size, you'd probably triple the taxes as well. I mean, I don't know- how does one calculate property taxes? And if these families needed the help beforehand, how do they handle dealing with these incredible new houses over the long term, especially given the trouble we're having with the housing market right now. Do this family get a new mortgage? Are they on the hook for the old mortgage? How does this work? Do the property taxes go up? Do they stay the same?
I'm sure someone has already looked into this, but it's curious. And I wonder what kind of a message this is sending in today's economy. I mean none of these families seem to stop and say: 'how the heck are we gonna afford this?' Maybe they hold back from that while the cameras are on- but it'd be interesting to see a journalist track down some of these families and see what's really going on.
Someone call Geraldo.
But looking at tonight's episode, I have to wonder about something: what happens afterwards? Tonight, they've taken a family of 13 from a shoebox to a properly sized house- and here's the kicker: they tripled the size! I am no accountant, by any stretch of the imagination, but I would imagine if you triple the size, you'd probably triple the taxes as well. I mean, I don't know- how does one calculate property taxes? And if these families needed the help beforehand, how do they handle dealing with these incredible new houses over the long term, especially given the trouble we're having with the housing market right now. Do this family get a new mortgage? Are they on the hook for the old mortgage? How does this work? Do the property taxes go up? Do they stay the same?
I'm sure someone has already looked into this, but it's curious. And I wonder what kind of a message this is sending in today's economy. I mean none of these families seem to stop and say: 'how the heck are we gonna afford this?' Maybe they hold back from that while the cameras are on- but it'd be interesting to see a journalist track down some of these families and see what's really going on.
Someone call Geraldo.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Feminism and Bond
When watching one of the most popular movie franchises out there, there's always one glaringly obvious fault looming in the world of 007 and that is the cack-handed and frankly dispiriting portrayals of women for the vast majority of the time.
Watching Bond himself, one has to be torn- either he's an asshole or a man-whore when it comes to women- and its very easy to make arguments in either direction. If he's an asshole, it's because he's a spy and he can't afford to have friends. He lives a life of danger and excitement, so sex merely becomes another form of recreation, something he can do with no attachments (again, hardcore spy) and no emotional connection whatsoever (can't have that if you're going to go shoot bad guys.) Therefore, Bond is perpetually doomed to forever 'love them and leave them.' It's just the hard truth about being a spy.
On the other hand, he could just be a man-whore. Not yet having invented an equivalent word to describe 'slut' or 'whore' solely for men,(we're waiting for the memo to come down from Feminism HQ. Get on that!) we're forced to use an amalgamation: man-whore. And Bond fits the bill pretty well: he had one true love early on (Vesper Lynd) who betrayed him- and he was married once (Teressa Di Vincenzo)- and she was killed. So if you like, everyone he's ever tried to love has either died or betrayed him, which therefore makes him a cold, lonely man, trying to exorcise his ghosts by getting on every woman he sees. Man-whorish? You betcha. Still kind of a prick? Absolutely.
The character's vagaries aside, the sad fact of the matter is that even in this modern age- and even with a recent 'reboot' of the franchise, Bond filmmakers have been woefully unimaginative in their portrayal of female characters- and it's more than a little irritating. Consider the names: Honey Ryder (Dr. No), Pussy Galore (Goldfinger), Dr. Holly Goodhead (Moonraker), Octopussy (Octopussy), Christmas Jones (The World is Not Enough)- double entendres abound- and not all of them are fun and what you would consider to be suitably pro-feminist. Do they have to be? Well, not always- but it'd be nice to see James Bond have honest to god, kick you in the balls, go head to head with you type of women to bounce off of instead of some of the portrayals that the Bond series has flung up.
In her defense, Pussy Galore was a tough cookie, even though she did fall prey to Bond's charms. Holly Goodhead was in Moonraker, so we can probably forgive her name, given how roundly awful Moonraker was. Octopussy was a surprisingly good movie, though for a character who runs a crew of female assassins, Octopussy herself proves to be almost jello-like in her response to the bad guys, being flung around the room and wilting under a decent amount of pressure from a bad henchman. Christmas Jones ruined an entire movie, given that her character was invented solely for a predictable, one-line, end of the movie joke you can see coming a mile and a half away. Women in Bond tend to be glamorous accessories for Bond rather than actual adversaries and although strictly within Bond canon and part of the old 'formula' of guns, explosions and woman making a good Bond movie- it'd be nice to see well-developed female characters that actually challenge Bond instead of putting up token resistance before inevitably tumbling into bed with him.
And here's the kicker: it's not all bad for Bond. Grace Jones in 'A View To A Kill' provides Bond with an ass-kicking as well as some remarkably muscular sex. Bond appropriately marries Tracy DiVincenzo in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' and she's more than perfect for him. But it isn't until the post-Goldeneye era of Bond that we see some true three dimensional female character emerge into the world of Bond:
1. M: What a brilliant twist, casting the new M as Judi Dench with her steely resolve and unimpressed attitude with 007. There's always a glint in M's eye that tells us that she can and will squish Bond like a bug if he pisses her off too much. But Bond knows this and keeps getting the job done, even if he isn't always neat about it.
2. Elektra King: Sophie Morceau in 'The World Is Not Enough' probably ranks as one of the best Bond Girls EVER. Seriously now- what a brilliant, mind-messing twist they pull with this movie- making the pretty girl the villain? What a thing to do to Bond and Sophie Morceau knows it and plays the role beautifully to a hilt. And it's fun to see Bond struggle with it.
3. Colonel Lin: Michelle Yeoh in 'Tomorrow Never Dies' was probably the true equal of Bond. Fellow spy, has her own moves, her own country and proves herself quite capable of kicking his ass if she chooses too. In my opinion, she should have left him floating on that debris at the end of the movie and vanished into the night. The fact that they ended up necking on the debris never really sat all that well with me.
4. Vesper Lynd: Eva Green is even better than Michelle Yeoh in 'Casino Royale.' She reads Bond like a book, finds his weak points and exploits them- and they bounce nicely of each other and the chemistry between them right leads to a romance, but its not the typical 'OH JAMES!' and fall into bed romance. Not with this lady, Bond has to earn it with her. And he does.
5. Miranda Frost: 'Die Another Day'. Not only is Rosamund Pike HOT, but she once again messes with Bond's head by sleeping with him and being even more cold-blooded about it than he usually is by handing him straight over to the bad guys. A fencer, she provides a slightly anachronistic, but sexy villain.
The low points:
1. Tanya Roberts: 'A View To A Kill': You'd think that someone who'd been a 'Charlie's Angel' would know how to be a little more ass-kicking and hold her own better than this, but no... she draws a gun on him, but aside from that just seems fairly blonde and stereotypical, which is a shame. Her heart-rending screams when she's trapped in an elevator on fire are cringe-inducing. Of course, if the elevator's on fire, feel free to call to help- but don't just huddle in the corner and scream for a man! Have a little gumption about it, please.
2. Christmas Jones: 'The World Is Not Enough': Denise Richards came close to ruining this entire movie. For a start, it's pretty obvious that the choice of name is deliberate and will undoubtedly lead to a cringe-inducing double entendre- but really- what makes her a credible nuclear physicist? Really? We shouldn't judge a book by her cover, but really? Denise Richards, atomic scientist? No one can buy that one.
3. Bibi the Skater: 'For Your Eyes Only': Again, came close to ruining the entire movie. Her older counterpart, Melina Havelock is out for revenge, hot and wanting to kill someone- so she's got some motivation. But Bibi- or Phoebe or whatever her name is just seems like a random piece of teenage jailbait designed to tempt Bond. To his credit, Roger Moore actually has James Bond do the right thing and not think with his dick- primarily because she's just kind of annoying.
4. Strawberry Fields: 'Quantam of Solace': WHAT? WHY? Gemma Atherton might have turned this character into something, but just doesn't have the room to work with it at all. She shows up in a flasher coat and boots (that seems to scream: 'HEY I'M GONNA HAVE SEX WITH YOU', which she does in short order.) and speaks with this weird, clipped, I'm a nerdy librarian type of way. The one black mark on 'Quantam of Solace' I would have liked to see this character actually do something other than have sex with bond.
5. Jinx: 'Die Another Day': Halle Berry's much bally-hooed turn as a Bond Girl falls flat to me. All over the place. I mean, OK, she's an agent and I suppose she hold her own, but once again, jarringly, she ends up sleeping with him. Bit of a flat disappointment- compounded by the random appearance of Madonna.
But all in all, quite unlike vodka and vermouth, Bond and strong women don't really go all that well together. The franchise makes some brave attempts now and again to really get a good solid female character going, but sadly, they're few and far between. There are, I think, a solid place for really strong women in the Bond canon- we just need writers willing to invest the time into making female characters in Bond work- and work well.
Watching Bond himself, one has to be torn- either he's an asshole or a man-whore when it comes to women- and its very easy to make arguments in either direction. If he's an asshole, it's because he's a spy and he can't afford to have friends. He lives a life of danger and excitement, so sex merely becomes another form of recreation, something he can do with no attachments (again, hardcore spy) and no emotional connection whatsoever (can't have that if you're going to go shoot bad guys.) Therefore, Bond is perpetually doomed to forever 'love them and leave them.' It's just the hard truth about being a spy.
On the other hand, he could just be a man-whore. Not yet having invented an equivalent word to describe 'slut' or 'whore' solely for men,(we're waiting for the memo to come down from Feminism HQ. Get on that!) we're forced to use an amalgamation: man-whore. And Bond fits the bill pretty well: he had one true love early on (Vesper Lynd) who betrayed him- and he was married once (Teressa Di Vincenzo)- and she was killed. So if you like, everyone he's ever tried to love has either died or betrayed him, which therefore makes him a cold, lonely man, trying to exorcise his ghosts by getting on every woman he sees. Man-whorish? You betcha. Still kind of a prick? Absolutely.
The character's vagaries aside, the sad fact of the matter is that even in this modern age- and even with a recent 'reboot' of the franchise, Bond filmmakers have been woefully unimaginative in their portrayal of female characters- and it's more than a little irritating. Consider the names: Honey Ryder (Dr. No), Pussy Galore (Goldfinger), Dr. Holly Goodhead (Moonraker), Octopussy (Octopussy), Christmas Jones (The World is Not Enough)- double entendres abound- and not all of them are fun and what you would consider to be suitably pro-feminist. Do they have to be? Well, not always- but it'd be nice to see James Bond have honest to god, kick you in the balls, go head to head with you type of women to bounce off of instead of some of the portrayals that the Bond series has flung up.
In her defense, Pussy Galore was a tough cookie, even though she did fall prey to Bond's charms. Holly Goodhead was in Moonraker, so we can probably forgive her name, given how roundly awful Moonraker was. Octopussy was a surprisingly good movie, though for a character who runs a crew of female assassins, Octopussy herself proves to be almost jello-like in her response to the bad guys, being flung around the room and wilting under a decent amount of pressure from a bad henchman. Christmas Jones ruined an entire movie, given that her character was invented solely for a predictable, one-line, end of the movie joke you can see coming a mile and a half away. Women in Bond tend to be glamorous accessories for Bond rather than actual adversaries and although strictly within Bond canon and part of the old 'formula' of guns, explosions and woman making a good Bond movie- it'd be nice to see well-developed female characters that actually challenge Bond instead of putting up token resistance before inevitably tumbling into bed with him.
And here's the kicker: it's not all bad for Bond. Grace Jones in 'A View To A Kill' provides Bond with an ass-kicking as well as some remarkably muscular sex. Bond appropriately marries Tracy DiVincenzo in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' and she's more than perfect for him. But it isn't until the post-Goldeneye era of Bond that we see some true three dimensional female character emerge into the world of Bond:
1. M: What a brilliant twist, casting the new M as Judi Dench with her steely resolve and unimpressed attitude with 007. There's always a glint in M's eye that tells us that she can and will squish Bond like a bug if he pisses her off too much. But Bond knows this and keeps getting the job done, even if he isn't always neat about it.
2. Elektra King: Sophie Morceau in 'The World Is Not Enough' probably ranks as one of the best Bond Girls EVER. Seriously now- what a brilliant, mind-messing twist they pull with this movie- making the pretty girl the villain? What a thing to do to Bond and Sophie Morceau knows it and plays the role beautifully to a hilt. And it's fun to see Bond struggle with it.
3. Colonel Lin: Michelle Yeoh in 'Tomorrow Never Dies' was probably the true equal of Bond. Fellow spy, has her own moves, her own country and proves herself quite capable of kicking his ass if she chooses too. In my opinion, she should have left him floating on that debris at the end of the movie and vanished into the night. The fact that they ended up necking on the debris never really sat all that well with me.
4. Vesper Lynd: Eva Green is even better than Michelle Yeoh in 'Casino Royale.' She reads Bond like a book, finds his weak points and exploits them- and they bounce nicely of each other and the chemistry between them right leads to a romance, but its not the typical 'OH JAMES!' and fall into bed romance. Not with this lady, Bond has to earn it with her. And he does.
5. Miranda Frost: 'Die Another Day'. Not only is Rosamund Pike HOT, but she once again messes with Bond's head by sleeping with him and being even more cold-blooded about it than he usually is by handing him straight over to the bad guys. A fencer, she provides a slightly anachronistic, but sexy villain.
The low points:
1. Tanya Roberts: 'A View To A Kill': You'd think that someone who'd been a 'Charlie's Angel' would know how to be a little more ass-kicking and hold her own better than this, but no... she draws a gun on him, but aside from that just seems fairly blonde and stereotypical, which is a shame. Her heart-rending screams when she's trapped in an elevator on fire are cringe-inducing. Of course, if the elevator's on fire, feel free to call to help- but don't just huddle in the corner and scream for a man! Have a little gumption about it, please.
2. Christmas Jones: 'The World Is Not Enough': Denise Richards came close to ruining this entire movie. For a start, it's pretty obvious that the choice of name is deliberate and will undoubtedly lead to a cringe-inducing double entendre- but really- what makes her a credible nuclear physicist? Really? We shouldn't judge a book by her cover, but really? Denise Richards, atomic scientist? No one can buy that one.
3. Bibi the Skater: 'For Your Eyes Only': Again, came close to ruining the entire movie. Her older counterpart, Melina Havelock is out for revenge, hot and wanting to kill someone- so she's got some motivation. But Bibi- or Phoebe or whatever her name is just seems like a random piece of teenage jailbait designed to tempt Bond. To his credit, Roger Moore actually has James Bond do the right thing and not think with his dick- primarily because she's just kind of annoying.
4. Strawberry Fields: 'Quantam of Solace': WHAT? WHY? Gemma Atherton might have turned this character into something, but just doesn't have the room to work with it at all. She shows up in a flasher coat and boots (that seems to scream: 'HEY I'M GONNA HAVE SEX WITH YOU', which she does in short order.) and speaks with this weird, clipped, I'm a nerdy librarian type of way. The one black mark on 'Quantam of Solace' I would have liked to see this character actually do something other than have sex with bond.
5. Jinx: 'Die Another Day': Halle Berry's much bally-hooed turn as a Bond Girl falls flat to me. All over the place. I mean, OK, she's an agent and I suppose she hold her own, but once again, jarringly, she ends up sleeping with him. Bit of a flat disappointment- compounded by the random appearance of Madonna.
But all in all, quite unlike vodka and vermouth, Bond and strong women don't really go all that well together. The franchise makes some brave attempts now and again to really get a good solid female character going, but sadly, they're few and far between. There are, I think, a solid place for really strong women in the Bond canon- we just need writers willing to invest the time into making female characters in Bond work- and work well.
Quantam of Solace
I don't know what movie reviewers base their reviews on, but they were very off base when it came to 'Quantam of Solace.' In the Bond Canon, it was certainly in the upper echelon- nowhere near the excremental glory of 'Moonraker' (the low point against which all Bond movies, in my opinion, should be judged.) However, I think I figured out what threw everyone off:
It's a sequel. The first in Bond history, for it follows more or less directly along from the events of 'Casino Royale.' This, I think throws people- because 'Quantam of Solace' starts with a bang and for a good first quarter of the movie, acts like it's a movie with no time to waste! And why should it? There's an assumption made that we, the viewer already kind of know what's going on- and why should the movie-makers assume anything else? I certainly had seen 'Casino Royale' and I certainly knew what was up. By the time Bond reaches a pivotal set-piece action scene in an Austrian Opera House, set to a weirdly, gloriously strange staging of Puccini's Tosca, the movie really begins to sing- especially when you realize what exactly is going on at the Opera House in question- (and no, they're not watching Opera.)
Once going, 'Quantam of Solace' proved itself to be an eminently worthy sequel to 'Casino Royale'- I've seen reviewers object to Daniel Craig's supposed 'lack of personality' for the character, but I think again, we're used to debonair wit with our Bonds, while Craig, having 'rebooted' the franchise is still piecing the character together, moving it towards that veneer of debonair wit hiding a quietly brutal spy that we've become so familiar with. Reviewers object to the fact that 'Bond just drinks randomly and doesn't care how his drinks are mixed.' (Again, watch a MOVIE! Bond knows exactly what he's drinking- and why he's drinking so much of them.) By putting 'Quantam of Solace' in its context as a sequel to 'Casino Royale', everything makes perfect sense.
Where once again, Bond fails me is with the horrifically bad female characters. This was the only major disappointment about 'Quantam of Solace' to me- after Eva Green's stunning portrayal of Vesper Lynd in 'Casino Royale' (one of the best Bond Ladies EVER!) It was a disappointment to see Gemma Atherton and Olga Kurylenko be given such dregs of exposition to work with. Atherton storms into the movie wearing high boots and a coat more often associated with dirty old male flashers in a park somewhere and, despite constructing a nicely clipped 'librarian'/nerd girl persona with what little she's got to work with is essentially reduced to being Bond's 'pussy' for the movie. Which is idiotic. As Bond Girl performances go, it would have been nice to see Atherton given some room to run- but since she wasn't, it was just a mess. Not a Denise Richards as 'Christmas Jones' type of a mess, but a mess none the less.
I have less objections to Kurylenko- she was no Michelle Yeoh (another excellent Bond Girl, who inexplicably sleeps with Bond at the end of 'Tomorrow Never Dies')- but she held her own, had her own story and motivations and actually manages not to have sex with James Bond.
But all in all, don't believe the reviewers! Quantam of Solace is worth going to, worth watching and an all round excellent movie. A worthy addition to the Bond franchise.
It's a sequel. The first in Bond history, for it follows more or less directly along from the events of 'Casino Royale.' This, I think throws people- because 'Quantam of Solace' starts with a bang and for a good first quarter of the movie, acts like it's a movie with no time to waste! And why should it? There's an assumption made that we, the viewer already kind of know what's going on- and why should the movie-makers assume anything else? I certainly had seen 'Casino Royale' and I certainly knew what was up. By the time Bond reaches a pivotal set-piece action scene in an Austrian Opera House, set to a weirdly, gloriously strange staging of Puccini's Tosca, the movie really begins to sing- especially when you realize what exactly is going on at the Opera House in question- (and no, they're not watching Opera.)
Once going, 'Quantam of Solace' proved itself to be an eminently worthy sequel to 'Casino Royale'- I've seen reviewers object to Daniel Craig's supposed 'lack of personality' for the character, but I think again, we're used to debonair wit with our Bonds, while Craig, having 'rebooted' the franchise is still piecing the character together, moving it towards that veneer of debonair wit hiding a quietly brutal spy that we've become so familiar with. Reviewers object to the fact that 'Bond just drinks randomly and doesn't care how his drinks are mixed.' (Again, watch a MOVIE! Bond knows exactly what he's drinking- and why he's drinking so much of them.) By putting 'Quantam of Solace' in its context as a sequel to 'Casino Royale', everything makes perfect sense.
Where once again, Bond fails me is with the horrifically bad female characters. This was the only major disappointment about 'Quantam of Solace' to me- after Eva Green's stunning portrayal of Vesper Lynd in 'Casino Royale' (one of the best Bond Ladies EVER!) It was a disappointment to see Gemma Atherton and Olga Kurylenko be given such dregs of exposition to work with. Atherton storms into the movie wearing high boots and a coat more often associated with dirty old male flashers in a park somewhere and, despite constructing a nicely clipped 'librarian'/nerd girl persona with what little she's got to work with is essentially reduced to being Bond's 'pussy' for the movie. Which is idiotic. As Bond Girl performances go, it would have been nice to see Atherton given some room to run- but since she wasn't, it was just a mess. Not a Denise Richards as 'Christmas Jones' type of a mess, but a mess none the less.
I have less objections to Kurylenko- she was no Michelle Yeoh (another excellent Bond Girl, who inexplicably sleeps with Bond at the end of 'Tomorrow Never Dies')- but she held her own, had her own story and motivations and actually manages not to have sex with James Bond.
But all in all, don't believe the reviewers! Quantam of Solace is worth going to, worth watching and an all round excellent movie. A worthy addition to the Bond franchise.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Interesting...
The latest internet rumor de jour: Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State? Hmmm... I'm sure some conservative somewhere could summon up a whole list of objections to this one, but I think I kinda like it. The latest was John Kerry and Bill Richardson were the frontrunners, but this one feels a little out of the box for me and that's why I like it.
Thoughts, anyone?
Thoughts, anyone?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thoughts on Prop 8
The one cloud in the very large silver lining of Obama's election last week was the inexplicable passage of gay marriage ban Proposition 8 in California. Coming months after the California State Supreme Court had ruled that gay marriage was legal, the passage of the ban has erupted into vicious online debate, protest and general confusion: how, people are wondering, could this have possibly happened?
From what I've seen on the 'net, there are a number of possible reasons. The first is style points: by all accounts, the YES people ran a better campaign. They put 'traditional' marriage front and center and pulled out all the stops and it paid off. Especially since this is an issue that gets those kind of voters out to the polls in droves. The NO campaign on the other hand, ran with a lot of celebrities out front and failed to put a human face on the issue! That's one criticism I've seen.
Dan Savage, awesome sex columnist that he is weighed in with this:
This too, is apparently true. Obama pushed up African-American turnout around the country and African-American voters who are generally assumed to be more religious voted heavily in favor of Prop 8. (To be totally fair, I don't have exit poll numbers right in front of me, but early trends seem to indicate that this is so.)
And now, we have protests against the Mormon Church, who heavily funded the YES campaign-- with quotes like this:
Oh, that's going to win the argument. Virulent rhetoric.
Wherever the truth lies, this is what I think:
1. I would have voted NO. I believe in marriage equality.
2. I'm tired of marriage equality proponents being so flippin' short-sighted about this. Generally speaking, people my age don't care about this issue. They're broadly in favor of it. In other words, you're going to win the argument anyway, so play a better game! You have to put a human face on this issue- and you should be asking for Civil Unions whereever you can get 'em. No, civil unions aren't marriage and we shouldn't pretend that they are, but they can be a stepping stone towards that ultimate goal. Civil Rights didn't happen overnight. So fight for marriage equality everywhere as hard as you can, but take some baby steps towards that ultimate goal as well. Do everything.
3. Answering hate with hate doesn't help. I get that people are pissed- I have no clear understanding of just how deep the hurt and the rage go, but pick yourselves up off the mat and draw up that Proposition to repeal Prop 8. And start campaigning for it right now, as hard as you can and don't let up until Prop 8 is gone.
From what I've seen on the 'net, there are a number of possible reasons. The first is style points: by all accounts, the YES people ran a better campaign. They put 'traditional' marriage front and center and pulled out all the stops and it paid off. Especially since this is an issue that gets those kind of voters out to the polls in droves. The NO campaign on the other hand, ran with a lot of celebrities out front and failed to put a human face on the issue! That's one criticism I've seen.
Dan Savage, awesome sex columnist that he is weighed in with this:
I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.
This too, is apparently true. Obama pushed up African-American turnout around the country and African-American voters who are generally assumed to be more religious voted heavily in favor of Prop 8. (To be totally fair, I don't have exit poll numbers right in front of me, but early trends seem to indicate that this is so.)
And now, we have protests against the Mormon Church, who heavily funded the YES campaign-- with quotes like this:
"The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand," John Aravosis, an influential Washington, D.C.-based blogger, told the Associated Press. "We're going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state."
Oh, that's going to win the argument. Virulent rhetoric.
Wherever the truth lies, this is what I think:
1. I would have voted NO. I believe in marriage equality.
2. I'm tired of marriage equality proponents being so flippin' short-sighted about this. Generally speaking, people my age don't care about this issue. They're broadly in favor of it. In other words, you're going to win the argument anyway, so play a better game! You have to put a human face on this issue- and you should be asking for Civil Unions whereever you can get 'em. No, civil unions aren't marriage and we shouldn't pretend that they are, but they can be a stepping stone towards that ultimate goal. Civil Rights didn't happen overnight. So fight for marriage equality everywhere as hard as you can, but take some baby steps towards that ultimate goal as well. Do everything.
3. Answering hate with hate doesn't help. I get that people are pissed- I have no clear understanding of just how deep the hurt and the rage go, but pick yourselves up off the mat and draw up that Proposition to repeal Prop 8. And start campaigning for it right now, as hard as you can and don't let up until Prop 8 is gone.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Where Have You Gone, British Bulldog?
Has professional wrestling always been this fucked up or did I miss something somewhere? A random channel change before I went back to my thesis lead me to a weird, soap-opera-like plotline between Chris Jericho and Shaun Michaels involving eye injuries, revenge and Jericho sucker-punching Michaels' wife, who was inexplicably in the ring with her husband while he flung testosterone around the place.
When did this happen? Did I miss something? And why does Chris Jericho have no body hair and seemingly no clothes whatsoever on underneath that tacky oversized belt? Let me summate: DOUBLE YOU TEE EFF, MAN! What happened to professional wrestling?
There was a time, back in my youth, when professional wrestling was cool. Like really, honest-to-God cool- and if you had WWF Action Figures it could mean some serious playground credibility. But somewhere along the way, it lost me. It seemed that back then, character mattered. Every character had their own moves, their own style- and their own rivalries and costumes and every kid had their favorite wrestler. Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, British Bulldog, Brett Hart- they were all awesome! (And yes, pretty much everyone saw 'Thunder In Paradise.' Awesome movie that it was!)
Somewhere along the way, I have apparently lost the plot. Someone apparently decided to hire some writers off 'As The World Turns' and turn this into slapstick, ham comedy. And it's just not as entertaining. It's not as colorful. Now, it's just a hairless man in a skin-tight diaper which, I have a sinking feeling says 'BONE ME' on his ass. And now they're jumping all over the place, out of the ring, looking totally ridiculous.
This blows. It was always fake, but never this transparently, theatrically fake.
Somewhere, British Bulldog is crying.
When did this happen? Did I miss something? And why does Chris Jericho have no body hair and seemingly no clothes whatsoever on underneath that tacky oversized belt? Let me summate: DOUBLE YOU TEE EFF, MAN! What happened to professional wrestling?
There was a time, back in my youth, when professional wrestling was cool. Like really, honest-to-God cool- and if you had WWF Action Figures it could mean some serious playground credibility. But somewhere along the way, it lost me. It seemed that back then, character mattered. Every character had their own moves, their own style- and their own rivalries and costumes and every kid had their favorite wrestler. Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, British Bulldog, Brett Hart- they were all awesome! (And yes, pretty much everyone saw 'Thunder In Paradise.' Awesome movie that it was!)
Somewhere along the way, I have apparently lost the plot. Someone apparently decided to hire some writers off 'As The World Turns' and turn this into slapstick, ham comedy. And it's just not as entertaining. It's not as colorful. Now, it's just a hairless man in a skin-tight diaper which, I have a sinking feeling says 'BONE ME' on his ass. And now they're jumping all over the place, out of the ring, looking totally ridiculous.
This blows. It was always fake, but never this transparently, theatrically fake.
Somewhere, British Bulldog is crying.
Thoughts on Football
I love football, especially this season. Everything seems to be chaos personified and it just makes predictions next to useless and adds an element of suspense to the equation that makes every Saturday a joy to behold- because no one knows what could happen on any given week!
But there are things I don't get and I don't understand- to whit:
1. Why do people hate on the Big 10?: Seriously. Explain this to me, because I am unconvinced. I think the Big 10 has been awesome this season- sure, thanks to Iowa's last second upset of Penn State (BEST. GAME. EVER.) they won't be in contention for the Big Brass Ring of a National Championship, but find me a conference that has defied conventional wisdom as much as the Big 10 this season and I will eat my hat. Literally. I will buy a hat and eat it. Up is down and down is up and it makes for awesome football. Michigan sucks, Wisconsin and Ohio State started strong, but look positively mortal now. Illinois can hold on against Iowa one week and crash to someone totally random the next. Minnesota, of all people charges out to a 7-2 start before dropping a couple of games to Northwestern and Michigan. There are no obvious answers where the Big 10 is concerned. Just Penn State and whomever is atop the pile behind them that particular week.
Yet there's no love for the Big 10. I don't know why: Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan probably make up our list of 'usual suspects' when it comes to National Titles, which isn't as much as the SEC to be sure, but what has the ACC been up to this year? Or for that matter the Pac-10? As much as I loved Iowa's win over Penn State, it would have been nice to see Penn State run the table, kick some ass and get everyone to give up a little respect for the Big 10 for once.
2. Stop with the USC already. For all the pissing on the Big 10, it really irks me that no one stops to piss all over the Pac-10, the most lopsided, ridiculous conference in the country. In recent years, the sole contender to emerge out of the Pac-10 has been USC. And yet USC gets respect. Hmmm... if you're in a crap conference and win a lot of games... I don't get it. How do you figure. I would rate the Pac-10 pretty close to the bottom football wise.
3. Variety: I might actually care about the national title this year. It's not the usual suspects and I like that- Ohio State, USC, Florida, Oklahoma, Penn State, Michigan- all, for now, out of the picture to varying degrees. Some could sneak back in, but it's refreshing to have teams that haven't been near the top in a while (or at all) in contention. I say to thee yea, 'Bama. Keep winning. And Texas Tech, y'all better beat Oklahoma!
All in all, an awesome football season!
But there are things I don't get and I don't understand- to whit:
1. Why do people hate on the Big 10?: Seriously. Explain this to me, because I am unconvinced. I think the Big 10 has been awesome this season- sure, thanks to Iowa's last second upset of Penn State (BEST. GAME. EVER.) they won't be in contention for the Big Brass Ring of a National Championship, but find me a conference that has defied conventional wisdom as much as the Big 10 this season and I will eat my hat. Literally. I will buy a hat and eat it. Up is down and down is up and it makes for awesome football. Michigan sucks, Wisconsin and Ohio State started strong, but look positively mortal now. Illinois can hold on against Iowa one week and crash to someone totally random the next. Minnesota, of all people charges out to a 7-2 start before dropping a couple of games to Northwestern and Michigan. There are no obvious answers where the Big 10 is concerned. Just Penn State and whomever is atop the pile behind them that particular week.
Yet there's no love for the Big 10. I don't know why: Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan probably make up our list of 'usual suspects' when it comes to National Titles, which isn't as much as the SEC to be sure, but what has the ACC been up to this year? Or for that matter the Pac-10? As much as I loved Iowa's win over Penn State, it would have been nice to see Penn State run the table, kick some ass and get everyone to give up a little respect for the Big 10 for once.
2. Stop with the USC already. For all the pissing on the Big 10, it really irks me that no one stops to piss all over the Pac-10, the most lopsided, ridiculous conference in the country. In recent years, the sole contender to emerge out of the Pac-10 has been USC. And yet USC gets respect. Hmmm... if you're in a crap conference and win a lot of games... I don't get it. How do you figure. I would rate the Pac-10 pretty close to the bottom football wise.
3. Variety: I might actually care about the national title this year. It's not the usual suspects and I like that- Ohio State, USC, Florida, Oklahoma, Penn State, Michigan- all, for now, out of the picture to varying degrees. Some could sneak back in, but it's refreshing to have teams that haven't been near the top in a while (or at all) in contention. I say to thee yea, 'Bama. Keep winning. And Texas Tech, y'all better beat Oklahoma!
All in all, an awesome football season!
I'm Back
And this time, I'm really sticking with it as best I can. The last few months have been insane beyond belief, but awesome beyond belief. I am now married, past my comps and officially: A.B.D. or in my case, A.B.T- all but thesis. The next few months will be all about figuring out what to do and where to go, which, in this increasingly bleak economy, could be something of a challenge.
More later. Just thought I would officially re-launch!
More later. Just thought I would officially re-launch!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
