Sometimes an event makes the news and it inspires reports on other similar incidents around the country. The incidents might be quite common, and only suddenly newsworthy because that first event piqued the public’s interest for one reason or another.
And then sometimes an event makes the news and is quickly followed by other similar, yet uncommon, newsworthy events. These subsequent events may or may not be related to the original one. They might simply be serendipitous (or anti-serendipitous) coincidences. Either way, the result is the same: we hear about something in the news, and then suddenly we start hearing about an ongoing string of similar events.
Events in the recent news have a theme: face eating, dismemberment, and generalized cannibalism. The question it raises is this: is there some sort of outbreak of zombie-like behavior going on; or is this something that actually happens now and then, and we’re only just now hearing about it?
I rarely pass up an opportunity to make fun of hipsters. The problem is, I think I might actually be one.
Last Saturday, I fulfilled a childhood dream by seeing Tom Petty live in concert. He played at the Frank Erwin Center, the only large venue available in the city of Austin (unless you count the football stadium, which you shouldn’t.) Tom Petty has had a long, successful career, amassing a wide array of classic, beloved songs. His appeal is broad and his music is oddly timeless. As a result, he serves as an effective hipster repellant.
Part of my issue with hipstersen masse is that they defy description–in fact, defying categorization is a defining characteristic of the hipster. A hipster is largely defined by what he or she isn’t. Rather than contribute new ideas, fashions, or innovations, they tend to recycle old ones (often ones better left discarded.) Outdated fashions become the latest “ironic” trend, which drives me mad because of its abuse of the very concept of “irony.”Continue reading →
I know many people from the state of North Carolina, and I know them all to be kind, decent, caring, generous people. I’m not sure how many of them still live there, if any, but I’m sorry if they have to live among that kind of bigotry. Of course, it’s not like Texas is much better.
A representative of the principle supporter of the amendment had this to say:
Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Votes for Marriage NC, the main group behind the amendment, said: “We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage. The whole point is you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults.”
Apparently, however, she does get to marginalize an entire group of people who have done her no wrong, based on the demands of her group of adults (emphasis added because I’m furious). Not only that, but this amendment may have much a much farther-reaching impact than people seem to realize. It could affect more than just those icky gay people (that’s how I imagine Tami Fitzgerald phrasing it, anyway). I have no words for the supporters of this amendment that don’t include “rectums” and “rusty pitchforks,” so I shall turn to the words of friends and people whom I admire. Continue reading →
I only ever read one book by Maurice Sendak, Where the Wild Things Are. The man deserves a permanent place in the pantheon of literary giants just for the term “wild rumpus,” as far as I am concerned. As you may know, Maurice Sendak died earlier this week. I remember his book well from childhood. I’d like to read it again, but I can’t find my copy.
Sendak’s death has brought much expression of support and admiration for the man, along with some admissions of confusion over the book. I remember that Where the Wild Things Are was a different kind of book. This was not the shiny happy playtime childhood that I usually saw on PBS. Max was an unhappy child, and this story looked into some dark places in a child’s mind. He found a place where he could be happy, and be at peace, in a sense. Despite that, Max decided to come home. That is the real gift of this book: the message that it is okay for a child to be angry, or unhappy, or scared. Max is an imperfect child in an imperfect world, just like any of us.
He was a fascinating man, too, with quite a few opinions, as Stephen Colbert learned:
He had a committed relationship with another man for fifty years, whom he was never allowed to marry. He originally conceived Where the Wild Things Are as Where the Wild Horses Are, but he found that he couldn’t draw horses, so they became “wild things.” Also, according to that video, “wild rumpus” might have actually meant sex after all.
Also, I realize that the title of this post is from a D.H. Lawrence poem. It just fits here.
Thanks for your book. It got me through what seemed like some rough patches of childhood.
Imagine traveling into the mind of a sub-par mid-1980’s standup comedian who is trying out new material on how men & women are different. It might be a bit like the board game “Battle of the Sexes.” This is a great game if you want to feel kind of sad. I had the great privilege of playing last night with a group of friends, for about 30 minutes, until we were overwhelmed by a sense of how far humanity has progressed over the past few decades despite the existence of games like this.
The Battle of the Sexes Game is about defending your gender tooth and nail. It’s the perfect game for couples, or groups of couples, who want to have fun and watch the hormones fly while they’re at it. As a proponent of your sex, you must test your knowledge of the opposite sex by answering questions from a series of gender-based question cards. Some questions appear terribly easy, until you realize that the opposite sex must answer them. For instance, how easy would it be for a woman to answer the following: “What is Grolsch?” Answer: beer. “What does a Zamboni do?” Answer: resurfaces the ice on hockey rinks. And, what about a man answering these: “Which member of the bridal party usually throws the bridal shower?” Answer: the maid/matron of honor. “How many birth control pills come in a single pack?” Answer: 28. And then there are wild cards for each gender that are good lines of defense against the opposite sex. Examples: “Make her carry your golf clubs? Go back three.” “You offer to be his designated driver, again? Move ahead one.”
Zimmerman made this declaration because, apparently, Zimmerman does not know how to read. “Science” may have been misquoted, as it was probably too busy with things like the Large Hadron Collider to worry about who is the fairest of them all.
Now, Colgate is a phenomenally attractive young woman. Almost into the realm of otherworldliness, if photographs are to be believed. I’m also sure she is a very nice person. She’s getting hate on her Facebook page that she doesn’t deserve. But really, the whole world? Doesn’t picking a blond, blue-eyed, English girl as the most beautiful woman on all of planet Earth seem a bit convenient?
The theory of evolution. The theory of relativity. The Cat in the Hat. All were brought to you by introverts.
Our culture is biased against quiet and reserved people, but introverts are responsible for some of humanity’s greatest achievements — from Steve Wozniak’s invention of the Apple computer to J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. And these introverts did what they did not in spite of their temperaments — but because of them.
As the science journalist Winifred Gallagher writes: “The glory of the disposition that stops to consider stimuli rather than rushing to engage with them is its long association with intellectual and artistic achievement. Neither E=mc2 nor Paradise Lost was dashed off by a party animal.”
I haven’t written any bestselling book series (yet) or invented any groundbreaking computer systems, but my power is gathering…
Photo credit: ‘Relampago BSB 12 2006 zoom 8082’ by Mariordo Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
We went to Easter lunch today at my aunt & uncle’s house. As we were preparing for a drive to the land of my birth to commemorate the fact that we used to celebrate Easter, it occurred to us that we should bring something. It is, after all, customary to contribute something when you are a guest in someone’s home. After consulting with other family members, it became clear that we should keep it simple and just bring wine. Everyone likes the person who brings wine. It requires no effort, and who doesn’t like wine? (I don’t drink, but even I appreciate a visually-appealing wine bottle.)
Being the lazy fellow that I am, I waited until this morning to buy a bottle of wine. The big grocery store, H.E.B., was completely closed. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by that. We went to the nearby Walgreens, grabbed a bottle of white (my aunt and uncle like white wine), and headed to the register. It was 10:30 a.m.
“Um, I don’t think I can sell this to you right now,” said the clearly sympathetic clerk.
Because, as we all know, Texans like small government, and what better way to limit government’s pernicious influence over us than to allow it to dictate when we can and cannot buy booze? At least we know that no one will buy a box of wine, get drunk, and accidentally……do something that we, as a people, have a right to prevent people from doing when drunk on a Sunday morning. I’m sorry, I can’t even think of a sarcastic example of what this law might legitimately prohibit. It’s just that stupid.
The only reason these laws exist is to enforce some sort of religious standard that hasn’t existed in many communities for decades, if ever. Yet many of these laws apply statewide. Some Texas counties are “dry,” which often just means that you can’t buy alcohol unless you buy a “membership” to a restaurant. I’m not sure where that membership fee goes, although it would not surprise me if some part of it ended up in the county’s coffers. So the church-going folk get to pretend their community adheres to their own antiquated notion of morality, and the county (possibly) pockets a little extra change. Winners all around, right?
Except that it makes us all look like assholes.
Photo credit: ‘Unidentified white wine in glass’ by Basheer Tome (originally posted to Flickr as White Wine) [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
Sports viewers, by and large, tend to be male. Statistical support or no, that is the conventional wisdom.
Male television viewers, by and large, tend to like certain things. These things are also part of conventional wisdom, statistical support or no: violence, beer, boobs. (This is not an exhaustive list, by the way.)
So how do marketers get more people (i.e. guys) to watch the Olympics?
Violence: there’s only so much you can do to make Olympic sports more violent, and the potential cost in international relations probably outweighs any benefit to ratings.
Beer: even the most hardcore boozehound would probably agree that the middle of a mountain biking run or a swim meet is not the best time to down a few.
Boobs: Hmmmmm…tell me more……
(h/t to Ragen) Let’s face it, there is no athletic advantage to wearing skimpy outfits, unless the knowledge that lots of people are staring at your bum improves your game. As Aussie blogger Lauredhel said in preparation for the 2008 Olympics:
No. It’s not about faster, higher, stronger. Women in sports are promoted as sexualised bodies for ogling; men are promoted as performers.
She offered a side-by-side comparison of male and female athletic outfits for the Australian teams, such as:
In case you can’t see the image, on the left is a male beach volleyball player in a comfortably-baggy jersey and shorts that reach at least halfway down his thighs. On the right are two female players with remarkable abs. We know this because we can see all of them, and can offer a clinic description of the muscle tone in their thighs.
Not quite a year ago, the Badminton World Federation, trying to combat the problem of no one ever watching badminton, tried to mandate that female players wear skirts. They quickly ditched that rule in the face of massive criticism. They need to either find a different way to drum up interest in the sport, or just admit that few people enjoy watching a sport with a game piece called a shuttlecock.
Now, it would not add anything to my experience of watching the Olympics to put male athletes into similarly-revealing uniforms, nor would it add anything to the actual performance of the Games themselves.
But neither would it take away from my experience of watching the Olympics (or their performance) to put female athletes into uniforms that make a bit more athletic sense. Plus, it’s not about me. There is some evidence that all this sexifying is turning girls away from getting involved in sports at all, and that’s bad in and of itself.
If I want to see beautiful ripped women in skimpy clothes in various states of sweatiness, Rule 34 dictates that it is available to me at any time on the internet. If I want to see world-class displays of athletic prowess, that only happens a few times a decade.
Consider this an example of my point and/or eye candy. Here’s Croatian high jumper Blanka Vlašić in Greece in 2009. She probably could have performed just as well with a bit more clothes on and still done a sexy dance:
All of this said, I am sure I will still watch beach volleyball this summer.
I can throw the quotes of Bushies back in their faces all day, and I’d love to do so, but here’s the thing: to say that investigations and prosecutions of torture would “tear this country apart” is bullshit, plain and simple. This is not an issue of right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, or whatever. It’s a question of basic human dignity. It doesn’t matter what our opponents do, or what they plan to do, or what they’d like to do to us. We (and by that I mean America) hold ourselves out as the “shining city on a hill” to inspire the peoples of the world. We have squandered every last bit of goodwill that we spent the first 200+ years of our history earning from the rest of the world in the supposed name of keeping ourselves safe from…something. The Bushies never would tell us exactly what…
Investigations and prosecutions are not just necessary, they are essential…not just to regain the world’s respect, but to regain respect for ourselves. If this truly is a partisan issue, if there really is an argument to be made for legally sanctioned and clandestine torture, then let that argument be made out in the open, within the hearing of all Americans and the world, open to discussion and debate. If having such a debate would be damaging to our republic, if it would somehow damage our ability to “move forward,” it does not matter. If we cannot address our own wrongdoing without ripping ourselves apart, then we are just prolonging the inevitable. America is more than a nation, and at the risk of sounding trite, it is an idea that has endured longer than most states ever have. America is a dream of freedom and liberty under law. Let those laws work, and if it tears us apart in the process, what was it that we were really holding together in the first place?
UPDATE: Gene Lyons at Salon has two excellent pieces on the genesis of this whole debacle here and here.
Those opposed to reopening the book on the Bush years argue that doing so would tear the country apart. They’re right — but they forget that the country is already torn apart. The gulf between Democrats and Republicans has never been wider. The Republican Party, the home of those who still defend the Bush years, has become a reactionary and increasingly marginal movement that is in fealty to crude demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and whose hysterical denunciations of Obama sound more and more unhinged.
What this means is that those Americans who would be truly outraged by an investigation are already outraged. It could not make them any angrier or more bitter than they already are. And even if it did, how much difference would that make? The GOP base already regards Democrats as terrorist-coddling communists. Are they going to all join militias?
I kind of suspect that Mr. Kamiya has not been to Texas recently, or he might not be so sanguine about the idea of Republicans joining militias. I still prefer that to everyone hiding their true colors.
I suppose it’s possible that for some the battle lines have not yet been drawn. I certainly hope not, though.
!['Zombies 79201360' by iluvrhinestones from seattle, oceania, upload by Herrick (rampant) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zombies_79201360.jpg "'Zombies 79201360' by iluvrhinestones from seattle, oceania, upload by Herrick (rampant) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons")
Sometimes an event makes the news and it inspires reports on other similar incidents around the country. The incidents might be quite common, and only suddenly newsworthy because that first event piqued the public’s interest for one reason or another.
!['Tom Petty 2010' by musicisentropy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bandfan/4701587083/) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ATom_Petty_2010.jpg "'Tom Petty 2010' by musicisentropy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bandfan/4701587083/) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons")
!['New York City Proposition 8 Protest outside LDS temple 20' by David Shankbone (David Shankbone) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ANew_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_temple_20.jpg "'New York City Proposition 8 Protest outside LDS temple 20' by David Shankbone (David Shankbone) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons")
!['Florence Colgate' [Fair use], via Facebook and Gawker](http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17kik83nhh8r3jpg/original.jpg "'Florence Colgate' [Fair use], via Facebook and Gawker")
