Sports build character

I went with the family to a hockey game between the Phoenix Coyotes and the Detroit Red Wings. We were rooting for the home Coyotes.
Red Wings fans packed our section. They were wearing hats and autographed sweaters. When Detroit scored the fist goal, they got smug. 1-0 after one period. The second period was a different story.
The Coyotes came out and scored three goals. 3-1 at the end of the second period.
By the closing minutes of the third period, Detroit fans in front of us were talking loud enough for us to hear, gloating about their team's past achievements, consoling themselves on the imminent loss.
On the way out, a Detroit fan, a grown man, leaned into my daughter's face and shouted "How many Stanley Cups do you have?"
What a douche.

The need to teach extemporaneus speaking

I just heard this sentence on a podcast, and my nose started to bleed. This is from a head writer of a television show. I'm sure he's a very intelligent man. But lord almighty, we teachers need to begin teaching extemporaneous speaking, or even or brightest writers will speak like this:

"Well I think that, uh, mmm, you know, I think that he[his dad], uh, you know, it's, I don't know he, you know, I honestly should ask him about like when, you know, because, when I experience, when I was a kid, he my dad was also, he was a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary which is in Pasadena, which is also a very sort of conservative theological, like, but, like, you know, I don't know, well, well-regarded but like cray [?], like fully like you know conservative, but he was the like the professor of like media so he would write like film reviews for Christianity Today."

In Cold Blood

Inspired by listening to an online lecture series about Literary Nonfiction, I began reading In Cold Blood by Truman Capote.  It's an amazing book, with many wonderful moments of reporting and description, and I am most floored by its craft. My favorite part so far begins on page 107 of my hardcover edition. The passage is describing Perry and Dick's flight from their crime.

"The car was parked on a promontory where Perry and Dick had stopped to picnic. It was noon. Dick scanned the view through a pair of binoculars. Mountains. Hawks wheeling in a white sky. A dusty road winding into and out of a white and dusty village. Today was his second day in Mexico, and so far he liked it fine--even the food.....
'Know what I think?" said Perry. 'I think there must be something wrong with us. To do what we did.'
'Did what?"
'Out there.'
Dick dropped the binoculars into a leather case.... He was annoyed. Annoyed as hell. Why the hell couldn't Perry shut up?"

From there, Capote takes a few pages to describe Dick's reaction to the conversation. Dick disputes Perry's story about killing a man with a bike chain earlier in his life.

The next subchapter begins, on page 110:

"Mountains. Hawks wheeling in a white sky.
When Perry asked Dick, "Know what I think?' he knew he was beginning a conversation that would displease Dick.."

Notice the repetition of the description, first disorienting us [haven't we heard this before?], then orienting us to Perry's point of view of the same conversation, through which we find out "There was some truth in the story. Perry had known, under the circumstances stated, a Negro named King. But if the man was dead today it was none of Perry's doing; he'd never raised a hand against him. For all he knew, King might still be lying abed somewhere, fanning himself and sipping beer."

The same conversation from two perspectives, connected elegantly and clearly. It's a masterful work.

An Open Letter to "This American Life"

As This American Life often does when it discusses sex in a podcast, it begins with the caveat that the segment might not be appropriate for small children as it “acknowledges the existence of sex.” The warning seems to say: What kind of parent is so protective that he wouldn’t let a child listen to a story that simply acknowledges that sex exists? For instance, let’s say a gay couple got married in my home state of Washington, and that night they had sex. That’s acknowledging that sex exists. I’m OK with that, as I think most parents would be. I think most kids in our public schools already know what sex is, so acknowledging that it exists is not a big deal.

However, a segment in a recent episode does a lot more than that. It acknowledges that there are things called “sex clubs for men”. It acknowledges the existence of anal sex with another man. It acknowledges unsafe sex. It acknowledges that the existence of a “giver” in a homosexual relationship. It acknowledges “sex with an anonymous, casual or internet partner.” It acknowledges sex with someone who injects drugs. It acknowledges the existence of a porno room in which every surface is made of black rubber. This is much more than acknowledging the existence of sex.

If I were being an enlightened parent and letting my child listen to this story, my child might have a lot of uncomfortable questions at the end of this episode. "What is a sex club for men? What is anal sex? What does 'giver' mean? What is porno? Why is every surface covered with rubber?"  I’m not offended by this episode or any of this content. It’s a good story. But this story does a lot more than just acknowledge that sex exists. So drop the smarmy disclaimer ("it acknowledges the existence of sex") in future episodes. Just say it’s inappropriate for kids and leave it at that.

Lately I have been collecting Costanza Moments. I got the name from the Seinfeld episode when George Costanza puts money in the tip jar, only to find the tipee did not see the deposit. George is presented with a conundrum: leave and appear that he did not tip the man, or take the money out when the employee is not looking and put it back again when he IS looking.

Of course, George chooses the second option and is caught, but my interest is in the dilemma itself. That is, those Catch-22 moments where you are put in a position where either option is awkward.

A recent Costanza moment concerns a gift. A friend's daughter recently graduated from high school, and we gave her a card with $50 in it. When the recipient sent a thank you card, she thanked us for coming to her party, and for the card. But there was no mention of the money.

Now, I know she got the money. If she got the card, she got the money. But did she know that it was from us? Did the money go into an undifferentiated pile? Did she think we just gave her a card and no money? If we had given her a check, we could have checked to see if it had been deposited. Alas, we gave her cash.

Do we let it go? If so, she may (MAY) think we skimped and didn't give her a gift. Not the worst thing in the world, but we DID give her a gift, and we want to make sure she knows we gave it to her. We want her to know we are not the kind of people who would just give her a card for graduation. (Again, the inner Costanza shining through--what's wrong with just giving a card? Nothing!)

If we choose to pursue the inquiry further, how do we ask her? Do we message her and ask if she got our $50? Because we KNOW she got it. After all, we know for a fact she DID receive the card, and the money was in the card. So we can't ask if she got the money because we know she did.

Here's how it could go.

"Did you get our $50?"
Option 1:
"Yes, thank you. I sent you a thank you card, didn't I?"
"Yes, you did, but you didn't mention the money."
"Oh, sorry [you petty little people]."
Option 2:
"I'm not sure. It was a pretty big day for me, and I don't really remember. But if you did, thank you very much [you petty little people] and I'm sorry for not acknowledging your gift. I had a lot on my mind that day."
Option 3:
"I don't think so. Did you give me money?"
"Yes we did. $50."
"Oh, I'm so sorry. I feel terrible for not acknowledging your gift. [I'm such a jerk] Thank you so much."

Is there any way to make sure she knows we gave her money without appearing like jerks? And really, one of the hallmarks of a Costanza moment is that it doesn't really matter if she knows we gave her the money. That's not the point of giving gifts. But we all have a little Costanza in us, that part of us that frets and can't let things go.

The Audition

I auditioned for a commercial today. Well, I didn't actually audition. I went to the audition. I entered the building. When I got to the lobby of the production studio, it was empty. I was asked to sign in. All eight or so people who had signed in before me had filled out their names, their agents (!) and their phone numbers. I was the only one so far who had written "N/A" under agent.

This is where I started to get uncomfortable. Actually, I started to get uncomfortable at home when I popped the top button on my dress shirt trying to loosen it so that my fat neck didn't cause me to lose circulation to my head and, thus, die. I had to wear a tie to this audition, and instead of changing my shirt, I asked my wife to fasten my collar with a safety pin. I felt classy. Then, as I was about to leave, my wife said, "Those pants are short.... But they look fine." Classier still.

After I signed my name, the receptionist asked me to wait downstairs in the kitchen area. When I got to the kitchen, I was surprised to find at least 15 people waiting to audition. (Why weren't all of their names on the sign-in sheet? Was there more than one sign-in sheet?) Even worse, more than half of them were men in ties clearly auditioning for the same part that I was. It was 3:45 and the auditions would be continuing until 9.

I didn't really want to audition. I was asked to come by the casting director, a friend, so I thought I'd give it a shot. I've been in a few commercials and one children's theater play, but I cannot call myself an actor. Not at all. But the others in the room were actors, as could be evidenced by the fact that everybody in the room had headshots with them. Everybody but me. Mr. Safetypin.

It could have been the stress, or it could have been the fact that I hadn't worn a dress shirt and pants in two months, or it could have even been the five or six men clearly more handsome than I am--but the sweat began to pour. I was wiping my forehead at 30 second intervals. I went upstairs, crossed my name off the list, and I left.

I'm not an actor. And I don't know how anybody could be.

A Haunting Image

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/the-ghastly-coda-cell-phones-added-to-the-breivik-massacre/260472/

Are Cheap College Degrees like Gay Marriage?

This article argues that giving scholarships and degrees to athletes who can barely read devalues everyone else's college degrees from that same institution.

While I agree that the practice described is deplorable, my first thought was that the argument is the same as the anti-gay marriage argument: in other words, someone else's degree devalues my degree in the same way that someone else's marriage devalues my marriage (or the institution of marriage).

These are not similar. If I get a degree from UW, and it hits the papers that the athletic department was giving away degrees, my degree actually looks less valuable, and I might be less likely to get into a good grad school or find a good job. Therefore, someone else's degree might actually have a material effect on me.

However, another person's marriage has no material effect on me. Even if I take the Rick Santorum analogy a step further, and say that the slippery slope of marriage will lead to people marrying animals, that outcome will not in any way affect my desire to get married, nor will it affect the quality of my marriage. In fact, while I think gay marriage has no effect on marriage as a whole, bad marriages DO have an effect.

That is, if I love someone and decide I might want to get married, if I survey the landscape and see gay people married, that will not affect my plan to spend the rest of my life with the person I love. However, if I look around and see a sea of shipwrecked marriages, it might make me think twice about getting anchored. And THAT would harm the institution of marriage.

So, I guess my point is, I hope that Congress passes a Constitutional amendment banning bad marriage.

The new marriage

It's amazing how some of these desires have changed. For instance, chastity certainly has dropped as a desired characteristic. Is that the American man beginning to assume or even accept the fact that spouses will stray?

Read the article here.

Heavy

Another reason not to eat meat

This article is gross and kind of scary.


"Houseflies...are vectors of what we leave behind, carrying it back to us, as though to say, “Over here! You forgot something…” They are the messenger nobody asked for, bearing the messages nobody wants, whether about the overuse of antibiotics or some other of our failings."


Read the entire article here.

Can American education replicate Finland's success?

I was reading an article about why Finland's school system is the envy of the world when I came across a telling paragraph. First, a little background.

Apparently (I haven't seen the movie yet), Waiting for Superman, the documentary about the "failure" of the American education system, holds Finland up as the model for effective education. The statistics tell the story. According to the article, "In 2000, ...a standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues revealed Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world. Three years later, they led in math. By 2006, Finland was first out of 57 countries (and a few cities) in science." The country's results pay off later too: "Ninety-three percent of Finns graduate from academic or vocational high schools, 17.5 percentage points higher than the United States, and 66 percent go on to higher education, the highest rate in the European Union. Yet Finland spends about 30 percent less per student than the United States."

These numbers are so impressive that Smithsonian Magazine attempted to find out what made the system so great. See if you can figure out why America will never replicate Finland's success:

It’s almost unheard of for a child to show up hungry or homeless. Finland provides three years of maternity leave and subsidized day care to parents, and preschool for all 5-year-olds, where the emphasis is on play and socializing. In addition, the state subsidizes parents, paying them around 150 euros per month for every child until he or she turns 17. Ninety-seven percent of 6-year-olds attend public preschool, where children begin some academics. Schools provide food, medical care, counseling and taxi service if needed. Stu­dent health care is free.

That's right. We'll never replicate their success because Finland practices Socialism, and every red-blooded American knows that Socialism doesn't work!

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html#ixzz1W3gWC9T2

So let me get this straight...

I'm trying to figure this out. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The reason Congress had so much trouble getting an agreement on the debt ceiling was that Republicans were opposed to raising taxes. Their mantra was, and is, "Don't Raise Taxes."

Now, they are proposing raising taxes on 47% of all Americans.

They can't have it both ways. They are being complete hypocrites. Or am I missing something?

The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight

"In a political debate you feel like the other side just doesn’t get your point of view, and if they could only see things with your clarity, they would understand and fall naturally in line with what you believe. They must not understand, because if they did they wouldn’t think the things they think. By contrast, you believe you totally get their point of view and you reject it. You see it in all its detail and understand it for what it is – stupid. You don’t need to hear them elaborate. So, each side believes they understand the other side better than the other side understands both their opponents and themselves."

This is asymmetric insight, and many psychological studies have shown this is true. Read about it here.

Movies in School

Two liberal magazines (Mother Jones and The New Yorker) have reported with obvious disapproval that the charter school Michelle Bachmann founded would not allow students to watch Aladdin because it involved magic and paganism.

I think Bachmann is a lunatic, but I agree with her school's decision. That's right, she and I align on this one.

However, though I agree with the school's decision, I don't agree with the reasoning behind the school's decision. I think schools shouldn't show Aladdin because THERE'S NO CURRICULAR REASON TO SHOW IT.

The Debt Crisis

I'm a liberal in almost every way, but I don't really follow politics. In my opinion, it's just a bunch of posturing from people who are more concerned with making money to get reelected than they are with passing good laws. So I haven't followed the debt ceiling "crisis." Yes, it's important, but I just get pissed every time I read about it.

Now, as the post-mortems get written about the "compromise," I have been reading all my liberal media like Slate and the New York Times, and I get angry. "This compromise has ruined the economy. We're doomed," they all seem to say. When I read this, I get pissed again, this time at the Republicans.

But when I really think about it, what do I know about macroeconomics? I don't know enough to make a judgment about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. I have FEELINGS about how I think this will turn out, yes, and I have SUSPICIONS that it won't turn out well, but I don't know a damn thing about this really, nor does anyone else.

If you say you do, you're full of it. Unless you have studied economics, then read the same amount of propaganda from EACH SIDE of the aisle, you don't know enough to make a sound judgment. This assertion is not a challenge to people that I love who feel passionately about this issue (and I do love people on BOTH sides of this issue). Rather, this is a call for calm.

The sky is not falling. Or it is. Nobody knows for sure.

Ouch

From Anthony Lane's review of "Bad Teacher" in The New Yorker. What a devastatingly great opening.

Waiting for “Bad Teacher” to begin, I caught a trailer for the upcoming “Horrible Bosses.” What is it with these titles? Studios may think that they can palm us off with flat, sour recitations of what their products contain, but, back in 1975, no one would have paid to see a Spielberg film called “Nasty Fish.” In the words of Raymond Chandler, whose ear for a good title was the sharpest of the twentieth century, the names of books and films should conjure “a particular magic which impresses itself on the memory.” “The Maltese Falcon,” as he said, “makes the mind ask questions.”

No danger of that here.

Read the rest here

Can't. Quit. Listening.

The Globes!!

I saw The Globes last night at the A Club. Holy crap they're good! Their new record comes out at the end of the month, but until then, I HIGHLY suggest you download this EP. Support a Spokane band before they hit the big time--and they WILL hit the big time. Hell, they just played SXSW in Austin, and they're playing Sasquatch in May.

Winner Take All

In a review of the book Winner-Take-All Politics, Ezra Klein notes that the gap between rich and poor has grown not because of economic changes, but because of political ones:

Perhaps the most shocking study the authors cite comes from Martin Gilens, a political scientist at Princeton University. Gilens has been collecting the results of nearly 2,000 survey questions reaching back to the 1980s, looking for evidence that when opinions change, so too does policy. And he found it—but only for the rich. “Most policy changes with majority support didn’t become law,” Hacker and Pierson write. The exception was “when they were supported by those at the top. When the opinions of the poor diverged from those of the well-off, the opinions of the poor ceased to have any apparent influence: If 90 percent of poor Americans supported a policy change, it was no more likely to happen than if 10 percent did. By contrast, when more of the well-off supported a change, it was substantially more likely to happen.”


In part, this is because politicians began to need money more than they had before, as the costs of campaigns started skyrocketing. The predictable outcome? Both parties have been relying more on wealthy donors and less on labor unions. Where unions had substantial support among the Republican Party in the middle of the twentieth century—then-Senator Ted Stevens, we learn, ended up backing the labor law reforms that the business community eventually killed—today the Club for Growth primaries anyone in the GOP who forgets to refer to union presidents as “bosses.” Meanwhile, the Democrats have had to embrace the business community to remain financially competitive. As Hacker and Pierson show, Democrats were at a massive funding disadvantage in the 1960s and ’70s. In 1981, the Democratic National Committee was still paying down debt incurred during the 1968 election. There was only one place to turn to close the gap: corporate America, and the (mostly) men who ran it, or lobbied for it. And so they turned there, which meant turning away from the middle class, at least somewhat. As Hacker and Pierson say, today’s Republican and Democratic parties are not black and white. They’re “black and gray.”

It seems we are moving toward a winner-take-all society? Is this what we want? The answer seems to be no:

Behavioral economist Dan Ariely and psychologist Michael Norton recently asked people to estimate wealth inequality in this country. As it happens, most Americans think wealth is distributed vastly more equally than it actually is, and yet they would like something more equal still: When given a choice between various options, they chose the one most closely resembling Sweden, followed by the world in which every quintile has exactly 20 percent of the wealth. Only 10 percent chose our world. But the problem, as Hacker and Pierson point out, is that the political system isn’t listening. It’s time it did.

Read the entire article here.