Context
I was looking over the New Items List on my library's catalog when I found Eric LeGrand's Believe: my faith and the tackle that changed my life. LeGrand is paralyzed as the result of an injury he sustained while playing football for Rutgers University. The summary of the book mentions that earlier this year, LeGrand was signed to the roster of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers largely due to the efforts of the former Rutgers and current Tampa Bay coach, Greg Schiano.
Commentary
Up until today I would have told you I didn't like Greg Schiano. Earlier in the season, his first in the NFL, he told his players to knock down Eli Manning when the Giants went into what's called "the victory formation," ten guys huddled around the quarterback as he kneels on the ball in the closing seconds of a game. A very unflattering description of Schiano and the league-wide reaction to this legal, but not very sportsmanlike gesture can be found here. So it was very surprising to me to read about about this same man who many consider to be a classless bully deciding to extend the benefits of a NFL career, albeit briefly, to a guy who was never really going to have one.
There are 32 teams in the NFL. Because I was born in Michigan, I always root for the Lions and against whoever they're playing. However, that leaves 15 other games on most weeks that I want to choose a favorite in. Most of the times I make my choices pretty arbitrarily, focusing on one characteristic, good or bad, of the teams in question: Jay Cutler is whiny, Peyton Manning is brilliant, that sort of thing. So I had written off the Buccaneers because they had this badly behaved coach. It seemed like harmless fun to me, since I have no impact on Greg Schiano's actual life. It was just an opportunity for me to set up a straw man and knock him down, nothing to do with real life.
But what do I do with my newfound knowledge about Schiano, that he is in fact a normal human being who is capable of both great gestures and boneheaded ones? Should I now be rooting for the Buccaneers? Should I alternate weeks believing Schiano is a hero and a villain? Or should I just give up my love of quick and easy judgments, even about things that don't really matter? If I say "I don't know," I've kind of already made up my mind, haven't I?
What did you see today?
Showing posts with label villains. Show all posts
Showing posts with label villains. Show all posts
10/26/2012
7/27/2012
I saw an article that contradicted itself
Context
I found this article regarding James Holmes's prison behavior while perusing the Time Magazine website today. The article states that Mr. Holmes has been engaging in erratic behavior in jail, then says that might not be true, and concludes that the man's behavior is "mysterious."
Commentary
Consider this my Friday evening snark: I believe there's a difference between mysterious behavior and not confirming your information before posting a news story. Oh wait! This is the internet age, where the truth is "fluid."
What I find particularly funny is that the updated version, the one that says Holmes has been quiet throughout his incarceration, seems less credible, quoting only "sources," as opposed to the more specific "Arapahoe County Jail officials." Honestly though, can we just not say anything until we find someone willing to go on the record? Or are we just as crazy as James Holmes himself, believing that if we stuff ourselves with every morsel of information thrown our way everything will eventually become clear?
What did you see today?
I found this article regarding James Holmes's prison behavior while perusing the Time Magazine website today. The article states that Mr. Holmes has been engaging in erratic behavior in jail, then says that might not be true, and concludes that the man's behavior is "mysterious."
Commentary
Consider this my Friday evening snark: I believe there's a difference between mysterious behavior and not confirming your information before posting a news story. Oh wait! This is the internet age, where the truth is "fluid."
What I find particularly funny is that the updated version, the one that says Holmes has been quiet throughout his incarceration, seems less credible, quoting only "sources," as opposed to the more specific "Arapahoe County Jail officials." Honestly though, can we just not say anything until we find someone willing to go on the record? Or are we just as crazy as James Holmes himself, believing that if we stuff ourselves with every morsel of information thrown our way everything will eventually become clear?
What did you see today?
2/15/2011
I saw responses to unwelcome opinions
Context
Today I saw two similar things in different places. First on PUBLIB, an e-mail list for public librarians, I saw a series of inflammatory posts (one example here, but you can find others if you browse the February entries by the same author, Matthew Price), followed by some equally inflammatory responses and several well-considered ones, including this one by Robert Baillot. Then on Slashdot, I saw another discussion initiated by quoting Glenn Beck in one of his more outrageous moods and evolving into a metadiscussion of how to respond to outrageous opinions. By the way, that last link is a little tricky. You may have to do some collapsing and expanding of comments to see what I'm talking about.
Commentary
Almost since the inception of the internet, people have been using it to exchange opinions. And almost since the start of that activity, there have been trolls, which are defined as people who take an inflammatory stand just for the sake of being inflammatory, not because they actually believe it. The perception is that trolls get off on attention or on getting people upset because they think it makes them superior.
The conventional wisdom about this phenomenon is "Don't feed the trolls," i.e. don't encourage their bad behavior by responding, but I was intrigued by the two responses I saw that seemed to fly in the face of that. "Ephemeriis" takes a civic responsibility approach, saying that since Glenn Beck is taken seriously in some quarters, the opposition is obligated to craft a serious rebuttal. Robert Balliot goes him one better by quoting Aristotle to make the point that every idea deserves consideration, even the rantings of a troll.
These responses are challenging to me. I often believe in operant conditioning, or at least the principle I learned from my mother: "If you ignore someone, he'll go away." But is getting someone to go away really my goal? Or is it engagement, where I continue to grapple with the people who drive me crazy in the belief that the God who loves all of us might be trying to tell me something?
What did you see today?
Today I saw two similar things in different places. First on PUBLIB, an e-mail list for public librarians, I saw a series of inflammatory posts (one example here, but you can find others if you browse the February entries by the same author, Matthew Price), followed by some equally inflammatory responses and several well-considered ones, including this one by Robert Baillot. Then on Slashdot, I saw another discussion initiated by quoting Glenn Beck in one of his more outrageous moods and evolving into a metadiscussion of how to respond to outrageous opinions. By the way, that last link is a little tricky. You may have to do some collapsing and expanding of comments to see what I'm talking about.
Commentary
Almost since the inception of the internet, people have been using it to exchange opinions. And almost since the start of that activity, there have been trolls, which are defined as people who take an inflammatory stand just for the sake of being inflammatory, not because they actually believe it. The perception is that trolls get off on attention or on getting people upset because they think it makes them superior.
The conventional wisdom about this phenomenon is "Don't feed the trolls," i.e. don't encourage their bad behavior by responding, but I was intrigued by the two responses I saw that seemed to fly in the face of that. "Ephemeriis" takes a civic responsibility approach, saying that since Glenn Beck is taken seriously in some quarters, the opposition is obligated to craft a serious rebuttal. Robert Balliot goes him one better by quoting Aristotle to make the point that every idea deserves consideration, even the rantings of a troll.
These responses are challenging to me. I often believe in operant conditioning, or at least the principle I learned from my mother: "If you ignore someone, he'll go away." But is getting someone to go away really my goal? Or is it engagement, where I continue to grapple with the people who drive me crazy in the belief that the God who loves all of us might be trying to tell me something?
What did you see today?
2/07/2011
I saw an unfamiliar medical condition
Context
I was reading an e-mail from Help a Reporter Out (HARO) today and it referred to a condition known as gluteal amnesia. As mentioned previously, the rules of HARO don't allow me to quote the actual message here. Since I had never heard of gluteal amnesia, I did a quick internet search for it. I saw it mentioned and defined on several sites, but when I sought more information on either WebMD and PubMed, the term was not found.
Commentary
I can't tell you what gluteal amnesia is, because once I found it wasn't mentioned on the two internet sources I consider most authoritative for medical information I was no longer interested in the condition itself. Instead, I came to wonder why a great many people outside the medical establishment wanted to talk so much about it.
I've come up with three possible reasons:
1) Gluteal amnesia doesn't really exist at all and is just a scam started to convince people they have an exotic ailment.
2) Gluteal amnesia is a very real medical problem, but health professionals call it something else.
3) What is labeled gluteal amnesia is a set of symptoms that could point to a variety of other widely recognized medical conditions.
Whichever of these three reasons explains the discrepancy in the discussion of gluteal amnesia (Could we really just be talking about your butt falling asleep?), it must drive physicians up the wall. It may also illustrate, in part, why doctors sometimes hate it when patients get medical information from the web. Think about it: a general practitioner has to keep up with all manner of real medical problems, and then people come in complaining of a problem that doesn't exist. Or does exist, but is called by another name or indicates another type of problem.
It doesn't help in the slightest that there are probably some people who believe in a fourth potential reason for the relative silence about gluteal amnesia: it's a very real, very serious medical condition that the medical establishment doesn't want us to know about for some nefarious reason. So now we have skilled professionals (and, in my experience, generally nice people) being told, "I don't trust what you say because the internet, (where nobody knows you're a dog), says different."
For the record, my doctor often encourages me to look up information on my medical problems on the internet, but that's after she tells me what they are. And it's possible she does that because I'm a librarian and I let her be a doctor.
What did you see today?
I was reading an e-mail from Help a Reporter Out (HARO) today and it referred to a condition known as gluteal amnesia. As mentioned previously, the rules of HARO don't allow me to quote the actual message here. Since I had never heard of gluteal amnesia, I did a quick internet search for it. I saw it mentioned and defined on several sites, but when I sought more information on either WebMD and PubMed, the term was not found.
Commentary
I can't tell you what gluteal amnesia is, because once I found it wasn't mentioned on the two internet sources I consider most authoritative for medical information I was no longer interested in the condition itself. Instead, I came to wonder why a great many people outside the medical establishment wanted to talk so much about it.
I've come up with three possible reasons:
1) Gluteal amnesia doesn't really exist at all and is just a scam started to convince people they have an exotic ailment.
2) Gluteal amnesia is a very real medical problem, but health professionals call it something else.
3) What is labeled gluteal amnesia is a set of symptoms that could point to a variety of other widely recognized medical conditions.
Whichever of these three reasons explains the discrepancy in the discussion of gluteal amnesia (Could we really just be talking about your butt falling asleep?), it must drive physicians up the wall. It may also illustrate, in part, why doctors sometimes hate it when patients get medical information from the web. Think about it: a general practitioner has to keep up with all manner of real medical problems, and then people come in complaining of a problem that doesn't exist. Or does exist, but is called by another name or indicates another type of problem.
It doesn't help in the slightest that there are probably some people who believe in a fourth potential reason for the relative silence about gluteal amnesia: it's a very real, very serious medical condition that the medical establishment doesn't want us to know about for some nefarious reason. So now we have skilled professionals (and, in my experience, generally nice people) being told, "I don't trust what you say because the internet, (where nobody knows you're a dog), says different."
For the record, my doctor often encourages me to look up information on my medical problems on the internet, but that's after she tells me what they are. And it's possible she does that because I'm a librarian and I let her be a doctor.
What did you see today?
11/05/2010
I saw another bumper sticker
Context
I saw another pro-gun ownership bumper sticker today, this one quoting Adolf Hitler in his apparent affinity for gun control. There is both a description of the sticker and evidence refuting its historical accuracy at this link.
Commentary
I have added a gadget to this blog whereby you can easily e-mail, tweet, Google Buzz, Facebook or reblog any entry on it. Maybe I'll become famous. Also, Blogger now says they're using automatic spam control on comments. That makes me a little sad.
Housekeeping aside, I do want to make it clear that I see and read bumper stickers about other issues besides the 2nd Amendment! I wonder if the pro-gun ones capture more of my attention because people are having to make kind of a tricky argument. After all, just saying, "I'm opposed to handgun control because I like to kill people" is kind of a non-starter.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Hitler quote is likely a fake. Although I find some NRA-type arguments spurious, I'm squarely on the side of those who say the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so citizens could defend themselves from government. After all, they had just finished separating themselves from an oppressive regime by, well, fighting a war.
I'd like to believe we don't have to worry about defending ourselves in a democracy, but historically that hasn't proven true. After all, most of the acts we complained about in the Declaration of Independence came from the British Parliament, a democratically-elected body. Even Hitler himself rose through the power of the ballot box. And everybody voted in the former Soviet Union.
So I'm sympathetic to the idea that we can't rely on any government to keep us safe or to have our best interests at heart. However, I don't think packing heat is the appropriate response to the situation. After all, if guns are outlawed, people who aren't outlaws might be inclined to come up with more sensible ways to resolve their differences.
What did you see today?
I saw another pro-gun ownership bumper sticker today, this one quoting Adolf Hitler in his apparent affinity for gun control. There is both a description of the sticker and evidence refuting its historical accuracy at this link.
Commentary
I have added a gadget to this blog whereby you can easily e-mail, tweet, Google Buzz, Facebook or reblog any entry on it. Maybe I'll become famous. Also, Blogger now says they're using automatic spam control on comments. That makes me a little sad.
Housekeeping aside, I do want to make it clear that I see and read bumper stickers about other issues besides the 2nd Amendment! I wonder if the pro-gun ones capture more of my attention because people are having to make kind of a tricky argument. After all, just saying, "I'm opposed to handgun control because I like to kill people" is kind of a non-starter.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Hitler quote is likely a fake. Although I find some NRA-type arguments spurious, I'm squarely on the side of those who say the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so citizens could defend themselves from government. After all, they had just finished separating themselves from an oppressive regime by, well, fighting a war.
I'd like to believe we don't have to worry about defending ourselves in a democracy, but historically that hasn't proven true. After all, most of the acts we complained about in the Declaration of Independence came from the British Parliament, a democratically-elected body. Even Hitler himself rose through the power of the ballot box. And everybody voted in the former Soviet Union.
So I'm sympathetic to the idea that we can't rely on any government to keep us safe or to have our best interests at heart. However, I don't think packing heat is the appropriate response to the situation. After all, if guns are outlawed, people who aren't outlaws might be inclined to come up with more sensible ways to resolve their differences.
What did you see today?
11/02/2010
I saw someone not getting the point
Context
I watcheda portion of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman on the web today. I was interested in it because it referenced the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, an event I really, really wanted to go to but settled for watching on TV. I didn't watch the entire segment, because I think I understood the points Olberman was making early on. The Countdown segment has an edited version of what Jon Stewart had to say at the rally; you can find unedited video here, by scrolling down on the left side to Moment of Sincerity.
Commentary
I think Keith Olberman was trying to say two things in his response to Jon Stewart:
1. "Maybe I should try to tone down the unproductive anger." No argument here. I love the Daily Show in general, but this rally in particular spoke to me, because I believe reason desperately needs to be restored to our national discourse.
Trust me, I am never one to walk away from an argument. But that's because I want my opinion heard and I want to hear its counterpoint. For the same reason, and possibly because of my family background, I cheerfully walk away from shouting matches. No one's getting heard there, which in some ways is OK with me because I'm pretty sure little of value is being said. Or, as Jon Stewart says in the clip referenced above, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."
2. "It's not demonizing your opponent if your opponent really is a demon." True enough, Keith, but as I think Jon was trying to explain, this is not applicable to anyone currently active in American politics.
It's funny. Even though the term "reactionary" is supposed to apply to ultra-conservative people, I think the literal definition fits Keith Olberman to a T. His standard MO is to hear an outrageous statement from the right and respond by making an equally outrageous statement. But he would have us believe there is no actual equivalence because he's on the side of truth, justice and the American way and his opponents are prone to sacrificing cute little kittens on the altar of bad journalism.
I don't buy it. I don't think two wrongs make a right, I cannot be convinced that good ends ever justify bad means, and absent seeing horns growing out of their heads or smelling brimstone on their breaths, I refuse to believe that people with values and beliefs that differ from mine are demons. Because that would be insane.
What did you see today?
I watcheda portion of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman on the web today. I was interested in it because it referenced the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, an event I really, really wanted to go to but settled for watching on TV. I didn't watch the entire segment, because I think I understood the points Olberman was making early on. The Countdown segment has an edited version of what Jon Stewart had to say at the rally; you can find unedited video here, by scrolling down on the left side to Moment of Sincerity.
Commentary
I think Keith Olberman was trying to say two things in his response to Jon Stewart:
1. "Maybe I should try to tone down the unproductive anger." No argument here. I love the Daily Show in general, but this rally in particular spoke to me, because I believe reason desperately needs to be restored to our national discourse.
Trust me, I am never one to walk away from an argument. But that's because I want my opinion heard and I want to hear its counterpoint. For the same reason, and possibly because of my family background, I cheerfully walk away from shouting matches. No one's getting heard there, which in some ways is OK with me because I'm pretty sure little of value is being said. Or, as Jon Stewart says in the clip referenced above, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."
2. "It's not demonizing your opponent if your opponent really is a demon." True enough, Keith, but as I think Jon was trying to explain, this is not applicable to anyone currently active in American politics.
It's funny. Even though the term "reactionary" is supposed to apply to ultra-conservative people, I think the literal definition fits Keith Olberman to a T. His standard MO is to hear an outrageous statement from the right and respond by making an equally outrageous statement. But he would have us believe there is no actual equivalence because he's on the side of truth, justice and the American way and his opponents are prone to sacrificing cute little kittens on the altar of bad journalism.
I don't buy it. I don't think two wrongs make a right, I cannot be convinced that good ends ever justify bad means, and absent seeing horns growing out of their heads or smelling brimstone on their breaths, I refuse to believe that people with values and beliefs that differ from mine are demons. Because that would be insane.
What did you see today?
8/04/2009
I saw a TV show about politics
Context
I bought the entire run of The West Wing on DVD recently. Tonight I watched an episode called "Five Votes Down," which was about the West Wing staffers' attempts to get a gun control law passed by Congress.
Commentary
I love The West Wing, so now that I have this set you may be hearing me comment on it a lot!
I'm concerned about gun control. I'm also concerned about health care, the various wars taking place around the globe, and the environment. But after watching the beginning of this episode, which contains the great line "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see how you make 'em - laws and sausages," I've decided to become a one-issue voter. At least for now.
The issue is decency. And I don't mean the "politicians have to adhere to a strict moral code that I can't uphold myself" variety. I mean treating people decently. Being respectful of people you disagree with. Agreeing with people because you believe what they're saying, not because of some potential personal gain in the future. Seeing a person who's been brought low and helping them, even if you warned them in advance that this was where their actions would lead. Not indulging the urge to tear down those who have some advantage over you because you're jealous of their good fortune. Decency.
It may just be that I think our tangible problems are intractable, so I've decided to concentrate on something more ephemeral, but I hope not. I think what's going on here is that I no longer believe we can solve any problems by treating our opponents badly. I'm a pacifist because I believe violence doesn't solve anything, and over time I've learned that violence can take a lot of subtle forms, like contempt and close-mindedness and fearmongering.
So when it comes time to vote I'm looking for problem-solvers, not naysayers and "I told you so"ers. I don't mind if you hold a strong opinion; I hold plenty of them myself. I'm just no longer willing to believe that my opinion or yours is the only one decent people can hold.
What did you see today?
I bought the entire run of The West Wing on DVD recently. Tonight I watched an episode called "Five Votes Down," which was about the West Wing staffers' attempts to get a gun control law passed by Congress.
Commentary
I love The West Wing, so now that I have this set you may be hearing me comment on it a lot!
I'm concerned about gun control. I'm also concerned about health care, the various wars taking place around the globe, and the environment. But after watching the beginning of this episode, which contains the great line "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see how you make 'em - laws and sausages," I've decided to become a one-issue voter. At least for now.
The issue is decency. And I don't mean the "politicians have to adhere to a strict moral code that I can't uphold myself" variety. I mean treating people decently. Being respectful of people you disagree with. Agreeing with people because you believe what they're saying, not because of some potential personal gain in the future. Seeing a person who's been brought low and helping them, even if you warned them in advance that this was where their actions would lead. Not indulging the urge to tear down those who have some advantage over you because you're jealous of their good fortune. Decency.
It may just be that I think our tangible problems are intractable, so I've decided to concentrate on something more ephemeral, but I hope not. I think what's going on here is that I no longer believe we can solve any problems by treating our opponents badly. I'm a pacifist because I believe violence doesn't solve anything, and over time I've learned that violence can take a lot of subtle forms, like contempt and close-mindedness and fearmongering.
So when it comes time to vote I'm looking for problem-solvers, not naysayers and "I told you so"ers. I don't mind if you hold a strong opinion; I hold plenty of them myself. I'm just no longer willing to believe that my opinion or yours is the only one decent people can hold.
What did you see today?
11/04/2008
I saw a man not vote
Context
There was a long line at my polling place today at 6:30 a.m., so while I was waiting I had a chance to see an African-American man talking with the European-American guy who was the only election commissioner with a cell phone. It appeared to be the latter's job to check for other possible polling locations for those not registered in my precinct. He apparently found nothing helpful, because he sent the petitioner away with phone numbers for the parish registrar of voters and the secretary of state.
Commentary
I could talk about voter fraud and racism today because I think both of those might have been at play in the situation I observed, but it seems only fair to note what my husband said, which is that the African-American man might have been just inquiring about his polling place, not actually attempting to vote at that time. So I think I'll just focus on perception.
My perception of the situation today was, "that's what happens when we're concerned about voter fraud. People get turned away from the polls." Which led me to think about ACORN.
I'm embarrassed to admit I believed the soundbites about ACORN (sample here). I believed that some members of the organization had been so rabid about recruiting new voters for Barack Obama that they had filed fraudulent registrations in the hopes of somehow turning those registrations into actual votes. I also believed that external institutions had unearthed those registrations before the scam went too far along. I wasn't concerned about the situation for two reasons: 1) I know that many legitimate registrations do not translate to votes, and 2) I know that every organization that tries to do some good ends up with some bad apples.
Now that I've done some research at factcheck.org, I've realized that even my relatively benign beliefs about ACORN were incorrect. Most of the bad registrations in question were flaggedby ACORN itself because after collecting them by state law they were required to file them. That's actually how we keep organizations like this from becoming partisan machines. They're required to file every registration, even the ones they'd rather not. More important to me, as perceptions go, is the fact that the frauds weren't perpetrated by people trying to influence the elections. They were done by people trying to make money without doing the requisite work.
So as I said, I'm embarrassed. But I'm more angry. I only found these things out today after I got started thinking about voter fraud and started to do some research. And the only reason I was thinking about voter fraud was because of the ACORN soundbites. After reading up on the situation and talking with my incredibly intelligent husband, I realized that I should have been thinking about why we pay people to collect registrations in the first place. Have we been making voter registration too difficult? Have we made the results of voting insufficiently valuable to be worth people's while (I'm a liberal living in Louisiana. Due to the Electoral College, my presidential vote almost never counts. Why do I keep showing up at my crowded polling place? Hard to say . . .)?
The above are important questions for us to consider. But we never will if we keep letting the soundbites guide our thinking. If we keep thinking it's nice legitimate voters vs. evil fraudulent voters or rotten people who want to disenfranchise the poor vs. saintly volunteer registrars going door-to-door. We need to change our perceptions. We need to open our eyes.
What did you see today?
There was a long line at my polling place today at 6:30 a.m., so while I was waiting I had a chance to see an African-American man talking with the European-American guy who was the only election commissioner with a cell phone. It appeared to be the latter's job to check for other possible polling locations for those not registered in my precinct. He apparently found nothing helpful, because he sent the petitioner away with phone numbers for the parish registrar of voters and the secretary of state.
Commentary
I could talk about voter fraud and racism today because I think both of those might have been at play in the situation I observed, but it seems only fair to note what my husband said, which is that the African-American man might have been just inquiring about his polling place, not actually attempting to vote at that time. So I think I'll just focus on perception.
My perception of the situation today was, "that's what happens when we're concerned about voter fraud. People get turned away from the polls." Which led me to think about ACORN.
I'm embarrassed to admit I believed the soundbites about ACORN (sample here). I believed that some members of the organization had been so rabid about recruiting new voters for Barack Obama that they had filed fraudulent registrations in the hopes of somehow turning those registrations into actual votes. I also believed that external institutions had unearthed those registrations before the scam went too far along. I wasn't concerned about the situation for two reasons: 1) I know that many legitimate registrations do not translate to votes, and 2) I know that every organization that tries to do some good ends up with some bad apples.
Now that I've done some research at factcheck.org, I've realized that even my relatively benign beliefs about ACORN were incorrect. Most of the bad registrations in question were flagged
So as I said, I'm embarrassed. But I'm more angry. I only found these things out today after I got started thinking about voter fraud and started to do some research. And the only reason I was thinking about voter fraud was because of the ACORN soundbites. After reading up on the situation and talking with my incredibly intelligent husband, I realized that I should have been thinking about why we pay people to collect registrations in the first place. Have we been making voter registration too difficult? Have we made the results of voting insufficiently valuable to be worth people's while (I'm a liberal living in Louisiana. Due to the Electoral College, my presidential vote almost never counts. Why do I keep showing up at my crowded polling place? Hard to say . . .)?
The above are important questions for us to consider. But we never will if we keep letting the soundbites guide our thinking. If we keep thinking it's nice legitimate voters vs. evil fraudulent voters or rotten people who want to disenfranchise the poor vs. saintly volunteer registrars going door-to-door. We need to change our perceptions. We need to open our eyes.
What did you see today?
6/22/2008
I saw a list of "bad-boy" football players
Context
I read a column by Tim Dahlberg in today's Shreveport Times in which he discussed the phenomenon of sports team owners so desperate for a win that they'll ignore "character issues" on the part of star players. He singles out three players on the Dallas Cowboys' team for specific mention: Terrell Owens, Adam "Pacman" Jones, and Terry "Tank" Johnson. The Times doesn't appear to have the column on their website, but there's a copy of it over here on MSNBC.
Commentary
Please forgive me. It's June and I have to write about football because I'm not going to be able to watch any for two more months! Even the women's season (go AfterShock!) is over!
"Character issues" is a widely-used euphemism in the sportswriting world. It basically applies to any behavior engaged in by members of a sports organization that you would not want your children to imitate. As such, it applies to a wide range of activities.
For example, police documents relating to Tank Johnson's latest arrest, as reported here, indicate that a large amount of weapons and drugs were found in his home. I won't venture to understand why Johnson took the gun charge and his bodyguard the drug one, because I'm not a member of the Chicago police. Suffice it to say, it is generally frowned upon to collect either weapons or medication illegally in your home. Especially when you're already on probation from another weapons charge.
A short paragraph will not suffice to outline Pacman Jones' "character issues." I'll just mention that the NFL as a body got so tired of owners continuing to employ him after his multiple arrests that they suspended him for the entire season last year. The Dallas Cowboys then hired him to play for them this year.
When I see Terrell Owens' name on a list with the two gentlemen described above, I feel like we're playing a game of "one of these things is not like the others." I'm not saying he hasn't engaged in conduct that some wish he wouldn't. The Philadelphia Eagles suspended him for shooting his mouth off. He engages in touchdown celebrations that the league considers excessive. But he's never been arrested, much less convicted of a crime. In fact, his only encounter with the police was when he had an adverse drug reaction that looked to some like a suicide attempt, an opinion he vigorously disputes.
I understand having to think twice about having Terrell Owens as a member of your football team, and certainly Mr. Dahlberg is entitled to editorialize on his shortcomings in that area. But listing him in the same breath with people who violate the rules of real life, not just the lofty principles of professional football (hee!), seems unfair in the extreme. After all, isn't proportionality in judgment a behavior we would want children to imitate?
What did you see today?
I read a column by Tim Dahlberg in today's Shreveport Times in which he discussed the phenomenon of sports team owners so desperate for a win that they'll ignore "character issues" on the part of star players. He singles out three players on the Dallas Cowboys' team for specific mention: Terrell Owens, Adam "Pacman" Jones, and Terry "Tank" Johnson. The Times doesn't appear to have the column on their website, but there's a copy of it over here on MSNBC.
Commentary
Please forgive me. It's June and I have to write about football because I'm not going to be able to watch any for two more months! Even the women's season (go AfterShock!) is over!
"Character issues" is a widely-used euphemism in the sportswriting world. It basically applies to any behavior engaged in by members of a sports organization that you would not want your children to imitate. As such, it applies to a wide range of activities.
For example, police documents relating to Tank Johnson's latest arrest, as reported here, indicate that a large amount of weapons and drugs were found in his home. I won't venture to understand why Johnson took the gun charge and his bodyguard the drug one, because I'm not a member of the Chicago police. Suffice it to say, it is generally frowned upon to collect either weapons or medication illegally in your home. Especially when you're already on probation from another weapons charge.
A short paragraph will not suffice to outline Pacman Jones' "character issues." I'll just mention that the NFL as a body got so tired of owners continuing to employ him after his multiple arrests that they suspended him for the entire season last year. The Dallas Cowboys then hired him to play for them this year.
When I see Terrell Owens' name on a list with the two gentlemen described above, I feel like we're playing a game of "one of these things is not like the others." I'm not saying he hasn't engaged in conduct that some wish he wouldn't. The Philadelphia Eagles suspended him for shooting his mouth off. He engages in touchdown celebrations that the league considers excessive. But he's never been arrested, much less convicted of a crime. In fact, his only encounter with the police was when he had an adverse drug reaction that looked to some like a suicide attempt, an opinion he vigorously disputes.
I understand having to think twice about having Terrell Owens as a member of your football team, and certainly Mr. Dahlberg is entitled to editorialize on his shortcomings in that area. But listing him in the same breath with people who violate the rules of real life, not just the lofty principles of professional football (hee!), seems unfair in the extreme. After all, isn't proportionality in judgment a behavior we would want children to imitate?
What did you see today?
5/29/2006
I saw a movie hero
Context
I saw X-Men 3: The Last Stand yesterday and Mission Impossible 3 today. The first X-men movie is among my all-time favorites, and I think Mission Impossible gets better each episode. Spoilers for both movies abound in the commentary below, so if you haven’t seen either of them and you’re interested in them, you might want to give this entry a bye.
Commentary
I didn’t care much for the latest X-men movie. It wasn’t a total wash, but I had a lot of problems with it. On the other hand, I loved Mission Impossible 3. I think some of my reactions to both movies hinge on what I think of as the “hat theory of heroism and villainy.” The ideas in this theory are not new, but I think the hat colors might be.
Anyway, I think of movies as having two types of villains, black hat and navy blue hat. Black hat villains are just plain evil. They have no redeeming qualities; you know exactly where they’re coming from; they’re bad people and they do bad things. Navy blue hat villains don’t necessarily look like villains at first blush. They sometimes talk a good game, or they have some lofty principle in mind, but after a while you realize that hat is actually pretty black after all. I tend to prefer navy blue villains, although I can admire the acting craft behind a good black one.
The X-Men series of movies has a pretty good navy blue hat villain in Magneto. You can almost believe those crocodile tears he sheds over having to hurt people in pursuit of his noble cause. But in the end, he’s just rotten. That principle remained in place in the The Last Stand, and I liked that. Mission Impossible 3 had an outstanding black hat villain and a somewhat unconvincing navy blue one. Oh well, nothing’s perfect.
Heroes also have two potential hat colors, white and dingy. Your white hat hero believes in something and fights for whatever that thing is without compromise. In fact, he’s pretty anal about it. Your dingy hat hero is usually on the right side of the movie conflict and ends up doing good things, but not because he has any particular lofty ideal in mind. He spends the majority of the time looking out for himself, and if pressed, a small circle of friends.
I think a lot of the best movies have one of each type of hero. For example, in the original Star Wars trilogy, Luke Skywalker has the white hat, and Han Solo (who really did shoot first, no matter how much George Lucas tries to change “history”) has the dingy hat. In the original Battlestar Galactica series, Apollo wears the white hat, while Starbuck wears the dingy. If you’re around my age, I think you can tell a lot about yourself by which of those characters you prefer. I’m a white hat lover myself.
X-Men 3 started off with a white hat and a dingy one, then killed off the white hat in the first few minutes of the film. And no, it wasn’t Professor Xavier. So the film pretty much lost me early. Mission Impossible 3 was much more straightforward: one hero, very white hat, good triumphs over evil in the end.
If it seems odd that I prefer my villains somewhat shaded and my heroes straightforward, perhaps I can muddy the waters even further by saying that I like my villains to be realistic and my heroes to be true. Realistically, I believe (and I think I have plenty of evidence on my side) that people don’t think of themselves as villainous. They put on that navy blue hat and say, “I did what was necessary for the greater good.” “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” Or my personal favorite, “the ends justify the means.” Not to put too big a burden on my entertainment, but I appreciate seeing this kind of villainy because I think it helps me recognize it better in real life.
On the other hand, I don’t want heroes to reflect what I see every day. I want them to show me there’s something transcendent to strive for. In Christian terms, reality tells me that this world is mired in sin. The ultimate truth, however, is that good always triumphs over evil, and never needs to compromise in order to do so.
What did you see today?
I saw X-Men 3: The Last Stand yesterday and Mission Impossible 3 today. The first X-men movie is among my all-time favorites, and I think Mission Impossible gets better each episode. Spoilers for both movies abound in the commentary below, so if you haven’t seen either of them and you’re interested in them, you might want to give this entry a bye.
Commentary
I didn’t care much for the latest X-men movie. It wasn’t a total wash, but I had a lot of problems with it. On the other hand, I loved Mission Impossible 3. I think some of my reactions to both movies hinge on what I think of as the “hat theory of heroism and villainy.” The ideas in this theory are not new, but I think the hat colors might be.
Anyway, I think of movies as having two types of villains, black hat and navy blue hat. Black hat villains are just plain evil. They have no redeeming qualities; you know exactly where they’re coming from; they’re bad people and they do bad things. Navy blue hat villains don’t necessarily look like villains at first blush. They sometimes talk a good game, or they have some lofty principle in mind, but after a while you realize that hat is actually pretty black after all. I tend to prefer navy blue villains, although I can admire the acting craft behind a good black one.
The X-Men series of movies has a pretty good navy blue hat villain in Magneto. You can almost believe those crocodile tears he sheds over having to hurt people in pursuit of his noble cause. But in the end, he’s just rotten. That principle remained in place in the The Last Stand, and I liked that. Mission Impossible 3 had an outstanding black hat villain and a somewhat unconvincing navy blue one. Oh well, nothing’s perfect.
Heroes also have two potential hat colors, white and dingy. Your white hat hero believes in something and fights for whatever that thing is without compromise. In fact, he’s pretty anal about it. Your dingy hat hero is usually on the right side of the movie conflict and ends up doing good things, but not because he has any particular lofty ideal in mind. He spends the majority of the time looking out for himself, and if pressed, a small circle of friends.
I think a lot of the best movies have one of each type of hero. For example, in the original Star Wars trilogy, Luke Skywalker has the white hat, and Han Solo (who really did shoot first, no matter how much George Lucas tries to change “history”) has the dingy hat. In the original Battlestar Galactica series, Apollo wears the white hat, while Starbuck wears the dingy. If you’re around my age, I think you can tell a lot about yourself by which of those characters you prefer. I’m a white hat lover myself.
X-Men 3 started off with a white hat and a dingy one, then killed off the white hat in the first few minutes of the film. And no, it wasn’t Professor Xavier. So the film pretty much lost me early. Mission Impossible 3 was much more straightforward: one hero, very white hat, good triumphs over evil in the end.
If it seems odd that I prefer my villains somewhat shaded and my heroes straightforward, perhaps I can muddy the waters even further by saying that I like my villains to be realistic and my heroes to be true. Realistically, I believe (and I think I have plenty of evidence on my side) that people don’t think of themselves as villainous. They put on that navy blue hat and say, “I did what was necessary for the greater good.” “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” Or my personal favorite, “the ends justify the means.” Not to put too big a burden on my entertainment, but I appreciate seeing this kind of villainy because I think it helps me recognize it better in real life.
On the other hand, I don’t want heroes to reflect what I see every day. I want them to show me there’s something transcendent to strive for. In Christian terms, reality tells me that this world is mired in sin. The ultimate truth, however, is that good always triumphs over evil, and never needs to compromise in order to do so.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)