Summer vacations and other commitments are now over. The new semester is but a week and a half away. So, I'm back to the blogging board. I have a number of things I want to write about, but I just haven't found the time amid the summer hustle and bustle. Yes, that's right: summer hustle and bustle. So, expect more blog volume in the coming weeks.
I've started with something on Ted Nugent that I've been meaning to write for awhile. I've also got something on Richard Marx cooking and something on baseball ready to write.
Let me also take this moment to remember Les Paul, who died today. When I picked up playing guitar (I played bass, not having the patience to learn to play chords on a guitar) in the late 1980s, rumor had it that Paul lived in some rural part of Ohio. After playing guitar with a friend of mine and an elderly man who wasn't Paul who lived down the road from my friend, my sixteen-year-old imagination fantasized that one day I would happen across a chance to play with Paul on his front porch, too. Who knows if the rumor was even true, but rock and roll dreams die hard ...
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Nuge: The Jerk or The Stooge?
I’ve known for while that I don’t agree on a lot of political issues with Ted Nugent (a.k.a. “The Nuge”). For instance, his take on English as a national language clearly differs from mine. However, some of his comments from a few weeks ago demonstrate that, frankly, Ted Nugent is a jerk. While his take on Barack Obama is one thing to address, it’s what this news report later reports him saying that show just how much of a jerk he is. According to Nugent:
There is gluttony and denial in our economy. Basically, it can be most simply understood by the U.S. government and its citizens being credit card pigs. You can't buy another leather jacket when you've already got six. You claim you can't make ends meet and you owe five grand, much less 250 grand, on your credit card, you chimp!? Of course, I'm the bastard for saying it. People are pigs from the blubber that they have intentionally infested ourselves with and then they have the audacity to squawk for health care but not care about our health? How does that work?! If the producers of 'Planet of the Apes' were offered the current American script that was playing out before us, they would turn it down because it's too stupid. It wouldn't qualify for a 'Planet of the Apes' script!
Only the guilty need to feel guilty, but anybody who claims they can't make ends meet is a liar! Anybody that owes money on their credit card is a pig. If you smoke or drink or have blubber, you get no healthcare until you show me you care about your health. You can't stab yourself in the eye every morning and then charge me for your eye doctor! What the f---?!
Nugent is, of course, basing his comments on good ol’ folksy “common sense” kinds of ideas here. You know, it seems wrong for someone who continually doesn’t take care of her or his health to demand that the rest of us keep paying for it when he or she refuses to make changes that benefit her or his health. I mean, sure, that sounds appropriate in the same kind of way that, for instance, I as a teacher don’t just give passing grades or extra credit or makeup opportunities to students who don’t do the work necessary and who don’t seem to want to make changes to study habits, etc. so that they can pass their classes.
And, sure, I’d guess most, if not all, of us can look at what has gone on in this country’s economy and agree that there has been gluttony and denial.
However, Nugent doesn’t stop there. He goes on to include a lot more people in his criticism, saying explicitly that anyone who owes money on a credit card is “a pig” (and, thus, to be viewed negatively, I would assume). And, of course, if any of that debt is attributable to health care, well, then, you’re an even bigger pig, according to Nugent, who, by the way, in the report claims (with a very strange and not really accurate way of defining what it means to be “liberal”), “I’ve done the right things. I've never been liberal so I've got a nest egg. I've always lived within my means."
Again, maybe he has a point. Perhaps there are deeper cultural trends in the United States, whereby we all, even in everyday little things that we do, contribute to the overuse of resources, engage in unhealthy practices, and live above our means. So, perhaps there is need to feel some guilt and, beyond that, to do something to change these ways of life. I’m willing to consider all those aspects of what Nugent says. However, what I am not willing to accept is his high-handed, self-righteous, hypocritical way of discussing this.
First of all, many health developments that happen are not simply a matter of not taking care of oneself. People don’t ask for brain aneurysms to sprout up, lack of work doesn’t cause people to have hereditary conditions, etc.
Secondly, credit card debt is not simply a matter of gluttony. Sometimes, it’s a financial risk taken in hopes of paying off in the end. For instance, a person might go in debt some now in order to go to school or work a lower paying job or pay for professional development opportunities in hopes that these will, in a few years, land that person in a position where he or she can pay that debt off. Isn’t that, in fact, the kind of personal finance risks that many conservatives who are the political buddies of Nugent would say helps make the United States great? Additionally, many of us out here didn’t choose for our houses to need unscheduled maintenance or for our cars to break down or other such cash-guzzling emergencies that afflict everyday people every day.
So, Ted, you’re wrong to generalize the way you have about why people have to spend money on health and why people have debt. Additionally, you’re wrong to act like you are above all of this.
I ask you, Ted, how did you get where you are? Can you really tell me that throughout your entire career none of the promoters, companies, agents, media networks, and other individuals, groups, and organizations that helped build that career did so on credit? I find that possibility at best unlikely and—more to the point—ludicrous. I would challenge you to show me otherwise. If you can fully and legitimately show that, then I’ll gladly retract this. But that just does not seem possible, given the numbers of individuals, groups, and organizations you have had to work with to sell you albums, go on your tours, and produce your reality television shows, let alone any other endeavors you have. All I need to look at is Viacom, which owns MTV Networks, which owns VH1 (the network that hosted your previous reality shows) and CMT (the network airing your reality show that starts this month). Viacom didn’t make it to where it is today as a media conglomerate without going into debt. (See, for instance, here and here.)
Additionally, can you really say that you haven’t been involved with anything that contributes to health problems? There are many ways that the “horsepower” that you advertise on your own website contribute to smog and other environmental conditions that affect the health (and, thus, the pocketbooks) of many people who are not even involved in these activities. Also, many meats featured in your own publicly sold cookbook Kill It and Grill It have health issues that correspond with their consumption. Furthermore, for as much as you rail on drinking and smoking in your comments, you are still fine with attending and advertising for a 2007 Washington, D.C., event featuring plenty of alcohol and tobacco products as parts of the night’s perks.
You see, one of the big problems with the kinds of discourses that you and so many others (especially, though not exclusively, in conservative camps) promote is that they’re based on arguments that chastise those who take part in the very same institutions and practices that have made you who you are. It’s as if you forgot, you ignore, or you are too ignorant to recognize that your success is not entirely your own doing and that to achieve your success you’ve had to rely on many of the same things against which you rail.
So, yes, I’d agree with you, Ted, that there’s plenty of denial in the United States today. I’d add, though, that there are many different forms of denial, and your comments suggest that you live with one of the most insidious, selfish, and mean-spirited forms of denial.
Of course, maybe you’re not in denial. Maybe you realize that plenty of your fans probably aren’t in much of a position to pay for their health needs, to pay to fix their simple everyday appliances, to pay to fix their homes, etc. So, they can listen to you, never invest in their futures, live meager existences until they die earlier than they had to die … and the divide between the rich and the poor will remain or, in all likelihood, grow. It’s hegemony at its strongest, keeping the working classes from making gains in society by ideologically convincing them to stay poor, while you benefit off the same things you’ve convinced them not to pursue.
If it’s this latter option, then you are, as I said above, a jerk. You know what you’re doing and you’re laughing maliciously in the faces of the people on whom you trample. If it’s the former option, then you’re still a jerk, because you’ve chosen to forget about or ignore all of the things that helped you get where you are and would help others do the same.
There is one other option. In this option, you’re not in denial and you’re not maliciously and knowingly using people. In this option, you simply don’t realize the implications of what you are saying. You don’t recognize that your career has been built off these things and that many of the things that you support have implications that help produce the things against which you complain. I really don’t think this is true. I think you’d have to be pretty damn dumb for that to be the case, and, frankly, I don’t think you’re that stupid. However, if by some chance you are, then you’re not a jerk. No, in that case, you’re not just “The Nuge”; you’re a Stooge.
Monday, July 20, 2009
If You Believed ...
I’ll give you one guess what song is going through my mind as I write this post …
Sorry it’s been awhile since I’ve posted. I have a number of thoughts for things I want to post about, but haven’t found the time to sit down and write out what I want to say yet. Perhaps in the next couple of weeks …
Today, though, I’d like to acknowledge the fortieth anniversary of the day that people walked on the moon. Most notably, Neil Armstrong is remembered for being the first person to set foot on the moon. This weekend, I noticed that CNN.com ran a short editorial piece by Bob Greene about Neil Armstrong’s hometown: Wapakoneta, Ohio. There, you can find the Armstrong Air & Space Museum, which looks like a big golf ball as you drive past on I-75. I know this because I’ve driven by it scores of times and I’ve been to it several times. I grew up what is almost exactly a half-hour’s trip from it. So, for Cub Scouts, for school field trips, and I think a couple times with my father (who was curator of another museum in the area) or my grandfather (who was a bit of an air and space enthusiast), I went to the museum periodically. Though I’ve been meaning to go back since I relocated back to Ohio a few years ago, I haven’t yet, meaning it’s probably been around 25 years since the last time I was there.
I have glimpses of memories from the place—barely enough to even mention, for fear I’d completely misrepresent what was there then or is there now. All I remember are some pictures on walls and a kind of spacewalk room. My most vivid memories of Wapakoneta, though, involve something different, yet strangely similar. You see, while I go to the movies frequently in my adult life, as a kid my family didn’t go very often. We did, though, see a number of the big blockbusters in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, like the Star Wars films, E.T., and (actually when my brothers and I cajoled my mom’s brother into taking us) Back to the Future. Usually, my dad and his brother would also take us to see a Star Trek film whenever one hit the theaters, making me into the Trekkie that I am today. Many of these films we saw in Lima, Ohio, but I distinctly remember seeing two films at the old theater in Wapakoneta. One, in 1983, was Return of the Jedi. (I can even still remember the pillar I had to look around to see some of it.) The other was in early 1987. (For some reason, I remember that it was the same week that they announced that Billy Williams was elected to the Hall of Fame, which led me to buy my first Billy Williams baseball card that day at a baseball card shop in Wapakoneta and start my collection of Billy Williams cards, which I still have today, with only the most expensive among the set—his 1966 Topps card—missing.) In this instance, the film was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (“the one with the whales,” which tends to be regarded as one of the better Star Trek films and, on my own personal list, would rank second among Star Trek films, behind the second film with the Next Generation cast (“the one with the Borg”) … see, told you I was a Trekkie; I’ve even got a list of how I would rank the Star Trek films …).
The funny thing about all of this is that it didn’t dawn on me until I was reading the aforementioned CNN piece that my two most vivid memories of Wapakoneta are about seeing films that are about space—indeed, films from what are probably the two biggest space-oriented media text franchises ever. I don’t really believe in some kind of “fate,” so I take it as coincidence that I happened to see these two films in Wapakoneta and that those are my most lasting memories of the town. However, two things might make this a little more than coincidence. First, there is always the possibility that these films ran longer there or were a bigger deal in Wapakoneta than in many other places, since space is such a part of the town’s identity. That might contribute to it being a little more than coincidence that I saw these films there … though, I saw the other Star Wars and Star Trek films that came out when I was kid elsewhere. Second, perhaps subconsciously I so heavily associated with Wapakoneta with the air and space museum, that my mind latched onto these connections to space-oriented films in some way as well … though, that doesn’t explain the Billy Williams connection.
In the end, though, regardless of how coincidental my connections are, all of this shows just how significant space exploration has been in the last half century. That interest has become stitched into United States culture and society in many ways, in large part because the government (particularly with John Kennedy’s famous pronouncement that the United States would have a man on the moon before the 1960s were over) explicitly advanced this movement and the Hollywood industry, toy industries, and so on followed suit. And through all of this, so many space-oriented narratives have been built off a mythology that is evident in Bob Greene’s piece on CNN.com: what might be called the mythology of small town wholesomeness. Greene assigns it to Wapakoneta as he writes wistfully of the town. Many narratives of American history and identity build off this same theme, perhaps most prominently reflected in the prominent, though very limiting, idea that rural towns and cities in the Midwest (like Wapakoneta) constitute the moral center of American values. Many space narratives have followed suit, placing the origins of their protagonists into those rural environments. Star Trek and Star Wars are no different. Captain Kirk, after all, came from Iowa. And Luke Skywalker was a moisture farmer on the desert wastes of Tatooine before the Rebellion came calling. So, even as American stories have reached “to explore strange new worlds” and “to seek out new life and new civilizations,” that search has very much been rooted, physically and ideologically, in the familiar world of the rural United States. That is, of course, why space narratives have been associated with the Old West, with Star Wars being called a Western and Star Trek calling its scene “the final frontier.” (And, here, my friends, I’m sure is my Billy Williams link, since the popularity of baseball is built on a similar mythology, complete with the Field of Dreams in, of course, Iowa.) This is also, though, of course, how the mythology of the Midwest as the moral center of the United States carries on, bearing with it the politics of that morality. After all, it is in these kinds of rural spaces that a lot of the most persuasive forms of exclusion in American history—from sexism to racism to homophobia to xenophobia—have maintained firm ideological holds.
When I look back, then, at my memories of Wapakoneta, I hold nothing against the town. Indeed, I have happy memories of the town. Yet, I know little about Wapakoneta, other than my few memories and whatever information I might look up about it. Still, I have to wonder if Bob Greene, even though he is originally from a town in Ohio that’s not too much farther from Wapakoneta than the one I’m from, knows that much more than I do. The problem is that his column seems to imply that he does. It’s as if he knows the town’s soul, because it must have a good soul simply because it’s a Midwest town. That is, after all, what the mythology of small town wholesomeness tells us. And perhaps Wapakoneta is, on the whole, a good place. Yet, it’s not the automatic assumption that because it’s a Midwest farm town it must be a good place that should make that determination about Wapakoneta. In fact, quite the opposite is the case, since it’s that kind of assumption that, even when put forth rather innocuously in places like Greene’s piece, helps reinforce the deeper obstacles to democracy and inclusion that so often take place in Midwest farm towns.
So, let’s celebrate Neil Armstrong, NASA, “a man on the moon,” and Wapakoneta, if we wish, but let’s not forget the politics of how we go about doing so.
Sorry it’s been awhile since I’ve posted. I have a number of thoughts for things I want to post about, but haven’t found the time to sit down and write out what I want to say yet. Perhaps in the next couple of weeks …
Today, though, I’d like to acknowledge the fortieth anniversary of the day that people walked on the moon. Most notably, Neil Armstrong is remembered for being the first person to set foot on the moon. This weekend, I noticed that CNN.com ran a short editorial piece by Bob Greene about Neil Armstrong’s hometown: Wapakoneta, Ohio. There, you can find the Armstrong Air & Space Museum, which looks like a big golf ball as you drive past on I-75. I know this because I’ve driven by it scores of times and I’ve been to it several times. I grew up what is almost exactly a half-hour’s trip from it. So, for Cub Scouts, for school field trips, and I think a couple times with my father (who was curator of another museum in the area) or my grandfather (who was a bit of an air and space enthusiast), I went to the museum periodically. Though I’ve been meaning to go back since I relocated back to Ohio a few years ago, I haven’t yet, meaning it’s probably been around 25 years since the last time I was there.
I have glimpses of memories from the place—barely enough to even mention, for fear I’d completely misrepresent what was there then or is there now. All I remember are some pictures on walls and a kind of spacewalk room. My most vivid memories of Wapakoneta, though, involve something different, yet strangely similar. You see, while I go to the movies frequently in my adult life, as a kid my family didn’t go very often. We did, though, see a number of the big blockbusters in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, like the Star Wars films, E.T., and (actually when my brothers and I cajoled my mom’s brother into taking us) Back to the Future. Usually, my dad and his brother would also take us to see a Star Trek film whenever one hit the theaters, making me into the Trekkie that I am today. Many of these films we saw in Lima, Ohio, but I distinctly remember seeing two films at the old theater in Wapakoneta. One, in 1983, was Return of the Jedi. (I can even still remember the pillar I had to look around to see some of it.) The other was in early 1987. (For some reason, I remember that it was the same week that they announced that Billy Williams was elected to the Hall of Fame, which led me to buy my first Billy Williams baseball card that day at a baseball card shop in Wapakoneta and start my collection of Billy Williams cards, which I still have today, with only the most expensive among the set—his 1966 Topps card—missing.) In this instance, the film was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (“the one with the whales,” which tends to be regarded as one of the better Star Trek films and, on my own personal list, would rank second among Star Trek films, behind the second film with the Next Generation cast (“the one with the Borg”) … see, told you I was a Trekkie; I’ve even got a list of how I would rank the Star Trek films …).
The funny thing about all of this is that it didn’t dawn on me until I was reading the aforementioned CNN piece that my two most vivid memories of Wapakoneta are about seeing films that are about space—indeed, films from what are probably the two biggest space-oriented media text franchises ever. I don’t really believe in some kind of “fate,” so I take it as coincidence that I happened to see these two films in Wapakoneta and that those are my most lasting memories of the town. However, two things might make this a little more than coincidence. First, there is always the possibility that these films ran longer there or were a bigger deal in Wapakoneta than in many other places, since space is such a part of the town’s identity. That might contribute to it being a little more than coincidence that I saw these films there … though, I saw the other Star Wars and Star Trek films that came out when I was kid elsewhere. Second, perhaps subconsciously I so heavily associated with Wapakoneta with the air and space museum, that my mind latched onto these connections to space-oriented films in some way as well … though, that doesn’t explain the Billy Williams connection.
In the end, though, regardless of how coincidental my connections are, all of this shows just how significant space exploration has been in the last half century. That interest has become stitched into United States culture and society in many ways, in large part because the government (particularly with John Kennedy’s famous pronouncement that the United States would have a man on the moon before the 1960s were over) explicitly advanced this movement and the Hollywood industry, toy industries, and so on followed suit. And through all of this, so many space-oriented narratives have been built off a mythology that is evident in Bob Greene’s piece on CNN.com: what might be called the mythology of small town wholesomeness. Greene assigns it to Wapakoneta as he writes wistfully of the town. Many narratives of American history and identity build off this same theme, perhaps most prominently reflected in the prominent, though very limiting, idea that rural towns and cities in the Midwest (like Wapakoneta) constitute the moral center of American values. Many space narratives have followed suit, placing the origins of their protagonists into those rural environments. Star Trek and Star Wars are no different. Captain Kirk, after all, came from Iowa. And Luke Skywalker was a moisture farmer on the desert wastes of Tatooine before the Rebellion came calling. So, even as American stories have reached “to explore strange new worlds” and “to seek out new life and new civilizations,” that search has very much been rooted, physically and ideologically, in the familiar world of the rural United States. That is, of course, why space narratives have been associated with the Old West, with Star Wars being called a Western and Star Trek calling its scene “the final frontier.” (And, here, my friends, I’m sure is my Billy Williams link, since the popularity of baseball is built on a similar mythology, complete with the Field of Dreams in, of course, Iowa.) This is also, though, of course, how the mythology of the Midwest as the moral center of the United States carries on, bearing with it the politics of that morality. After all, it is in these kinds of rural spaces that a lot of the most persuasive forms of exclusion in American history—from sexism to racism to homophobia to xenophobia—have maintained firm ideological holds.
When I look back, then, at my memories of Wapakoneta, I hold nothing against the town. Indeed, I have happy memories of the town. Yet, I know little about Wapakoneta, other than my few memories and whatever information I might look up about it. Still, I have to wonder if Bob Greene, even though he is originally from a town in Ohio that’s not too much farther from Wapakoneta than the one I’m from, knows that much more than I do. The problem is that his column seems to imply that he does. It’s as if he knows the town’s soul, because it must have a good soul simply because it’s a Midwest town. That is, after all, what the mythology of small town wholesomeness tells us. And perhaps Wapakoneta is, on the whole, a good place. Yet, it’s not the automatic assumption that because it’s a Midwest farm town it must be a good place that should make that determination about Wapakoneta. In fact, quite the opposite is the case, since it’s that kind of assumption that, even when put forth rather innocuously in places like Greene’s piece, helps reinforce the deeper obstacles to democracy and inclusion that so often take place in Midwest farm towns.
So, let’s celebrate Neil Armstrong, NASA, “a man on the moon,” and Wapakoneta, if we wish, but let’s not forget the politics of how we go about doing so.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Another Stark Contrast
I get it. Jayson Stark doesn’t seem to particularly like Manny Ramirez and he does seem to like Andy Pettitte, while I tend to sit on the opposite sides of those fences. So, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that I might jump too quickly to defend Ramirez and I have already on this blog recognized that I might be too ready to dismiss Pettitte. That said, I still have an issue with Stark’s treatment of Ramirez vis-à-vis Pettitte. In his latest column, Stark voices indignation at the way in which Manny Ramirez is being celebrated and welcomed as he returns from his suspension for testing positive for a performance-enhancing drug. I guess I’d say Stark has just cause for his indignation. There probably is something inappropriate about the fanfare being made of Ramirez as he returns. And it’s not like Stark is saying Ramirez should not be allowed back. As Stark writes:
Manny Ramirez deserve a second chance? Absolutely. But does he deserve to be celebrated by anyone who isn't a tunnel-visioned Dodgers fan? Absolutely not.
If that's the greeting America heaps on him, though, the moral of Manny's story will be clear to every one of us:
It's time to grow some cool hair. Immediately.
So, Stark is upset by the lesson potentially being learned here and the message being sent. Yet, I wish he would be a little more reflective of these kinds of things when he discusses Andy Pettitte. Now, in fairness, when Andy Pettitte was admitting his performance-enhancing drug use, Stark did say that Pettitte doesn’t deserve to be excused and that Pettitte must deal with harsh consequences for having taken the drugs. Stark also, though, in comparing Pettitte to Rodney Harrison of the NFL, to show his indignation about how Harrison was not being treated more harshly for use of a performance-enhancing drug, wrote of Pettitte:
… he'll deserve his inevitable trip to principal Selig's office. He'll deserve whatever boos he hears on Opening Day, and on every road trip for the rest of his life. He'll deserve whatever price he has to pay for this.
But that doesn't mean we can't put his offense in perspective, judged against the more heinous and selfish offenses of others, judged against the context of his career.
I can’t disagree with Stark for saying we need to put these offenses into context, but I would ask Stark to reconsider his suggestion about how heinous and selfish Pettitte’s offenses were. In particular, for as much as Ramirez as flawed, at least he’s not claimed to lead some kind of pure life, nor has he profited by offering such a characterization of himself. Pettitte, on the other hand, in 2005, published a book claiming exactly that. The book, titled Strike Zone: Targeting A Life Of Integrity & Purity, is marketed with the following statement:
While life as a big league baseball player has brought Andy Pettitte fame and accolades, it has also brought with it temptation. However, Andy learned to deal with temptation long before he donned his first major league uniform. While still a teenager, Andy committed himself to Christ and a life of purity. With his target identified early on, he has been able to hit the strikezone throughout his life.
While Ramirez is not free of responsibility for his actions, it seems to me the far more heinous and selfish context here is to profit off claims to living a “pure” life when one is doing anything but. Stark seems upset that the moral of the Ramirez story would be that everybody will love you and welcome you back if you grow your hair long and have a goofy, happy-go-lucky persona like Ramirez. Yet, Stark’s treatment of Pettitte would have us fall victim to what might be an even worse moral: It’s time to claim status as a born-again Christian and write a book about how to live a morally upstanding, “pure” life, even if you don’t in reality live the life you’re preaching.
Sorry, Jayson, but to me that’s the worse context and the worse moral.
Manny Ramirez deserve a second chance? Absolutely. But does he deserve to be celebrated by anyone who isn't a tunnel-visioned Dodgers fan? Absolutely not.
If that's the greeting America heaps on him, though, the moral of Manny's story will be clear to every one of us:
It's time to grow some cool hair. Immediately.
So, Stark is upset by the lesson potentially being learned here and the message being sent. Yet, I wish he would be a little more reflective of these kinds of things when he discusses Andy Pettitte. Now, in fairness, when Andy Pettitte was admitting his performance-enhancing drug use, Stark did say that Pettitte doesn’t deserve to be excused and that Pettitte must deal with harsh consequences for having taken the drugs. Stark also, though, in comparing Pettitte to Rodney Harrison of the NFL, to show his indignation about how Harrison was not being treated more harshly for use of a performance-enhancing drug, wrote of Pettitte:
… he'll deserve his inevitable trip to principal Selig's office. He'll deserve whatever boos he hears on Opening Day, and on every road trip for the rest of his life. He'll deserve whatever price he has to pay for this.
But that doesn't mean we can't put his offense in perspective, judged against the more heinous and selfish offenses of others, judged against the context of his career.
I can’t disagree with Stark for saying we need to put these offenses into context, but I would ask Stark to reconsider his suggestion about how heinous and selfish Pettitte’s offenses were. In particular, for as much as Ramirez as flawed, at least he’s not claimed to lead some kind of pure life, nor has he profited by offering such a characterization of himself. Pettitte, on the other hand, in 2005, published a book claiming exactly that. The book, titled Strike Zone: Targeting A Life Of Integrity & Purity, is marketed with the following statement:
While life as a big league baseball player has brought Andy Pettitte fame and accolades, it has also brought with it temptation. However, Andy learned to deal with temptation long before he donned his first major league uniform. While still a teenager, Andy committed himself to Christ and a life of purity. With his target identified early on, he has been able to hit the strikezone throughout his life.
While Ramirez is not free of responsibility for his actions, it seems to me the far more heinous and selfish context here is to profit off claims to living a “pure” life when one is doing anything but. Stark seems upset that the moral of the Ramirez story would be that everybody will love you and welcome you back if you grow your hair long and have a goofy, happy-go-lucky persona like Ramirez. Yet, Stark’s treatment of Pettitte would have us fall victim to what might be an even worse moral: It’s time to claim status as a born-again Christian and write a book about how to live a morally upstanding, “pure” life, even if you don’t in reality live the life you’re preaching.
Sorry, Jayson, but to me that’s the worse context and the worse moral.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Dis(Parity) in the NBA: One Year Later
Now that the Los Angeles Lakers have won the 2009 NBA title, as a follow-up to my post a little over a year ago on Disparity in the NBA, let’s look at how NBA championships since 1980 now stack up:
8 franchises have, among themselves, won the last 30 NBA championships, for an average of 3.75 championships per franchise.
Taking out the Philadelphia 76ers’ win in 1983 and the Miami Heat’s win in 2006, 6 franchises have, among themselves, won 28 of the last 30 NBA championships, for an average of 4.67 championships per franchise.
Those numbers are up from 3.5 and 4.33, respectively, before the Boston Celtics won the championship in 2008.
8 franchises have, among themselves, won the last 30 NBA championships, for an average of 3.75 championships per franchise.
Taking out the Philadelphia 76ers’ win in 1983 and the Miami Heat’s win in 2006, 6 franchises have, among themselves, won 28 of the last 30 NBA championships, for an average of 4.67 championships per franchise.
Those numbers are up from 3.5 and 4.33, respectively, before the Boston Celtics won the championship in 2008.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Gregg Doyel Update #4: Cheap Amusements
I made Gregg Doyel's HateMail again today. He cut off some of my message. I don't remember word for word what I wrote, but the full message went something like this:
Dude ... What's with the new picture? I had to look at it a few times, and I'm still not sure it's you. I know the Arizona Cardinals claim that making the bird on their logo look "tougher" helped them gain the ferocity to make the Super Bowl, but do you really need to be like the Detroit Lions and try to follow suit? I could relate to your old picture. You were a doofus just like the rest of us. But now? You look like a muscle-head with whom I have little in common (or like Chris Daughtry ... I'm not sure yet). You and I are both smart enough to know I'm not going to stop reading your columns, but I had been praising you lately and now I'll probably have to go back to critiquing you. And here I was thinking that my critique of you last year had helped produced a brighter, more eloquent Gregg Doyel. Now I need something else to stroke my ego. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
Again, my wording in the message might have been a bit different, but that was the gist of it.
Anyway, there's not really any particularly more profound point to this post other than my own cheap amusement, as I mentioned in my title. Speaking of which, though, there's a cool book by Kathleen Peiss from the mid-1980s called Cheap Amusements that examines at the leisure activities of working-class women around the turn of the 20th century. I had to read it for two different courses while working on my Master's degree in the mid-1990s. If memory serves me correctly, it's written in a style that's relatively accessible for non-academic audiences, even as it maintains academic credibility. Of course, the best part is that she starts out the book by quoting Cyndi Lauper's song "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." In writing a review of the book for one of the courses for which I had to read it I decided to start off each paragraph by using the title of a Cyndi Lauper song at the beginning of the first sentence of the paragraph. So, one paragraph started "Time after time ..."; another started "True colors were shown ..."; and so on. The professor didn't catch the references and marked all of the "awkward" opening sentences to paragraphs. I never told him what I did. I'd be very surprised if he even remembers it, but obviously it made an impression on me ... but, then again, I do, as I mentioned in my message to Gregg Doyel, have that ego to stroke and, of course, I am a big fan of Cyndi Lauper.
And, no ... I didn't find a way to start a sentence with "She Bop" ... but, then again, maybe I just wasn't being inventive enough ...
Dude ... What's with the new picture? I had to look at it a few times, and I'm still not sure it's you. I know the Arizona Cardinals claim that making the bird on their logo look "tougher" helped them gain the ferocity to make the Super Bowl, but do you really need to be like the Detroit Lions and try to follow suit? I could relate to your old picture. You were a doofus just like the rest of us. But now? You look like a muscle-head with whom I have little in common (or like Chris Daughtry ... I'm not sure yet). You and I are both smart enough to know I'm not going to stop reading your columns, but I had been praising you lately and now I'll probably have to go back to critiquing you. And here I was thinking that my critique of you last year had helped produced a brighter, more eloquent Gregg Doyel. Now I need something else to stroke my ego. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
Again, my wording in the message might have been a bit different, but that was the gist of it.
Anyway, there's not really any particularly more profound point to this post other than my own cheap amusement, as I mentioned in my title. Speaking of which, though, there's a cool book by Kathleen Peiss from the mid-1980s called Cheap Amusements that examines at the leisure activities of working-class women around the turn of the 20th century. I had to read it for two different courses while working on my Master's degree in the mid-1990s. If memory serves me correctly, it's written in a style that's relatively accessible for non-academic audiences, even as it maintains academic credibility. Of course, the best part is that she starts out the book by quoting Cyndi Lauper's song "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." In writing a review of the book for one of the courses for which I had to read it I decided to start off each paragraph by using the title of a Cyndi Lauper song at the beginning of the first sentence of the paragraph. So, one paragraph started "Time after time ..."; another started "True colors were shown ..."; and so on. The professor didn't catch the references and marked all of the "awkward" opening sentences to paragraphs. I never told him what I did. I'd be very surprised if he even remembers it, but obviously it made an impression on me ... but, then again, I do, as I mentioned in my message to Gregg Doyel, have that ego to stroke and, of course, I am a big fan of Cyndi Lauper.
And, no ... I didn't find a way to start a sentence with "She Bop" ... but, then again, maybe I just wasn't being inventive enough ...
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Barack Obama and Gay Rights
Ragan Fox (assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Cal State-Long Beach and fellow ASU alum (I was directly in front of him in the graduation line when we both earned our Ph.D.s)) recently offered a post on his blog in which he associates gay men and women supporting Obama's administration with being in an abusive relationship. I found it to be an insightful connection about an important set of issues, so I thought I'd share it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)