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.

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

21st Century Breakdown

I was thinking about writing something about the recent situation involving Wal-Mart's refusal to stock Green Day's latest album, but then a fellow faculty member at my university wrote a column in the school newspaper about it and I have just completed and sent a letter to the editor in response. So, rather than rewrite something else for my blog (since I really need to get back to working on other projects), I figured I'd link to his column here and include my letter below:

Dr. Phil Schurrer’s column on Wednesday, May 27, harkens back to another column he wrote in February, in which he discussed what he considered to be polite and impolite speech, railing against things such as language usage and having to hear about sexual orientations. Among the topics these columns addressed was his distaste for “vulgar” words. Many of these words, though, are only considered “vulgar” because historically those in power, who came primarily from a white, European Christian, upper-class background, saw them as such. To this day, that they are considered objectionable reflects the power that that group continues to have. Continued treatment of them as unquestionably objectionable thus contains real potential to marginalize other groups’ perspectives.

Dr. Schurrer’s discussion of Wal-Mart and Green Day reinforces these power relations. It may be that Green Day was doing this for publicity, as Dr. Schurrer suggests. However, Wal-Mart’s actions are every bit as much publicity. Wal-Mart’s policy publicly endears them to some constituencies, as it suggests that the interests of those who do not like this language are more important than the interests of others. As this involves what are historically considered “bad” words, Wal-Mart is privileging the historical sensitivities of white Christian upper-class Europeans over others’ sensitivities. What if, as an alternate scenario, someone believes that any reference to God in a song is offensive? Should Wal-Mart accommodate this sensitivity, too? Should they do so for any number of other subjects that could also potentially offend? In another scenario, to go back to Dr. Schurrer’s mention of sexual orientation, why is it considered inappropriate for some folks to discuss sexual orientation, yet we see heterosexual couples kissing on the scoreboard at baseball games, we celebrate weddings (which express sexual orientation whether same-sex or different-sex), and our media texts are dominated by one heterosexual romantic film and song after another?

Dr. Schurrer wrote in September that “if a university is to truly be a ‘supermarket of ideas,’ then all sides of an issue need to be aired. This is not saying we agree with all points of view, or that all ideas are equal in value. But respect for others mandates that we give them the same respect that we seek.” Yet, he seems to suggest that his supermarket of ideas should not include some forms and kinds of expression when he proposes that that supermarket must occur within rules that he wants imposed so that some sensibilities, which often coincide with the sensibilities of dominant groups, are not offended. In another column last September, he referred to some of these rules as “common courtesy.” Yet, in March, he defended conservatism on the grounds that you can “depend on it to back the individual over the collective.” Given the correlation between “common” and “collective,” his positions continually seem to run counter to his praise for conservatism, as they back the collective over the individual and they do so in ways that very much involve power relations that, at a minimum, it would seem, ought to be recognized and discussed.

In his most recent column, Dr. Schurrer called Green Day “juvenile” and questioned the band’s maturity. Last fall, in his piece on diversity, Dr. Schurrer argued that “if we're going to be truly ‘diverse,’ we need to listen to those views [that differ from ours] with the same degree of respect and concentration as those who think as we do. To do so is a sign of intellectual activity and maturity.” With all due respect, couldn’t Dr. Schurrer’s own statement about maturity be applied to Wal-Mart and the many unexamined rules and “common courtesies” that his columns have mentioned over the past year? I truly respect Dr. Schurrer’s views and sensitivities, and I think there is plenty of room for discussion of what language use and actions are appropriate, what topics are important to discuss, and so on. However, Dr. Schurrer’s use of language seems to reflect something much less inviting.

Sentimental Favorite in the Indy 500

I’ve recently come to the full realization that the Indianapolis 500 is my favorite sporting event of the year. I guess I have probably realized this for a long time now, but I never sat down and acknowledged it so fully until this past year. I have literally interrupted vacations for the Indianapolis 500, including once making my wife sit in a hotel room in California for a few extra hours one Memorial Day weekend while I watched the race. I’m still mad that I missed Arie Luyendyk’s first win in the race because I was graduating from high school and my high school has for years held its graduation ceremony at the same time as the race … despite the fact that it’s only a few hours from Indianapolis in an area heavy with racing fans. Every May, I watch qualifications runs and Bump Day, I pore over statistics about the drivers, and I reread about past races. I love a lot of sports and, outside of Indy car racing, I’m not much of an auto racing fan, but for some reason the Indy 500 is my favorite sports event. I suppose when I have more time to reflect on it, I’ll try to understand why that is. For now, though, with the race happening this weekend, I want, as a fan, to offer some public declaration of support for my sentimental favorite: Sarah Fisher.

Much is made of Danica Patrick as a female driver in a male-dominated enterprise. I root for Danica and certainly support her, but there is little question that her questionable use of sexuality is a major aspect of her popularity. On the other hand, Sarah Fisher’s public persona is much more rooted in her connection to driving. With this Sunday’s Indianapolis 500, she will become the woman who has made the most starts in the race, as she runs her eighth Indy 500 race, surpassing her current tie with Lyn St. James. She is also running her second consecutive race as not only a driver, but a racecar owner. She may not have a high chance to win, as the bigger teams tend to dominate the Indy Racing League races. As a smaller outfit, it’s difficult to maintain the car and speed of the larger teams. Yet, there is always a possibility and Fisher’s experience and ability only add to that chance. For her talent, her experience, and the honorable way in which she carries the mantle of female auto racers, I’m rooting for Sarah Fisher this Sunday.

Oh yeah … and her appearance on The Daily Show this past Monday doesn’t hurt either.