Saturday, November 7, 2009
Blog Migration
Primarily for the sake of change, Pimp My Rant has migrated to tumblr with a new design. See you over there!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The F***ers at the FCC
This morning I was reading a Supreme Court case, FCC v. Fox Television Stations. The legal issue relates to the FCC's ability to ban "obscene, indecent, or profane language" on television (or radio). I don't really keep up with this issue, so I was surprised to see the following things in this opinion:
I'm not a big fan of the word "shit." It strikes me as a sordid and crass use of language. But each to his taste -- I don't feel that way about "fuck" or "goddammit" for example. Nor do I find the word "shit" obscene or indecent. If Nicole Richie had said "Have you ever tried to get cow poop/doodoo/excrement/manure out of a Prada purse?" would the FCC had said anything at all? Every kid knows what poop and doodoo are. They see it three times a day (if they are healthy).
And please explain to me how "fucking brilliant" is indicative of a sexual act. Women, when you hear a man say "That's fucking awesome" do your loins get tingly? Guys, when a woman says "It's fucking beautiful outside" do you immediately look for something to cover your crotch with?
Maybe it is a generational thing. I had a 50 year old colleague tell me that she would not use the words "defendant got screwed in this case" in front of 25 year old graduate students, because it connoted sexual activity. The youngest of us found that hard to believe, because it was clearly not referring to sex.
And finally, for every "fuck" and "shit" that accidentally escapes over the television airwaves, there are literally 1,000 sexual and excrement references on television shows every single night. There are entire shows built around these concepts. Two And A Half Men? Big Bang Theory? How I Met Your Mother?
Now if you'll excuse me, writing this has made me a little, well, frisky.
- Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, was unable to use the words "fuck" and "shit" in the opinion, preferring "f***" (or F-Word) and "s***" (or S-Word). C'mon, in a Supreme Court opinion? Are children reading this opinion?
- In 2004, the FCC went bananas about Bono's comment during the Golden Globe Awards: "This is really, really, fucking brilliant." Initially the FCC's enforcement bureau said it was no big deal, because it was used only once, and as an intensifier. The FCC gets more upset if you use the word literally (e.g., "she fucked him") than non-literally (e.g., "fucking awesome!"). However, even non-literal usage will get you in trouble if there are repeated instances. Nevertheless, on review the FCC decided this was a terrible event, writing:
[G]iven the core meaning of the "F-Word," any use of that word...inherently has a sexual connotation. [It is] patently offensive [because it] is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language.
- The present case related to Cher's comment during the Billboard Music Awards that "I've also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So fuck 'em." and Nicole Richie saying "Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple." In addition to repeating its comments about the "F-Word" from the Bono situation, the FCC added that Ms. Richie's "explicit description of the handling of excrement [was] vulgar and shocking." In addition, the FCC said Cher's use of "fuck" was not an intensifier, but was directly related to a sexual act.
- The FCC asserted, and the Supreme Court agreed, that even one-time references to "fuck" and "shit" can constitute a "harmful 'first blow' to children."
I'm not a big fan of the word "shit." It strikes me as a sordid and crass use of language. But each to his taste -- I don't feel that way about "fuck" or "goddammit" for example. Nor do I find the word "shit" obscene or indecent. If Nicole Richie had said "Have you ever tried to get cow poop/doodoo/excrement/manure out of a Prada purse?" would the FCC had said anything at all? Every kid knows what poop and doodoo are. They see it three times a day (if they are healthy).
And please explain to me how "fucking brilliant" is indicative of a sexual act. Women, when you hear a man say "That's fucking awesome" do your loins get tingly? Guys, when a woman says "It's fucking beautiful outside" do you immediately look for something to cover your crotch with?
Maybe it is a generational thing. I had a 50 year old colleague tell me that she would not use the words "defendant got screwed in this case" in front of 25 year old graduate students, because it connoted sexual activity. The youngest of us found that hard to believe, because it was clearly not referring to sex.
And finally, for every "fuck" and "shit" that accidentally escapes over the television airwaves, there are literally 1,000 sexual and excrement references on television shows every single night. There are entire shows built around these concepts. Two And A Half Men? Big Bang Theory? How I Met Your Mother?
Now if you'll excuse me, writing this has made me a little, well, frisky.
Labels:
Law,
Television
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Cream of What?
This morning I woke up starving, and having polished off the last of the McCann's Steel Cut Irish Oatmeal yesterday morning, I had nothing for breakfast in the house. Except....back there in the corner, some tupperware with a blue lid. It has cream of wheat in it. That container has probably survived three different moves, but cream of wheat doesn't go bad in a sealed container. So there's my breakfast.
But it isn't in a box, and if I ever could remember how to cook it, I can't now. That's why there's Google, though, so I type in "directions for quaker cream of wheat" and get a bunch of hits, including one for Amazon.com.
Did you know that Amazon.com sells Cream of Wheat? Oh yeah, and they've got nutrition facts, and a customer discussion section, etc. Its sales rank is #70,328. (McCann's oatmeal is ranked #3,405).
Amazon also has a section on the cream of wheat page called "Active Discussions in Related Forums." The key word is "related." Here's the call of the question: Do any of these topics seem a little odd with respect to Quaker quick cooking Cream of Wheat?:
But it isn't in a box, and if I ever could remember how to cook it, I can't now. That's why there's Google, though, so I type in "directions for quaker cream of wheat" and get a bunch of hits, including one for Amazon.com.
Did you know that Amazon.com sells Cream of Wheat? Oh yeah, and they've got nutrition facts, and a customer discussion section, etc. Its sales rank is #70,328. (McCann's oatmeal is ranked #3,405).
Amazon also has a section on the cream of wheat page called "Active Discussions in Related Forums." The key word is "related." Here's the call of the question: Do any of these topics seem a little odd with respect to Quaker quick cooking Cream of Wheat?:
- Is a raw food diet the best diet? (128 replies)
- His needs/her needs, marriage counseling ...why SHOULDN'T women worry about looks? (49 replies)
- December 12, 2012 at 11:00? What do you think will happen? (178 replies)
- Male circumcision (1,465 replies)
- Should we have free healthcare in the U.S.? (and is it possible?) (677 replies)
- Common Mood Stabilizers Found to Cause Suicidal Ideation As Noted by the FDA: What's the Best Way To Deal With It? (2 replies)
- Books for children with sick loved ones (no replies...no one cares apparently, because this is the oldest of the topics listed)
Labels:
Miscellaneous
Monday, March 30, 2009
Classic Toys
I ran across a story that was designed to tell us the original thinking behind some classic toys. As I was reading it, I realized I had some thoughts about all of them, and it is my Constitutional right, as a blogger, to present them:
1. Lincoln Logs:
Frank Lloyd Wright must have been sooooo disappointed. He's the most famous American architect in history, and his son is building one room cabins out of logs. And plastic ones at that.
2. Tinkertoys
Ah, the sweet days before electronics found their way into every kid's life. Like when kids would be sent out into the yard to find something (anything) to do. Didn't need a toy. Just a stick. Or a bug.
3. Hula Hoops
Seems to work for the drug dealers. If you want to see an entertaining movie from the 90s, see The Hudsucker Proxy (from the Coen Brothers). I can't tell you why. It will spoil the fun.
4. Sea Monkeys
I don't think I owned a single comic book that did not contain a large sea monkey ad on the inside back cover. They sure didn't look like brine shrimp, unless brine shrimp are three inches long, pink, and constantly party. This is stretching the idea of a toy. And I hope those are gills, and not chest hair.
5. Play-Doh
And I used to eat it. Salty goodness.
6. Troll dolls
I missed this craze, but I always wondered why someone would want something so (Dam) ugly.
7. Slinky
I don't believe the second half of this story. The slinky was constantly walking down steps and books on t.v., but getting it to take more than a couple of steps in real life was nearly impossible. You're telling me it stepped down a stack of books, and THEN to a table, and THEN to the floor, and then curled up nicely? And correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Navy be using a slightly higher grade metal?
8. LEGO blocks
Ole Kirk was the son that Frank Lloyd Wright never had.
9. Raggedy Ann and Andy
These were creeeeeppppy! Can't you just see waking up in the middle of the night getting stabbed by this thing? Is that blood on her apron????? Actually, I feel a little sorry for her. Who wants to be called "raggedy"?
10. Sock Monkeys.
Okay, I don't believe this one either. My guess is that the origin of the sock monkey is much more sinister and unpleasant, but I'll leave that unspoken. For the moment, let's concentrate on the Sock Monkey Society: A place where sock monkeys unite!. Or Sock Monkey Ministries, whose job it is to demonstrate to us what's wrong with the U.S. Tax Code...they have a 501(c)(3) designation!
1. Lincoln Logs:
...invented by John Lloyd Wright, Frank Lloyd Wright’s son. The original instructions included a how to construct a replica of Abraham Lincoln’s cabin, but also how to construct Uncle Tom’s cabin.
Frank Lloyd Wright must have been sooooo disappointed. He's the most famous American architect in history, and his son is building one room cabins out of logs. And plastic ones at that.
2. Tinkertoys
...were invented after a stonemason saw kids being totally entertained by building things with pencils and spools of thread.
Ah, the sweet days before electronics found their way into every kid's life. Like when kids would be sent out into the yard to find something (anything) to do. Didn't need a toy. Just a stick. Or a bug.
3. Hula Hoops
...the inventors promoted it by going around to various playgrounds and parks giving children samples and showing them how to use it. Something tells me two random men showing up in a park handing out toys wouldn’t go over that well today…
Seems to work for the drug dealers. If you want to see an entertaining movie from the 90s, see The Hudsucker Proxy (from the Coen Brothers). I can't tell you why. It will spoil the fun.
4. Sea Monkeys
...are real (and that’s what they look like)...They were “invented” in 1957 by Harold von Braunhut, the guy who invented X-Ray specs. They’re really brine shrimp and are ideal for packaging as a toy because they enter a natural state of suspended animation in certain (shippable) environments.
I don't think I owned a single comic book that did not contain a large sea monkey ad on the inside back cover. They sure didn't look like brine shrimp, unless brine shrimp are three inches long, pink, and constantly party. This is stretching the idea of a toy. And I hope those are gills, and not chest hair.
5. Play-Doh
...was first sold as a wallpaper cleaner. How’s that for weird? You rolled it on the walls to remove coal dust.
And I used to eat it. Salty goodness.
6. Troll dolls
...were created in 1949 by a Danish fisherman who needed a cheap Christmas gift for his daughter because he couldn’t afford to buy anything. He used sheep’s wool for the hair. Thomas Dam’s dolls caught on; thus the original dolls were called Dam Dolls.
I missed this craze, but I always wondered why someone would want something so (Dam) ugly.
7. Slinky
...was invented by Naval engineer Richard James. He knocked a spring off of a shelf when he was working to develop springs that could keep ship instruments stable in choppy waters. The spring did what a Slinky does… it stepped down to a stack of books, then to the table, and then to the floor, where it righted itself into a cylinder.
I don't believe the second half of this story. The slinky was constantly walking down steps and books on t.v., but getting it to take more than a couple of steps in real life was nearly impossible. You're telling me it stepped down a stack of books, and THEN to a table, and THEN to the floor, and then curled up nicely? And correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Navy be using a slightly higher grade metal?
8. LEGO blocks
... were invented by Ole Kirk Christiansen, a master carpenter who lived in Denmark. The word comes from the Danish words LEg and GOdt, which together means “play well.” They later discovered that in Latin, Lego means “I put together.”
Ole Kirk was the son that Frank Lloyd Wright never had.
9. Raggedy Ann and Andy
...were created by writer and illustrator Johnny Gruelle. Ann was created as a doll in 1915 for Gruelle’s daughter – he reportedly named the doll after two books poems from a James Whitcomb Riley book – “The Raggedy Man” and “Little Orphan Annie.”
These were creeeeeppppy! Can't you just see waking up in the middle of the night getting stabbed by this thing? Is that blood on her apron????? Actually, I feel a little sorry for her. Who wants to be called "raggedy"?
10. Sock Monkeys.
...The sock monkeys that we have come to know and love today – the ones made with Red-Heel socks – are thought to have come about in 1932. The distinctive red heel was given to the socks so customers would know they were getting authentic Rockford socks. When the Nelson Knitting Company discovered that their socks were being used across the country in this arts-and-crafts movement, they won the design patent for the sock monkey pattern and started including it in the packaging of their socks.
Okay, I don't believe this one either. My guess is that the origin of the sock monkey is much more sinister and unpleasant, but I'll leave that unspoken. For the moment, let's concentrate on the Sock Monkey Society: A place where sock monkeys unite!. Or Sock Monkey Ministries, whose job it is to demonstrate to us what's wrong with the U.S. Tax Code...they have a 501(c)(3) designation!
Labels:
Consumerism,
Miscellaneous
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Baracketology
How many stories are going to be written about who President Obama has in his March Madness brackets? That's what I was asking yesterday, because the stories were out of hand.
Apparently I'm going to have to endure more, because not only is there reporting on who he picked, but we now are getting updates on how he's doing. Eleven out of 16 on day one. Who cares? (And that's not so great by the way).
I know he likes basketball, but let's face it, he picked UNC to win the whole thing, even though their best player has missed three games, may not play at all, and if he does play, will not be 100%. As Coach Williams (UNC) said, Obama picked Carolina because he attended a practice last fall, when he was on the campaign trail. He drove to the basket, and the players let him score. Or as Williams put it, "Tyler [Hansbrough] didn't take his head off."
Also surfacing is a report that Coach Krzyzewski (Duke) said he wasn't concerned about Duke not being in Obama's Final Four, because the president should be focusing on the economy. It was a big enough story that Coach K's wife felt compelled to text the White House an explanation.
It's just plain silly. First of all, Coach K is 100% right. Second, Coach Williams said the same thing when he was asked about Obama picking his team as the eventual champion. And third, who cares? Obama isn't supporting Duke. Coach K (a republican) almost certainly did not support Obama. They're even.
Is this going to become a regular thing? Does President Obama have a fantasy baseball draft coming up next week, and will we learn who he picked? Round by round? And will the fantasy baseball standings be published throughout the season, so we can see how his team "Hail2the Chiefs" are faring? Maybe Joe Torre will text him with a scouting report on how Russell Martin's (catcher) knees are holding up.
I realize that Obama used some "hip" methods to get elected. The Internet is cool, so he used it. March Madness is cool, so he's using that. I'm not convinced, however, that our president needs to be (or appear) cool...at least not this way.
I also don't believe for a second that he's spending significant time poring over his bracket. I think he filled one out (who doesn't?), while sitting up in bed, and it took him about 10 minutes. I'm almost sure (geez, let's hope) that the media is paying more attention to his bracket than he is.
Apparently I'm going to have to endure more, because not only is there reporting on who he picked, but we now are getting updates on how he's doing. Eleven out of 16 on day one. Who cares? (And that's not so great by the way).
I know he likes basketball, but let's face it, he picked UNC to win the whole thing, even though their best player has missed three games, may not play at all, and if he does play, will not be 100%. As Coach Williams (UNC) said, Obama picked Carolina because he attended a practice last fall, when he was on the campaign trail. He drove to the basket, and the players let him score. Or as Williams put it, "Tyler [Hansbrough] didn't take his head off."
Also surfacing is a report that Coach Krzyzewski (Duke) said he wasn't concerned about Duke not being in Obama's Final Four, because the president should be focusing on the economy. It was a big enough story that Coach K's wife felt compelled to text the White House an explanation.
It's just plain silly. First of all, Coach K is 100% right. Second, Coach Williams said the same thing when he was asked about Obama picking his team as the eventual champion. And third, who cares? Obama isn't supporting Duke. Coach K (a republican) almost certainly did not support Obama. They're even.
Is this going to become a regular thing? Does President Obama have a fantasy baseball draft coming up next week, and will we learn who he picked? Round by round? And will the fantasy baseball standings be published throughout the season, so we can see how his team "Hail2the Chiefs" are faring? Maybe Joe Torre will text him with a scouting report on how Russell Martin's (catcher) knees are holding up.
I realize that Obama used some "hip" methods to get elected. The Internet is cool, so he used it. March Madness is cool, so he's using that. I'm not convinced, however, that our president needs to be (or appear) cool...at least not this way.
I also don't believe for a second that he's spending significant time poring over his bracket. I think he filled one out (who doesn't?), while sitting up in bed, and it took him about 10 minutes. I'm almost sure (geez, let's hope) that the media is paying more attention to his bracket than he is.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The BO Chronicles
I was at Target last night, shopping for various sundries. I swung by the deodorant aisle. Target has a wide selection. About 3/4 of one entire side of an aisle is dedicated to deodorant.
My normal approach is four steps: (1) find the men's section; (2) grab either Degree or Axe for men; (3) pop the caps and smell a few; and (4) purchase one that I don't think a woman, if I ever met one, would find offensive. I don't even look at the name of the scent. Gone in 30 seconds.
Last night required a different procedure. For there in front of me was a family. An impenetrable wall of family. Here's a rough approximation of the configuration:
__________________________
W < > S K H
G < > Me
__________________________
W = Woman in her late twenties, with a shopping cart (< >) parallel to the aisle facing S.
S = W's sister, I think. A little younger.
K = Kid, an 8 year old girl
H = Husband of woman, slightly younger, and definitely NOT in charge.
G = W's mom (the grandmother) with her own shopping cart (< >) also parallel to the aisle.
The deodorant is on the north side of this aisle. W, G, and S are in the women's section. K and H are in the men's section. K is lifting the cap off of ev-e-ry...single...container, and sniffing them all -- as if she's in some sort of timed deodorant sniffing contest. God knows what this will do to her brain development.
H, flummoxed by all the choices, has a blank look on his face. He's not frustrated by how much time they are spending here. He's not even resigned to it. He's just floating in his own space.
W and S are discussing the various scents of women's deodorants. W then shrieks (literally): "Oh my God*, they have Classic Romance." Classic Romance? Yes, that's the name of a women's scent. Talk about marketing! There's nothing romantic about deodorant. I actually thought she was kidding, but S and G lean in for a whiff.
W then tells H: "You should get this." H, not knowing what else to do, says "If you think so." Yeah, H is going to be wearing Classic Romance. I think H might be in the Navy (we are near NAS Jax, and he has a short haircut).
But wait, W isn't done. She blurts to the group: "John (this is H's name), you really should get 'clinical protection'." I'm feeling uncomfortable. Not only am I spending waaaayyy too much time in the deodorant aisle, but I now have the sinking feeling I'm going to get TMI about H's b.o. G chimes in "Yes, John, that's very strong. Doctors recommend it."
Doctors recommend deodorant? When? I've never seen a commercial that says "4 out of 5 doctors we surveyed recommend Degree Clinical Protection." How bad do you have to smell to get a doctor's recommendation for deodorant. I decide to hold my breath, just in case.
I've had enough. It's Saturday night, and I may not have any plans, but I'm NOT going to be stuck in a deodorant colloquium.
Here's the aisle again, in a bigger view. My plan is represented by the dashed lines:
__________________________
W < > S / K H
--- \
G < > \
-----Me
__________________________
That's right, moving quickly to my left, I execute a slashing maneuver, and using my left hand, I reach up and over the kid for some men's Degree. The family looks at me like I've just walked through their living room on my way to their backyard. I leave quickly.
On the way to the counter I sneak a peek. I got Degree "Power." Look out y'all.
My normal approach is four steps: (1) find the men's section; (2) grab either Degree or Axe for men; (3) pop the caps and smell a few; and (4) purchase one that I don't think a woman, if I ever met one, would find offensive. I don't even look at the name of the scent. Gone in 30 seconds.
Last night required a different procedure. For there in front of me was a family. An impenetrable wall of family. Here's a rough approximation of the configuration:
__________________________
W < > S K H
G < > Me
__________________________
W = Woman in her late twenties, with a shopping cart (< >) parallel to the aisle facing S.
S = W's sister, I think. A little younger.
K = Kid, an 8 year old girl
H = Husband of woman, slightly younger, and definitely NOT in charge.
G = W's mom (the grandmother) with her own shopping cart (< >) also parallel to the aisle.
The deodorant is on the north side of this aisle. W, G, and S are in the women's section. K and H are in the men's section. K is lifting the cap off of ev-e-ry...single...container, and sniffing them all -- as if she's in some sort of timed deodorant sniffing contest. God knows what this will do to her brain development.
H, flummoxed by all the choices, has a blank look on his face. He's not frustrated by how much time they are spending here. He's not even resigned to it. He's just floating in his own space.
W and S are discussing the various scents of women's deodorants. W then shrieks (literally): "Oh my God*, they have Classic Romance." Classic Romance? Yes, that's the name of a women's scent. Talk about marketing! There's nothing romantic about deodorant. I actually thought she was kidding, but S and G lean in for a whiff.
*Degree has its own line of deodorant for teenage girls and it's tag line is "Protection for every OMG moment."
W then tells H: "You should get this." H, not knowing what else to do, says "If you think so." Yeah, H is going to be wearing Classic Romance. I think H might be in the Navy (we are near NAS Jax, and he has a short haircut).
But wait, W isn't done. She blurts to the group: "John (this is H's name), you really should get 'clinical protection'." I'm feeling uncomfortable. Not only am I spending waaaayyy too much time in the deodorant aisle, but I now have the sinking feeling I'm going to get TMI about H's b.o. G chimes in "Yes, John, that's very strong. Doctors recommend it."
Doctors recommend deodorant? When? I've never seen a commercial that says "4 out of 5 doctors we surveyed recommend Degree Clinical Protection." How bad do you have to smell to get a doctor's recommendation for deodorant. I decide to hold my breath, just in case.
I've had enough. It's Saturday night, and I may not have any plans, but I'm NOT going to be stuck in a deodorant colloquium.
Here's the aisle again, in a bigger view. My plan is represented by the dashed lines:
__________________________
W < > S / K H
--- \
G < > \
-----Me
__________________________
That's right, moving quickly to my left, I execute a slashing maneuver, and using my left hand, I reach up and over the kid for some men's Degree. The family looks at me like I've just walked through their living room on my way to their backyard. I leave quickly.
On the way to the counter I sneak a peek. I got Degree "Power." Look out y'all.
Labels:
Consumerism
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
I Have Something In Common With Obama
On the NPR program "News and Notes" the other night, the host asked his guests whether Obama's newly graying hair was an issue worth discussing or not. His guests said "yes," because it was indicative of job stress.
That's debatable, of course. We all know the job of president is stressful. I don't think gray hair adds anything to the analysis. Plus, is there really a scientific link between stress and gray hair, or is that a myth? I should probably research it, but that's not what this post is about. [Update: I'm right.]
I went to sleep Monday night with gray hairs dispersed throughout my head, but at most giving me a salt and pepper look. Mostly pepper. But I do have one streak in the front left side that's a little grayer than the other parts.
When I woke up Tuesday morning, that streak had become completely white! Whatever dark hairs previously populated that streak converted to the dark side (or rather, the light side) in a single night. Nothing stressful happened. I ate well and slept well.
I'm afraid I'll wake up tomorrow looking like Lorne Greene.
Labels:
Miscellaneous
Scientists Discover Positive Aspect of Allergies
Okay, not really scientists. Just me.
The pollen in the air is playing havoc with whatever portions of the body are responsible for me breathing air as opposed to viscous fluids. I may need gills.
I discovered a side benefit. I drink green or white tea every morning, sometimes flavored. This morning it was goji berry and pomegranate flavored. If you drink these teas while your sinuses are stuffy, there's a pleasant little side effect. At any point later in the day, when you sneeze or blow your nose, you get a little olfactory hint of fruit.
It's like the bouquet of a fine wine, and it lasts all day.
The pollen in the air is playing havoc with whatever portions of the body are responsible for me breathing air as opposed to viscous fluids. I may need gills.
I discovered a side benefit. I drink green or white tea every morning, sometimes flavored. This morning it was goji berry and pomegranate flavored. If you drink these teas while your sinuses are stuffy, there's a pleasant little side effect. At any point later in the day, when you sneeze or blow your nose, you get a little olfactory hint of fruit.
It's like the bouquet of a fine wine, and it lasts all day.
Labels:
Mis
Political Points
- What mindset must Congressional members have to approve billions in spending on pork projects (a/k/a earmarks, to be known on this blog as "pork rinds")? It's like they all say "no pork" until it comes to their own pork rinds, and then it's a different story. Nearly 8,000 pork rinds in the spending bill, totaling about $5.5 billion. I heard a commentator say at least it is only 1-2% of the spending package, and it only covers the period ending September 30, 2009. Uh-huh, but it's still $5.5 billion of our money. Even if we wipe out the pork rinds beginning October 1, 2010, that's still $5.5 billion that could have been used for other things. Or maybe that's just "extra" -- there's nothing broken in the country that requires funding.
- Al Franken has basically won Minnesota by 200 or so votes, subject to all the litigation Coleman is engaging in to settle it once and for all. Sort of. Coleman won't win this round, but he's got a few appeals left in his quiver. It's been 4 months. At some point, shouldn't he just lay down the sword? Minnesota is half-represented in Congress right now. I can't wait until Franken is seated, if only because the former comedian is bound to say something funny about the delay.
Labels:
Politics
Monday, March 9, 2009
Heading for the Poles
A new survey by Trinity College found that 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian, down from 86% in 1990. The study concluded that the missing 11% had not largely migrated to other religions. Instead, most had gone over to the "dark side" of logic and reason.
You'd never know it watching athletes, though. Last night I was watching the seniors give their post-game speeches after North Carolina defeated Duke in basketball. The first three seniors to speak gave some variation of this: "I just want to give thanks and glory to God, because without him, I wouldn't be here."
I guess if you believe in a divine creator, the statement is literally true. But it would hardly be worth mentioning, since none of us would "be here" if not for said creator. I think, though, that the players are referring to "here" as senior night in the DeanDome, playing for one of the top college basketball programs in the country. So my response is, what does God have to do with that?
As much as I love Tarheel basketball, I am convinced that if there is a God, he is not watching basketball or worrying about whether the 12th man walk-on is feeling chipper about a 40 minute contest involving a ball and a hoop. In fact, if there is a God, I'm pretty sure he's never heard of J.B. Tanner. Or you. Or me.
Keep in mind, these athletes started by thanking God (or in one case, Jesus). Not their coaches. Not their teammates. Not their fans. Not their parents! But God or Jesus. (It's worth pointing out that even Christians realize Jesus is dead). To them, God/Jesus has more to do with them being on the floor, as seniors at UNC, than their parents, who by any measure are certainly the athlete's true creators.
That's not unusual. Quarterback throws a touchdown pass and points to the sky. Thanks God for watching the game and making me throw a touchdown pass. I wonder what the religious defensive back thinks about God after that play. Why did the QB get the glory and the DB got burned? Duplicitous as always, religion says that God was teaching DB some kind of lesson. All in the "great plan."
So what's with the survey? Are many Americans turning away from religion while athletes are turning toward it? I think the answer might lie elsewhere in the study, which found that evangelical Christianity is on the rise. It is the mainstream religions that are losing ground. The evangelical brand of Christianity is more likely to give a shout out to the big man in the sky(?).
That's really interesting, because like politics, we are seeing polarization in the religions. Mainstream Christians are either going hardcore evangelistic, or bailing out altogether. One of the Trinity College representatives said that those who are bailing out are bailing out because they see the others heading for evangelism. They are turned off by religion because of the phenomenon.
That's probably true to a degree. I have another theory: the proliferation and accessibility of information. One of religion's great strengths is to explain away uncertainties. People are comforted by answers. When there's no real answer, insert God. Voila, answer! Never mind that it isn't actually an answer. It'll do.
Now, in the Information Age, with knowledge largely a push button away, we are growing to expect real answers. Moreover, the more information becomes a part of our cultural lives, the more curious we become. Intellectual investigation is not religion's sweet spot. The answers religion used to give are less satisfying to a lot of folks now.
In closing, I'd just like to say "Thanks be to Bill Gates, for without him I would not be typing this blog post. Oh, and my parents and teachers too I guess [insert begrudging tone]."
You'd never know it watching athletes, though. Last night I was watching the seniors give their post-game speeches after North Carolina defeated Duke in basketball. The first three seniors to speak gave some variation of this: "I just want to give thanks and glory to God, because without him, I wouldn't be here."
I guess if you believe in a divine creator, the statement is literally true. But it would hardly be worth mentioning, since none of us would "be here" if not for said creator. I think, though, that the players are referring to "here" as senior night in the DeanDome, playing for one of the top college basketball programs in the country. So my response is, what does God have to do with that?
As much as I love Tarheel basketball, I am convinced that if there is a God, he is not watching basketball or worrying about whether the 12th man walk-on is feeling chipper about a 40 minute contest involving a ball and a hoop. In fact, if there is a God, I'm pretty sure he's never heard of J.B. Tanner. Or you. Or me.
Keep in mind, these athletes started by thanking God (or in one case, Jesus). Not their coaches. Not their teammates. Not their fans. Not their parents! But God or Jesus. (It's worth pointing out that even Christians realize Jesus is dead). To them, God/Jesus has more to do with them being on the floor, as seniors at UNC, than their parents, who by any measure are certainly the athlete's true creators.
That's not unusual. Quarterback throws a touchdown pass and points to the sky. Thanks God for watching the game and making me throw a touchdown pass. I wonder what the religious defensive back thinks about God after that play. Why did the QB get the glory and the DB got burned? Duplicitous as always, religion says that God was teaching DB some kind of lesson. All in the "great plan."
So what's with the survey? Are many Americans turning away from religion while athletes are turning toward it? I think the answer might lie elsewhere in the study, which found that evangelical Christianity is on the rise. It is the mainstream religions that are losing ground. The evangelical brand of Christianity is more likely to give a shout out to the big man in the sky(?).
That's really interesting, because like politics, we are seeing polarization in the religions. Mainstream Christians are either going hardcore evangelistic, or bailing out altogether. One of the Trinity College representatives said that those who are bailing out are bailing out because they see the others heading for evangelism. They are turned off by religion because of the phenomenon.
That's probably true to a degree. I have another theory: the proliferation and accessibility of information. One of religion's great strengths is to explain away uncertainties. People are comforted by answers. When there's no real answer, insert God. Voila, answer! Never mind that it isn't actually an answer. It'll do.
Now, in the Information Age, with knowledge largely a push button away, we are growing to expect real answers. Moreover, the more information becomes a part of our cultural lives, the more curious we become. Intellectual investigation is not religion's sweet spot. The answers religion used to give are less satisfying to a lot of folks now.
In closing, I'd just like to say "Thanks be to Bill Gates, for without him I would not be typing this blog post. Oh, and my parents and teachers too I guess [insert begrudging tone]."
Labels:
Religion
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Mystery Sandwich Technique
On the way home from work today I was behind a black Nissan Sentra, in decent, but not great shape, circa 2003. The driver, a man, was holding his left hand out the window while driving with his right.
But what's that in his left hand? A sandwich! He is holding the sandwich at arm's length out the car window. Appears to be some sort of flatbread or panini, with the flat portion of the bread facing into the wind (not aerodynamically on edge, cutting through the wind).
Occasionally, but not often, he brings his sandwich in and takes a bite while driving.
But at stop lights/signs, he brings his arm in, and keeps it there. The whole time. He takes no more bites while sitting than while driving. He just doesn't put the sandwich out the window. When the light goes green, the sandwich heads out the window, until he wants to take a quick bite while driving.
When I first saw this I explained it one of two ways: (a) the sandwich smells bad (maybe tuna) and he doesn't want to stink up the car; or (b) he doesn't want crumbs in the car. Those two theories went out the window when he kept the sandwich in the car for the entirety of his traffic stops.
Any ideas why he would hold the sandwich out the window only when in motion? Could he be keeping the sandwich refrigerated with the 55 degree Florida air?
But what's that in his left hand? A sandwich! He is holding the sandwich at arm's length out the car window. Appears to be some sort of flatbread or panini, with the flat portion of the bread facing into the wind (not aerodynamically on edge, cutting through the wind).
Occasionally, but not often, he brings his sandwich in and takes a bite while driving.
But at stop lights/signs, he brings his arm in, and keeps it there. The whole time. He takes no more bites while sitting than while driving. He just doesn't put the sandwich out the window. When the light goes green, the sandwich heads out the window, until he wants to take a quick bite while driving.
When I first saw this I explained it one of two ways: (a) the sandwich smells bad (maybe tuna) and he doesn't want to stink up the car; or (b) he doesn't want crumbs in the car. Those two theories went out the window when he kept the sandwich in the car for the entirety of his traffic stops.
Any ideas why he would hold the sandwich out the window only when in motion? Could he be keeping the sandwich refrigerated with the 55 degree Florida air?
Labels:
Miscellaneous
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)