Guns N Roses

Here's something amazing. The big topics of news, which in the US is always focused inwards, because we can barely understand Iraq, a war that happens over there, was Don Imus and the Duke lacrosse team. Well, as long you care about sports news, which is really, really US centric, to no one's surprise. It tells you how important sports are to people.

And that amazing thing? Race is more important than guns. A lot more important.

What do I mean by that? People have strong opinions about race, though now it's a matter of free speech vs. the harmony of a particular race, in this case, African Americans, rather than something worse, about the stratification of society and how some people deserve to be in a certain spot in society. Thank goodness that's a fringe discussion at best.

But whenever some tragedy involving guns comes out, something like the Virgina Tech massacre, someone (like Mr. Tony) says that we should serious think about gun control, and yet, there's no one as passionate as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or women's groups or the Anti-Defamation League all banding together to wage this battle (to use, alas, military terms, as people seem to do all the time).

The difference, I suppose, is that people who like guns really, really like them, even as the arguments made are often simple.

Here are the points that are usually trotted out. The Constitution gives the right to bear arms. People say that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Also, if there is some bad guy with a gun, he can be stopped by you, who also has a gun. Thus, it moves the idea of defense from the police, which is assumed to be ineffective because there aren't enough of them, to the individual. And further, it assumes that because you are a law-abiding individual, then you will of course, be completely reasonable in your actions. It paints the world into good and bad, and you know you're good, and they're bad.

But this strikes me as pretty simple minded. These advocates can not really point to a country with unfettered access to guns that lives in this utopia. Really, they advocate a form of the Wild West, and believe that's the best way to handle things. What about little kids who can now get access to guns? How do you prevent them from accidentally killing themselves or someone else? Lock up the weapons?

And if you're an advocate of hunting, why do you need complete unfettered access to any gun? That leads to the slippery slope argument. If you restrict one kind of gun, then you can restrict another and another, and pretty soon no one will have guns (isn't that the idea?).

The difference in these arguments is that, with race, few people will publicly say discrimination is a good thing, but many people who like guns are passionate in a way that anti-gun folks are not passionate. Let's face it, people are more passionate when they are under siege. This is why a comment like "nappy-headed hos" gets so much airplay. It insults a group. The group seeks to protect itself. Being anti-gun is not a group that gets insulted, that feels the need for protection. Those who own and use guns are organized. Ultimately, unless those people who are anti-gun are organized and well-funded, those who advocate guns will win.

Even now, with this tragedy, people will say that we should not be too hasty. Unfettered gun access is the solution.

There's all sorts of restrictions you could imagine. For example, only allow a gun of a certain size. Hunting rifles are huge, and hard to wield in a concealed fashion, Arnold Schwarzenegger movies aside.

And for self-defense? Why is it important to have lethal force? It seems that there are plenty of ways to try to incapacitate a person, and that this is worth the lack of certainty of clearly defending yourself. You could imagine tasers (though I think distance would create an issue), some kind of mace gun, tear gas, etc. Indeed, the police have been considering use of non lethal violence to incapacitate the other person.

That such reasonable alternatives are not brought out shows how the arguments are totally silly. The point is people who have guns want to keep them, and arguments of self-defense are almost always ridiculous.

A few years ago, a kid was going to a Halloween party. He was from Japan, an exchange student. Alas, it wasn't exactly Halloween, and furthermore, he went to the wrong house. As he left to find the correct house, the guy yells out "Freeze!", which he doesn't understand, and keeps walking. He shoots and kills the teen. This was a huge controversy in Japan, but barely registered a blip. He was within his rights, according to Louisiana law to kill this kid. This law-abiding individual, were he not to have a gun, would not have been able to kill the kid. And how many thieves did he stop since having a gun? All due to an innocent error.

Mr. Tony was paid a visit by Peter Yarrow, and in principle, if he had had a weapon, he could have killed this trespasser, and there would simply be Paul and Mary. And he may have been within his rights to do so.

The guy who went on a rampage at Virginia Tech? He bought the guns legally. This would, surprise, make him law-abiding. Indeed, gun access is so easy, that it's enough for a first timer to get a gun and carry out violent acts. Unfortunately, a whole class of guns would have to be removed from public use and banned so that even criminals couldn't get easy access to them.

Somehow, though, gun advocates live in this fantasy land. They look at other countries that ban guns and have low murder rate and scream la-la-la, that is different, they are idiots, go America!

Sadly, nothing much will come of this. People will be sad, but it will take a charismatic person of some degree to make a dent in what many people see as an odd fundamental right.

Knockin on Heaven's Door

Haiyen Cheng shouldn't have even been there.

Her advisor was out-of-town attending a conference, and had asked her to substitute. She is a Ph.D. candidate in computer science. She was at Norris Hall, site of the Virginia Tech shootings, where 33 people were killed, many in this hall, which is expected to be closed for the rest of the semester.

Haiyen was giving a lecture, when she heard a loud noise, which she thought was construction. Then, she heard the noise some more, which sounded like shots. A student and her went to the door to check what was going on. They peeked out, and saw a guy with a gun, and immediately went back in the room. It was fortunate, the gunman didn't come immediately to the room.

This gave time for some students to suggest barricading the door, so they put a table against the door (which fortunately opened in), and kept the door shut. Meanwhile, everyone stayed low.

The shooter, Cho Seung Hui, knocked loudly on the door, wanting to get in, and then shot at the door several times, and shot a few more times, before eventually giving up. There was some luck that he had no idea why the door was closed (mainly students near the ground leaning against the table, blocking the door) and aimed at hip level or above, and missing potential victims.

Eventually, the police would come in and the people could leave the class.

Were it not for the quick thinking of a few students who were able to barricade the door (computer science majors!), the death toll could have been even higher. While some students wanted to jump out, Haiyen advised against it, since they were high up, and the window was tiny, so the shooter would have had to do some work to get in from there.

Haiyen seemed remarkably calm after just a harrowing incident, and was able to conduct an interview rather lucidly, fortunate that she and her class were able to count themselves as one of the lucky ones.

Coward?

I was just reading a Myspace blog. I know. I know. The guy was pissed off that the guy did a cowardly thing and killed himself, thus depriving the public about why he did. He branded the guy a coward.

This is interesting. Cowardice. I recall Bush saying that the terrorists on that fateful day were cowards. Why do we apply a word to a situation that seems far the opposite of cowardice. Because the opposite of cowardice is bravery, and bravery is seen as something positive, and so we don't want to glorify what's going on by asserting how brave these people were. We have no real notion in our English language to say the "brave actions of a lunatic", because bravery and good our put side by side, when they shouldn't.

Bravery, in its essence, is overcoming fear. And while a guy with an automated weapon probably didn't fear too much, he must have feared he would not live the end of the day, and was willing to do it anyway. A hero? Hardly. A kind of bravery? Yes, a kind. But not a commendable form of bravery. And so we lack a word for it, and so we call it cowardice.

Cowardice is hiding from action, too scared to do anything. Cowardice may have saved some lives in this tragedy, people who, in a moment of abject terror, hid, unable, unwilling to give their lives to save others. These aren't trained soldiers, and so we can't expect people whose parents would advise cowardice every time if it meant they could see their sons and daughters again. And in this senseless acts, there were those who did sacrifice themselves for others, even as their academic life gave them no inkling that they would feel bravery, and in this case, an overcoming of fear to do something good for others.

I agree with Bill Maher in this case. We use cowardice because we can not think of a word to describe what happened. and we want to insult the people, degrade them, even as they can't hear what is being said, so as to demean the action for any future individuals, who might somehow, perversely, see such actions as brave. If they somehow get it in their head that it is beneath them to behave this way, I suppose the word will have its benefit. But it's hard to say that people of their right mind actually reason this way when such acts occur.

Words can be so limiting sometimes.

Virginia "Tech"

A few years ago, I was attending a traditional Vietnamese engagement ceremony. It basically involves the would-be groom with several of his male friends making a kind of pilgrimage to the home of the would-be bride (her parents), and typically a father of the would-be groom, who asks permission for his son to marry the daughter of the father of the would-be bride. You know, dad asks permission of other dad. Very traditional.

The Vietnamese share some of their traditional roots with other Asian cultures, where ancestor worship is still common. Even here, there is a bit of the technology of the time. A black-and-white photo of a grand parent, or a great grand-parent, looking approvingly on in the process.

The ensuing tea ceremony felt very traditional too. However, the moment was being preserved for posterity. Digital cameras came out. So did digital camcorders. Traditional events being captured on the latest consumer digital electronics. Bits for posterity.

A bit of modernity also sprouts its head in tragedy, as many people, flying on that fateful day, some six years ago, used cell phone technology and called down to loved ones, scared, fearing the worst, sending their best. Over modern electronics.

Traditionally, we've let our media outlets try to gather information for us, disseminate it via newspapers. The events at Columbine were recent enough that we could have seen some of it on the Web, but the Web was only a few years old then, not nearly as popular as it is now. These days, we can get updates by going to our favorite news website, and get information as it unfolds. Of course, live TV news broadcasts have always done well in such situations, trying to give around-the-clock coverage.

But, there's a new way now. A cell-phone recording of the events was made public mere hours after the incident. Its herky jerky movements of a student running around recording events as it unfolded. Then, students getting on the Facebook pages, their MySpace pages, trying to create their own underground news source. The many students outweighing the few journalists, and even as they lacked some information, such as police reports, they could find out who was in class, who made it, and guess at maybe who didn't.

Even in tragedy, our compulsion is to know, to capture these events, to make sense of it, to disseminate. Now it can be done outside the realm of traditional news media. The facts less certain, but details more abundant. Early warnings. Early information. A passionate curiosity on a college campus using the most modern forms of communication to understand a senseless act.

Elephant

George Bush is quagmired in low ratings, as the public wonders if he can handle anything right in his presidency. The firing of 8 US attorneys for political reasons has Alberto Gonzales under a firestorm. Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank, appears to have given his girlfriend a cushy job at the State Department. Iraq casualties continue to mount.

But where did it all begin? It began, of course, on 9/11, when the twin towers and the Pentagon were attacked. What was the reaction? Initially, confusion, terror. How could such a thing happen on US soil? Then, as Americans are wont to do, we needed to assign blame. Who was at fault? At the time, I had thought of Al Qaeda. After all, how many terrorists groups did you know? And it was them.

And then the US had to do something, for it seemed far worse to take inaction, to show you had no control over the situation. We had weapons. We wanted to use it. Even as some preferred caution, and actually advised us to do nothing, it was considered very Jimmy Carter to be ineffectual. The US had to attack, had to send a message, had to show that it could "protect" its people by attacking others. It was initially Afghanistan, then inexplicably, Iraq, and the war against terror become a national policy to replace a meandering policy. It became a way to define a presidency.

The tragedy at Virginia Tech also engenders similar feelings of confusion and terror, but there's no easy enemy to pick at. Almost always, incidents such as this are due to actions of someone very distressed with their own lives, and willing to do great harm before invariably, they lose their own lives either by their own hand, or the hands of police who try to stop him.

In this day and age of instant messaging, people were already positing a solution to the problem, and of course, it doesn't take long before the gun nuts trot out their theory.

It wouldn't have happened if the students had guns.

It's a vision of the Wild West, where everyone had a gun (did they really?), and they could protect themselves.

Of course, the gun nut theory is built on a few tenuous assumptions. First, if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. Hmm, many countries seem to work pretty well with guns outlawed, having murder rates far underneath the US. But of course, they're weird. The US is far crazier, and such a strategy would only harm God-fearing citizens who need a few weekends killing deer with semi-automatic assault rifles.

But I digress.

Second, everyone else who had guns would be honest and law-abiding, and furthermore, be able to have their gun conveniently with them so they can take the law into their own hands making decisions that are more sound than trained police. There would, of course, be no accidents, no acts of rage. And if someone did get killed, well, it's the Wild West, and this is the price we pay for each person to have a gun, and of course, bring it into a classroom, which most universities would say "of course, bring in a gun, don't worry about the assignment that prof. is going to assign you that will ruin a weekend you had planned with the girlfriend for a few weeks, because your integrity will prevent you from doing anything, and besides the prof. would just as soon pop you for even looking the wrong direction".

Ultimately, the answer is going to, as usual, be neither extreme. There's far more likelihood that guns would get banned than we go to the Wild West, and yet, for every clamor to ban guns, powerful lobbyists will look the other way, present their theory of why our freedoms our being taken away, yadda, yadda, yadda. And in the end, we'll be where we are today, so parents can become even more paranoid.

The response to 9/11, to visit violence upon those we suspected caused the terror, even as those most directly responsible are no longer around to go to trial, was considered a necessary act, a very masculine act that suggests an eye for an eye, lest ye be considered a coward.

And yet there is no luxury, perhaps thankfully, for such a response. What do you do in this case? A reasonable response, one that most countries except ours would embrace, would be to respond with peace, to make it difficult for anyone to get a gun, a tactic that seems to work well with many countries, but which would take something that makes a guy like Bobby Knight or Dick Cheney happy. Owning their own guns. Going out hunting.

The voices that clamored for Imus to get fired are, unfortunately, not likely to be strong enough. While the less progressive among us might grumble about what happened to Imus, we, as a country, aren't ready, at least, publicly, to undo what the civil rights fought so hard for, namely, a bit of dignity for all of us. But people are still willing to fight for their guns, and as incidents like these occur, they'll be some explanation that claims that more guns would have prevented this, and would have conveniently ignored how more guns would cause more random killings, as they would somehow be the justifications of law-abiding folk.

It will be interesting to see if the response to this tragedy results in more than simple lamenting of youth (and adults) whose lives were given needlessly, while the rest of the country wanted answers, wanted to know who was killed and why the person did it, and by the way, could you consent to an interview, did you know anyone killed, did you see anything? The morbid curiosity, the sight of a shocked student body, and the usual response to an unusual problem.

Urban BBQ

I ate at Urban BBQ with Dave today. I decided to get a half-slab of ribs plus two sides and beer. This cost a lot, though pretty much anything at Urban BBQ costs a bit. By that, I mean it's pretty easy to spend ten dollars, and I spent nearly twice that.

First, the good stuff. The gravy on their mashed potatoes and gravy is fantastic. Best ever, I'd say. Their collard greens was fine, rather leafy. Yes, I like eating southern veggies and collard greens qualifies.

The ribs? I dunno, a bit messy to eat, and could have been better. I can't say I'm a true rib connoisseur, but I do like getting it when I can. It just helps to find the actual ribs.

I've decided I really can't stand Yeungling draft. It always tastes a bit skunky to me. I think it's bland American beer next time, either Miller or Bud.

Sometimes I think I should just do sides. They aren't too expensive, and they're pretty tasty. I feel bad not getting something bbq'ed though, so I may not be able to commit to that.

Even though Urban BBQ is a tighter fit than Urban Burger, I like the variety and ambience better, and I also like its location better too.

Where Have You Gone, Mr. Robinson?

April 15th was the 60th (not 50th, as I mentioned earlier) anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the race barrier in major league baseball, when he became the first African American to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers.

This was not something Jackie Robinson could have done by himself. He was selected partly because he was an excellent player, partly because he had the kind of demeanor to put up with the kind of racism of its day. He opened up baseball so people of all backgrounds could play.

These days, 40% of players in MLB are non-white. Only 8% are African American, which is far smaller than football or basketball.

People claim that one reason that baseball has such few African Americans is because of the lack of role models in the sport. What they mean, of course, is the lack of very successful role models. I'm sure baseball has plenty of role models that are African American. Players who work hard, have successful careers, have personalities that kids could emulate. But they aren't the top 2-3 players in the game, and for some reason, we need winners, superstar winners to entice kids. Sad, but true.

Thus, many are inspired by Michael Jordan since he was the dominant player of his day, but not, say, Vinnie "The Microwave" Johnson of the Pistons, or certainly not Mark Price of the Cavaliers, players who might have been likable role models, but well, they have to win too, don't they?

In any case, personally, I don't think that's the reason why African Americans have left baseball. Let's face it. Baseball is a slow game. How often do players do anything in the game? How often does a player come to bat? 4-5 times a game? And how much do they do out in the field? Pitchers? Play only once every few days.

But basketball? You're in every play, on offense, on defense. The only time you're out is if you suck, you're injured, or you're resting. Otherwise, a top player can be in every play. Football is a little worse, but if you're on defense, you're in every play. If you're a running back, you can be a huge part of the offense. If you're a quarterback, you initiate every play.

Simply put, you do that much more in either sport than baseball. Gilbert Arenas can get of 30 shots in a game. Even a so-so player can take 10 shots a game, or do things like rebound that help a team win.

So I don't think it's just about the lack of role models. It's that basketball and football are flashier sports that involve the players that much more often, and that, along with the incredible money, has to have some appeal to young players.

Doctor in the House

Saturday, I watched 3 episodes of House from Season 1 and then two more today, also from the same season.

I knew little about the show except there's a doctor named House who's a bit irascible, and that he's a pretty bright doctor, requiring a cane to move around. Other than that, not so much. I also knew people liked this show.

Having now seen five episodes, the structure of the show seems rather repetitive. House is not what you'd call a people person. He has three assistants that work underneath him: Eric Foreman (which, as my brother points out, is also the name of the guy Topher Grace plays in That '70s Show, though his name is spelled Eric Forman) who is African American. The backstory you get from him is he was once arrested for stealing, but otherwise has had an outstanding medical school career.

There's Dr. Allison Cameron, who everyone notices is beautiful (though, really, as with many shows, the entire cast is "beautiful"). She's allegedly troubled in some fashion which House points out because she's too beautiful to be a doctor (thus, she must have some personal issues she's dealing with), and Dr. Robert Chase, whose Australian and has a crush on Allison.

Basically, the show starts off with someone getting sick, then the four doctors hypothesizing what may be wrong, then attempting some treatment, which typically fails, often leading to seizures, then another treatment, which also typically fails, before finally stumbling on the right one.

As with many more recent medical dramas and their ilk, House is willing to show stuff that is not for the squeamish. Characters convulse. In one episode, a woman's neck is slit so she can breathe from it, when it has closed up unexpectedly. There's a bit of implied nudity from breast exams to washing of patients. And, as House likes to point out, people lie, making diagnosis that much harder.

House usually has an additional patient or two whose malady is not as mysterious, and he often grumbles that he has to see them, even as they sometimes give him ideas about the malady du jour. The patient often sees House very late, so they wonder who the heck he is, and why he's so surly.

Invariably, his assistants seem to go on the wrong track, and House figures it all out at the end. My brother wonders why he bothers having assistants at all if they seem to never get it right.

The person who's sick tends to be young, sometimes very young (teens), and rarely fat or old (unless it's a side character).

Why is this show successful? I suppose there's something appealing about a mystery, which is why CSI is popular too. It can't be good for hypochondriacs because everyone always has some life-threatening disease and has convulsions. Innocent things can cause the worst outcome.

There are two other side characters: Dr. James Wilson, played by Robert Sean Leonard, who seems a bit young for his role, who plays a colleague that House hangs out with and talks to, and Dr. Lisa Cuddy, the hospital administrator that seems to harass House and get him to do what he considers tedious clinical work.

The other reason the show works, I suppose, is that House is not a likable person. Well, he's curmudgeonly, meaning, in his odd way, he does mean well, even as he's blunt and to the point. He lacks people skills, but is not so irritating that you can't stand him. You begrudge him his skills, and that in his own way, he is trying to help people out.

I find it hard to believe the hospital rooms have so much glass with so little privacy, or that the closest relative or spouse are always sitting in the room, even as emergencies are happening.

There's one other thing they do that's a bit odd, which is to use CG to go into the body, and dramatize what's going on inside.

Justin says the show would be better if each episode wasn't so self-contained, if there were patients that would appear over many shows. I think they might also do well to have some more personal background. Do any of these doctors have a life outside the hospital? They seem way too ideal, spending hours in the lab, hypothesizing this or that, and occasionally going to people's empty houses to investigate for anything out of the ordinary like assistants to Miss Marple, herself too elderly to do any real investigation on her own.

My guess is they don't stray too much from the formula. If this is true, then watching back to back episodes is an awful way to see it, because it's the same thing over and over and over again. You find shows like Lost or 24 easier to follow because it's not so self-contained.

So, the mystery factor, good looking people, curmudgeonly but likable guy, illnesses that seem untreatable but are after a bit of experimentation, and the gore factor of needles and convulsions combine to make a show that's engaging for any one episode, but somewhat tiresome over time. It's a formula though, that for many, appears to work.

Sticks and Stones

I'm one of those guys who believes, on the whole, political correctness, a term coined sometime in the 80s, has been pretty good. Almost as fast as it became a phrase people used, it was derided. Indeed, it's become pretty PC to say you're not PC. Indeed, how many people claim they are proud to be politically correct.

Not many.

Most, in fact, claim to be politically incorrect, even as they might benefit from political correctness. Why do people say they're not politically correct?

The answer is that PC, as admirable as the idea may be, seeks to handcuff people (metaphorically), and people don't like to be handcuffed. The place most likely to be PC are universities. PC is pretty simple. You don't discriminate based on groups, whether it be race, gender, or sexual orientation. The university is meant to create an inclusive environment, and having speech or actions that demean or stereotype traditionally discriminated groups and creates discord, and thus, universities are against it.

PC is, of course, anti free-speech, but people seem to say that's OK. Free speech is an abstract concept that claims words do not hurt, and can be fought with other words. And yet, as this Don Imus flap has shown, political correctness is very much alive. You could, say, get Mike Wilbon to say "I ain't PC!", but in his railing against Imus, who he says is full of hateful speech, he is being completely PC. PC is pretty much about not saying the wrong things.

Indeed, when Tim Hardaway said he disliked gays (a lot), Mike Wilbon wrote a column saying Hardaway's attitudes were wrong, and even cited moderately conservative Charles Barkley to back him up. Wilbon wasn't exactly saying that Hardaway couldn't say what he said, but he did point it out as ignorant.

Unlike universities, real life can't enforce political correctness. The only way it gets handled is through lots of public discourse. Thus, Imus being discussed on sports shows ad nauseum.0th a

Now, this brouhaha has been "big news", yet, it really hasn't. I read reddit regularly, and the Imus comments have not even made it anywhere. To be fair, the reddit audience is pretty specific. It's geeky. It's left-leaning. It doesn't care about Imus or sports. They'd rather upmod an article about the abuses of Alberto Gonzalez and Paul Wolfowitz then care about Don Imus and his comments on the Rutgers women's team.

I've been blogging about this the past few days, and if you're completely bored, it may be because I ramble at length. But it may also be because you don't care, and yet, this discussion on sports radio has been huge, much more so than the Tim Hardaway comments which idiots like Dan Patrick, who probably somewhat agree with Hardaway, dismiss by comparing him to Jackie Robinson (whose 50th anniversary of being in the MLB, by the way, is this weekend, April 15th).

The Imus scandal occurred at the same time that the charges to the Duke lacrosse players were dropped, and while sports commentators were quick to criticize Mike Nifong, the district attorney for splashing this issue all over the papers with no real evidence.

Indeed, I'd say the Imus issue had far more play than the charges being dropped against the three lacrosse players.

Let's step back and compare the two, because the two shouldn't even be in the same breath. On the one hand, Imus calls the Rutgers women basketball players "nappy haired hos", a term considered racist, and yet, everyone has copied it over and over, and so it can't be so horrific. On the other hand, a woman accuses three Duke lacrosse players of rape.

The Rutgers women, at worst, are mildly peeved, but at best, they're getting plenty of support from people who didn't even know they existed.

The Duke guys? This has to be the worst year for these three players, even as they felt they were found innocent of the charges, and worse, these accusations were discussed and reported nationally for weeks on end. People were already to declare the Duke lacrosse players guilty, without any more information. They have some luck that their parents are rich and can afford million dollar lawyers.

These accusations can be devastating. I am currently listening to This American Life. Do you know Ray Buckley? He was trying to run for chair of the Democratic party in New Hampshire, or some such? He had been in politics all his life, thrilled when the Democrats took over Congress, and wanted to be chair where he could continue to help Democrats.

But a bomb dropped. Steve Vallaincourt, who hates Buckley, accuses him of having kiddie porn, realizing that no politician, especially a governor who is supposed to be tough on such issues, could ignore. Now, there's some history. The two are gay. The two used to be roommates. It's been argued that Vallaincourt is jealous of Buckley's success, but Vallaincourt, if he is, is very clever and strenuously denies it, saying he's doing this because he has no choice, that people need to know, though he lacks any evidence.

This accusation takes a life of its own, and Buckley has to fight these accusations as investigations go on. Buckley is devasted, his life upturned, even as he claims innocence. After the investigation, which takes weeks, he is eventually found innocent. Now apparently, Buckley was a bit vulgar and when he was young, he would act silly in front of friends, and this was taped, and Vallaincourt had this video put on YouTube, and then told someone who wanted Buckley to step down for this chair position. You have to feel this is the spat of a lifetime, with Vallaincourt professing all sorts of innocence, but where you feel he is deeply jealous and is doing everything he can to sling mud on Buckley. It's too weird to believe.

Much like the Duke players, Buckley comes out OK. His supporters do vote him as chair, and yet, he's guarded and is afraid to say anything.

Think about it. Imus is being cruficied, well, partly for a body of work, for spewing out hate, and realize he's merely being accused of racism, which is pretty serious, but recall Imus also lashes out against pretty much everyone. Being a equal opportunity hater is, as is pointed out on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", is what Imus does. In many ways, his comment is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

But his comments are nowhere near the kinds of accusations that were made on the lacrosse players, than indiscriminate accusations hurt far more.

In a story from Australia, Patrick Waring, 15, was accused of rape, and was recently acquitted of charges. Australian prisons don't seem much better than American ones, so his experience in jail was awful. Of course, you hear the flip side of the stories all the time. In India or Pakistan, some girl who is raped gets stoned, accused of instigating the matter, and the men, unable to control their primal urges are somehow blameless. Such atrocities are horrific, but the flip side is awful. And all of this makes what Imus says sadly insignificant.

Now, to be fair, what he said and what this gives license people to do are different things. This is the slippery slope idea. If you say it's OK to say racist things, then you will say it, make fun of people, and possibly worse. Prevent them from having jobs, make people think that the individual can have his or her merits judged on racial or cultural stereotypes, and so forth. The effect, while far less overt, is more insidious because it affects many people. Thus, it's more like a cancer than a broken leg.

But I suspect the reason Imus got more airplay is that rape accusations are so far away from the norm that people don't even think about how that would be like, how horrendous the accusations are, and just treat this as some sort of crazy frat boy thing gone wrong, or some crazy stripper trying to get money or something. Most people, on the other hand, have had to think, overtly or otherwise, about comments related to race or gender, and decide certain comments shouldn't be said, and they have far more opinions on matters of race and PC than on accusing people of alleged crimes in the national public.

Random Topics

There's one thing good about a focused blog, one that is about, say, food, or American Idol, or books, or movies. They stay on topic, so Google Adsense actually has meaningful ads. Mine's rambles here and there, and so it picks up all sorts of odd ads. I'm wondering whether this Adsense is even worth the bother. Heck, splogs do a better job! Indeed, that's what it's supposed to do.

Oh well, until I change my mind, I'll take what oddball ads the thing gives me.

Chip and Charge

OK, enough on the Imus flap. I'm going to move to a topic that has mass appeal to everyone.

Rechargeable batteries.

About two years ago, I bought a Canon A-80 or some camera along those lines. They use AA batteries, either alkaline or rechargeables. Everyone said you had to get rechargeables because they, um, recharge. The other reason is that they last a lot longer than alkalines. Typically, these are NiMH batteries (nickel metal hydride).

Well, I never used the A-80 and eventually gave it to my brother ("gifted him" as the Indians would say).

The batteries lay unused.

Oh, and I bought some battery chargers. But being the geeky guy I am, I needed to find a good battery charger. And wouldn't you know, digital camera review websites have articles on finding a good battery charger. So I bought one for like 40-50 bucks by a company named Maha at Thompson Distributing. The website looks pretty cheap as if it were designed ten years ago, a shade below, say, Newegg, which also, for my money, a bit ghetto (can I say that? OK, how about lacking the clean lines and aesthetics of a well-done website). But they deliver quickly.

Needless to say, since I wasn't using the batteries, I was hardly using the charger. Which means I wasn't using the charger.

They were both gathering dust.

Then, I got braces, and braces must be Latin for mechanical device that claws at any food items. Food gets easily trapped in them. Fortunately, a coworker who has had braces very recently suggested Waterpik, except of course, Waterpik sucks because their design hasn't changed in years.

I bought a Panasonic oral irrigator (as it's technically called), and they only have one kind that they sell in the US. And wouldn't you know it, it uses batteries. Double A's. All of a sudden (not really), I have a need for my battery chargers (and the batteries too).

Except I wanted one for work and one for home. So I needed a second battery charger.

Again, I went to the Internet and found this article. It suggested the Maha MH-C9000 WizardOne Charger/Analyzer, which I got for like sixty bucks. Not only does it charge, but it can also determine how much juice your batteries have, and get them back to life. Now, sixty bucks (plus shipping/handling) is nearly twice the cost of how much a basic model costs at Best Buy. I really didn't plan to get it, but, you know, impulse buying.

What can I tell you?

It is amazing. Until I got this charger, my oral irrigator was draining the batteries within a week. Since I've charged it, which is about a month ago, I haven't hard to go to my other charged batteries. It's lasted a month, and is still going. I'm still waiting for it to lose power so I can switch over to my other batteries.

I'm totally convinced of this as a great battery charger.

If you're looking for one and don't mind shelling out the extra bucks (and why wouldn't you?), then you should do it.

The only downside is that the full recharge can take up to two days. But that's an easy problem to solve. Have more batteries than you need, and always have a fresh one ready to go. The plain recharge takes a few hours, so is comparable to other battery chargers. They say slow charging is best for the batteries in any case.

Now, I must go irrigate.

The World According to Jesse

Is this like the umpteenth time I've written about this topic? Must be.

Anytime a racial issue like Don Imus comes up, two names are associated with these events: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. For a while, it was all Jesse, then Al started weighing in, and his comments were more noticed once he ran for president.

While listening to sports radio last night, I heard several guys who said they were African Americans and said neither Jesse nor Al speak for them. I have no idea how typical that is, or how typical it is for African American sports fans.

To those outside the community, there's a sense that all these two care about is the forward progress of African Americans in society. No problem with that, right? Except that Jesse Jackson leads the Rainbow Coalition that purports to unify across races, religious groups, gender, etc. And perhaps his organization does many of these things, but the only stuff anyone ever hears about his support of African Americans.

Thus, people (like me) are always quick to point out that Jesse and Al never seem to support Latino causes or gay causes or what-have-you. Perhaps they do, but those never make news. Case in point, Jesse Jackson supported the woman who accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape (I had no idea her name was not being mentioned, but apparently it's listed in Wikipedia!). When the charges were dropped, he did not issue a statement either putting down Nifong or the woman involved.

To be fair, it's a delicate issue all around. You don't want to prevent women who have gone through something as serious as rape to be quiet (or men either, for that matter, and they're far more likely to say nothing), but you don't want someone lying about it either. It's suggested that something did perhaps happen to that woman, but when and who and where and under what circumstances?

And the Duke boys weren't exactly exemplars of good behavior. John Feinstein points out that their behavior was already bad, though not heinously bad, but bad enough to warrant comments like "This is a disaster waiting to happen". They were indeed rich kids, because numbers like "millions" and "dollars" were put together regarding legal fees.

But the point is, more people would have more respect for Jesse and Al if they would take up these other cases more often, and yet, there's a sense they would lose their constituency if they did.

Jesse and Al are so marginalized, however, in these kinds of incidents, their names often muttered without appreciation. No other group with the slight exception of Martha Burk and whatever group she is part of has this kind of recognition. Gays, Latinos/Latinas, Asian Americans. Who represents them? The best you can do is get a celebrity to talk about it.

While the vast majority of talking heads appear to support the Imus firing, more than likely, plenty of people disagree with it. Even so, it says something that NBC and CBS would fire Imus, fearing this kind of association, even as it served them well for so long. I suspect many individuals, mostly non African American, find this decision, if they even care about it, more about the PC power of Jesse and Al, even as they may claim Imus was not someone they would have cared for.

Anyway, in another week, it'll all blow over. It is a kind of success, though a tainted one, that shows the power of the race card in the US. And despite the grumblings some may have about how we got here, we're living in a time where African Americans are getting more respect, even at the expense of Jesse and Al being thought of as "idiots".

Bye-Bye Imus

Goodbye, Don Imus! CBS canceled Don Imus's show over the uproar of his "nappy-headed hos" comment.

I just read Sally Jenkins's article where she wanted Don Imus to have to attend a women's basketball game and wear a Rutgers "R" to support them, that he should meet the individually and know what wonderful people they are.

This is one of those bizarre cases where you almost feel for Don Imus, but not quite. It's almost like catching Al Capone on tax evasion. Maybe Imus didn't deserve to be on the air, but it seems the wrong reason to fire Imus. Like mud-slinging that occurs in politics, you say enough stuff, and finally something sticks, and this stuck.

I wonder if Sally Jenkins bothered to read the comments Imus made. It's a bit difficult to find the transcripts, but they are there. Or did she assume there was no way anyone could say "nappy-headed hos" without being completely derisive.

Indeed, if you read the transcripts, it seems (though you never know) that Imus did indeed watch the game. And, one of his co-hosts was the one responsible for calling them "hardcore hos" before Imus himself chimes away as "nappy-headed hos". But in the context of the discussion, they seemed to put UT vs. Rutgers as "Jiggaboo vs. Wannabes", that is, the Rutgers team was the "black" team, and UT was the "wannabee" white team. These terms were used by Spike Lee's School Daze which is set in an African American college, and the two refer to competing sororities.

The comments of Imus and his team (and really, mostly his team) suggest that Rutgers were some rough looking women, that you wouldn't want to meet on the street. The accusations go further as they are compared to men, and various professional men's teams. It's clear that calling them "hos" has nothing to do with being whores, per se. The suggestions are more misogynistic than racist, claiming these women are basically guys.

The humor, such as it is, was using tough language, and sounding hip, neither of which was entirely accurate.

One of the women of the Rutgers team said that she felt even worse because Imus doesn't even know the team. What on earth does that mean? She should feel worse if he did know the team and still made the comments! People make all sorts of comments that are derogatory especially because they don't know the person.

Everyone should really get off their high horse about feeling good about seeing Imus go. Was he really racist? What does that even mean? That he didn't like African Americans? It's fair to say Imus insulted lots of people, so he was a plain hater, but for the purposes of his show. Next time you criticize some celebrity for their looks, or say what a tramp so-and-so was for wearing some godawful clothing, think about Don Imus. Oh, but you aren't racist. You're just talking about some celebrity, and that's just one person.

Everyone's used this as an opportunity to draw more recognition to themselves. Sharpton, who Imus actually grudgingly liked, weighed in. So did Jesse. Vivian Stringer used her spotlight to speak admiringly of Rutgers's season and how his comments brought their moment of joy down. Tony Kornheiser rightly points out that if no one had brought this issue up, Stringer may never have heard these comments from someone she probably hardly knows, and certainly it had nothing to do with bringing down her achievements. If anything brings down the achievements, it's that men in general won't watch women's college basketball and care enough to believe in Rutgers success.

American Idol goes on every week letting the audience make their own decisions about who they like and who they don't. "Haley has gots to go!" opines Tony. We spend each week making specific comments about people we don't like, comments we'd hold in reserve if "we'd know them better". Wilbon calls Sanjaya a woman, and Tony points out that everyone's so worried about innocent women's basketball players, but Sanjaya, who's like 17, gets bashed by Wilbon each week for being a woman, and Tony to his credit, says Sanjaya is a guy.

Insulting a person is fine, provided the insults are not based on hot words that a group finds offensive? And it's not fine if you're a celebrity, but if you are the average Joe on the street, you can say whatever you feel like.

The hypocrisy is greatest with the folks who sponsored Imus, because Imus has been Imus for so long, and yet the sponsors benefited. CBS benefited. And they knew that having Imus was problematic, but as long as most people weren't railing against him, then they could keep him, especially since they didn't have Stern.

But, you know, this too will pass. Imus has been fired, and another week will go by, and we'll wait for the next issue like this to come about.

Have we really opened up any meaningful discussion? Not really. The parties are split pretty much along OJ lines. African Americans (and women) say get rid of the racist (even as they hardly knew him, and base it on what they heard). Whites are divided, many saying can the guy, even as they are more likely to defend him on free speech, and note that he's probably taken out of context. The analogy to Bobby Knight is quite close, as Knight is both a bully and someone who can be passionately on your side, provided you take his side.

There's something of a perfect storm of this issue and the Duke Lacrosse scandal coming up simultaneously.

Well, Don Imus, I didn't really listen to you before, and can't say I'm sorry you're gone, but you happen to be the guy caught in the maelstrom of a bunch of people serving their own interests, and you're the fall guy.

A No-Win Situation

There's something about the firestorm surrounding Don Imus's fall from grace (and one could hardly say he was at grace) that misses the point. Don Imus, on his show, called the Rutgers basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hos". The comments were mild enough that I can write it down, and indeed, many newspapers have taken this quote snippet.

Suddenly MSNBC won't simulcast Don Imus. Advertisers are pulling out by the droves.

But the real point, the folks that must be giggling with unbridled delight are folks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They realize, at this point in American history, that no one wants to be tainted with the racist brush. Indeed, nearly every person you hear on the issue calls it a racial issue, not a sexist issue. To be fair, coach Vivian Stringer, also points out that these are young women and that they are being objectified by Imus's comments.

But Tony Kornheiser is right. You make these comments about some predominantly white women's college basketball team, and no one will make a stir. It goes to show the ineffectiveness of women's groups to lodge protests. The last significant women's protest was Martha Burk, protesting the exclusion of women from the all-male Augusta Country Club. And what did most announcers say? Shut up. Get out of here. And with no repercussions. Sponsors pulled out for two years and let The Masters pay for its own airing. It shows the near irrelevancy of women's groups to resonate with a public. The advertisers came back, and the announcers were muzzled, told not to discuss Martha Burk if they wanted to host The Masters.

Again, think of the uproar that would occur had Augusta excluded men of color. The "race" card works, and then only if you're African American. What about the "Latino card"? The "woman card"? The "gay card"? Although views are changing, these don't wield the same bludgeon of the race card.

But you have to play it at opportune moments.

The last time it became an issue was a year ago, when the Duke Lacrosse team hosted an ill-fated party, with strippers. One of the strippers claimed she had been raped by two, no three, no all, no three Duke players. Mike Nifong, seeking political office, took the side of the woman, and the issue became rich Duke, versus poor North Carolina Central University, black vs. white, haves vs. have-nots.

The accuser, Crystal Magnum, who was a mother, a student, even a former member of the Navy, describes events that eventually caused the Duke lacrosse coach to be fired. She brought accusations to David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty claiming they had raped her.

Jesse Jackson defended Magnum, saying he'd help pay her way through school, even before he heard much of the evidence (or lack thereof). Jackson doesn't seem to have retracted his statements, and decry that this kind of false accusation hurts not only people of color, but most importantly, women everywhere. Rape is far, far, far more serious than a few racial epithets, and so Jackson had some justification in trying to defend a potential victim, but I'm sure he'll issue no comments about this case.

Ultimately, it's about trying to use the power you do have carefully.

Now, even after the charges have been dropped, some will no doubt point to the fact that privileged white boys hosted a stripper party, an event good kids should not do. And that I would completely agree with. They shouldn't have hosted such an event, but then should frats host keg parties? Should there be frats? And no one seems to point out that Magnum was trying to make money as a stripper. Maybe too many Demi Moore movies about stripper moms working to keep their kids fed have made her dilemma seem perfectly legitimate.

Had Magnum been Asian and poor, would that have made a difference? Had she been Latina? Would Jesse Jackson have said anything?

Back to Imus.

There's hypocrisy over Imus too. Just as people blamed Duke lacrosse players for hosting a stripper party, even as this is a far cry from rape, people have said that Imus has said far worse, and yet no one did anything. Why did MSNBC choose this time to let Imus go? Presumably, they thought he was good for ratings. Even as MSNBC and CNN may look towards making themselves more appealing to conservatives, the race card is a powerful one, and brings balance, albeit in abrupt ways.

Imus, in many ways, is a scapegoat. He is one of many people who do what he does, but the criticism stuck. People have suggested he may go the way of Howard Stern, and turn to private listeners. I assume he'll lay low for a while, and try to surface later. But he is 67, and he's been at this a long time. But I figure Imus isn't going to want to give this up.

Do I agree with Imus? No. Do I think he deserves all this firestorm? No. Indeed, the tempest is I believe secondary to the main goal, which is to get people to talk about race, and even as some people privately grumble about this, there are plenty of others talking back, defending the Imus move.

In any case, I believe that unlike most media, that this is not a commentary about Imus, but about racial politics. And to be fair, this is not unlike religious conservative politics which pushes a creationist agenda. And, honestly, although I find the tactics a bit foul, I'd rather have some kind of racial politics like this, although I find it nearly as narrow-minded in its focus as many other politics.

A fellow on the radio claimed that there has only ever been one genocide in history, and that is Hitler's genocide of Jews (let's not forget that he also wanted to get rid of gypsies and homosexuals--but, ah, that would detract from the point, eh?). The Armenian genocide? Not a genocide, according to him. The Darfur genocide? Not a genocide. And so forth.

For whatever reason, advocacy groups feel compelled to stay on message, within their target. Thus, you rarely see Al Sharpton defending white women, or Jewish groups helping out migrant workers. While the narrowness means focus and prevents alienation of the base, it also means that outside observers also see it as narrow. Thus, most people might complain (like me) "Why won't Al Sharpton fight for Asian Americans?" but no one seems to suggest that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith should help out, say, African Americans.

On the radio, I heard a guy wonder why there aren't any free speech defenders, and I suppose that people generally haven't been discriminated on free speech the way they have through racial epithets, and so the number of passionate people advocating free speech is dwarfed by those seeking justice for racial intolerance.

Which is too bad, because it suggests that everyone is out for themselves, a terribly selfish move that doesn't seek to reach enlightenment beyond what's best for the groups we most identify with.

OK Go on Skates

I have probably seen as many OK Go videos as anyone outside of, well, OK Go. Earlier this year (or late last), they had a contest to see who could do the best rendition of their dance/song.

Since I was a figure skating weenie, having watched figure skating since the mid 80s or so, I was mightily impressed with the choreography. Consider the following. The original dance had four members. There's only two here. The original members had their feet mostly on the ground. Here, they skate.

Already the degree of difficulty is impossibly high, and they still manage to borrow enough of the original moves to show they paid attention to the video.

I have to say they shoulda won it all.

My-dol

I was watching American Idol for the first time, live. I couldn't help it. I just had to see him. You know. That guy.

Sanjaya!

Oh the humanity!

So I caught half of American Idol last night. The show is something of a sprint. Each person sings two minutes, and the judging is another minute or two. It's pretty quick, actually.

Unlike, say, Mr. Tony, who has been watching this entire season, I've not established a firm opinion on everyone. For example, I listened to Haley, and she seemed "eh" and the same with Jordin. The judges more or less said the same.

When Blake came on, I didn't like his look, but I thought he sounded pretty good. The entirety of Mr. Tony's cast hated it, while the entirety of the American Idol judging loved his performance. But then, I had few preconceptions of how Blake was. I thought it captured the essence of the song. Not perfect, but pretty good.

Randy said Sanjaya was the smartest contestant. And in a sense, he was. He sang his song mostly in Spanish, then ventured (awfully) into English. It's a quiet song, and he emoted just enough, and sounded like he pronounced the Spanish words quite well, that he did a credible job. I know. Low expectations. It's smart to start off badly but stay on week after week because anything above that sound pretty darn good.

Who's that woman on Mr. Tony? She's now using tons of Mr. Tony-isms. I dunno. Doesn't work well with me. Too much empathy, I think. What's her name? Jeannie McManus? Or something.

I must go to a confession soon.

And I'm not even Catholic.

Bless me father for I have sinned. I had to see...Sanjaya!

More Imus

It's a little hard to find the context of what Imus said, but here goes:

IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had.

IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough --

McCORD: Do The Right Thing.

McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?

ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors.

IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah.

RUFFINO: Only tougher.

McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more appropriate.

You could point out that Imus didn't call them hos right away, that one of his co-hosts did, and then he took what he said and followed up. Indeed, his co-hosts seem more aggressive in their comments, though Imus clearly gels with them and goes along for the ride.

It's always good to see more of the original context before passing too much judgement.

Getting an I-Full

I tuned in, like I do most weekday mornings, to listen to Tony Kornheiser. Today was the day they were going to weigh in on Don Imus. Don Imus is, after Howard Stern, the most noted "shock jock", a guy who'll say offensive things on the radio, but had enough of a listenership who agrees with what he says, or at the very least, is entertained by what he says.

Imus made a comment about the Rutgers women basketball team. They made a surprise runner-up showing in the NCAA Division 1 Women's Tournament, losing to Pat Summitt's Tennessee team, a dominant team through the 90s, but looking to reclaim some lost glory, ten years removed from its last title.

Imus called the team "nappy-haired hos" and has been apologizing for saying this ever since, mostly, I imagine, because he thinks he'll lose his job over such comments. Tony Kornheiser is left in the unenviable position of trying to defend Imus, not so much because he agrees with what Imus said, but because it seems very much like the politically correct police gone out of control.

Now, I'm assuming Imus has said at least as scandalous a thing before, though I would say that I agree that his use of the word "hos" is more offensive than nappy-haired. Heck, I've seen an African American woman who proudly claimed she had nappy hair! And I didn't know what she was talking about!

There's a much lower threshold for racism than sexism, and commentators have pointed this out. It's Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson that come out to protest these remarks. Were these remarks made on Asians, would it get airplay? Were these remarks made about white women, would it get airplay? Indeed, why is it getting airplay?

To me, it says as much about racial politics in the US. We're not living in the 60s where civil rights advocacy meant lynchings and attacks, and so the kinds of brave actions that were taken are now reduced to finding occurrences of racism, most notably against African Americans, that are worth fighting, because such protests give rise to debates. Indeed, what better choice than a shock jock than Imus, and what better target than an athletic team! Because once it's about athletics, then the echo chamber of sports punditry takes over, and it gets discussed ad-nauseum by people like Tony Kornheiser, because somehow it's become a sports issue.

People are clamoring for Imus to lose his job, but are we prepared to have Tim Hardaway lose his? At least his comments were straight-forward, not in the context of a joke. He said he simply did not like gay people. What if Imus simply said "I don't like black people. I don't want to be near them. I would keep my distance away." Would he deserve to be fired? If you say yes, then you should say yes to Hardaway too.

Or do your sensibilities get rankled. African Americans are already a persecuted lot, so they should get a pass if they try to say something critical like this. Most people said that Hardaway wasn't particularly enlightened, but no one's saying get him out of the NBA.

Now, you can claim that these cases are indeed different. Imus has had a history of such outlandish comments. Perhaps, as Tony points out, this is much like Bobby Knight, who also had a history of being a bully. No one act was enough to get him ousted, but a history of repeated actions meant that the next straw would be enough to get him booted out. To that extent, Hardaway has kept his opinions mostly to himself, and so he hasn't had the same history.

Part of this is because it's Imus. Pick another person and heck, you wouldn't even know who that is. I mean, Imus is almost barely in the radio conscious, but he's just recognizable enough to serve as scapegoat.

Tony was treading very lightly on the topic, because Tony is an intelligent man. Is this being made a big deal because it's being perceived as a race issue? Yes. Would the same thing happen if he had made similar comments about white women athletes? No. Is this a form of "thought police"? Yes.

The subtext is even greater. Tony is, in case you hadn't noticed, a bit of a comedian on his show. His histrionics is what makes his show enjoyable. Does he make fun of people? You bet! Remember Melinda Doolittle? She's got no neck! She's older than Greg Oden! Why, they're all African Americans? OK, so maybe it's not enough to push anyone's racial button, but maybe the no-necked advocacy group should complain about this.

But you can see why Tony might be nervous. He can claim that he's not strayed into the realm of hateful speech because he's not deliberately hateful at all. He'll hate, but on oddball things. He'll pretend he wants to ban John Feinstein. It doesn't hurt that it's all an act, and both are Jewish American sportswriters, so it's okay to bust the chops of someone in the same boat as you. He can say that there are differences, but at what point might someone say, there are no differences, and he becomes the next guy accused of saying something inflammatory, as a joke?

Indeed, African Americans are much more likely to raise issue when there is a racial slight, but usually when there is some political advantage to doing so. No other ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation group has even close to the kind of media play. It might be something if Jesse Jackson defends some Asian Americans against perceived racism against say Abercrombie and Fitch, a company noted for its lily white models and for a racist Asian shirt. But you don't hear it happen much, do you?

And because you don't, people are more willing to look at such protests and say "well, there goes the PC police!".

To be honest, I think the Rutgers women don't give two hoots about what Don Imus says and are perfectly capable of defending themselves. I'm sure some other group is being slighted by similar comments and we don't even hear it. Does this make the comments right? No. But the kind of uproar seems more for political benefit (oh, Rev. Jackson is still around?) than to effectively combat racism.

I won't say it has no effect, because many people agree with the sentiment, but it does polarize people, and puts people in corners they don't want to be in because of the implications of why this became a big deal to begin with.

I-Owe-Wa

Iowa isn't what you'd call a major state. Biggest city? Des Moines? Can you even name another city in Iowa? Images of cornfields abound. Even so, Iowans are a proud folk and they know when Iowans have done well.

On Sunday, Zach Johnson did something few have done. He beat Tiger Woods. Which is to say, his score, at the end of the day, was the best score of the day, and Tiger Woods's score was not.

Zach Johnson, in post-tournament interviews, said he was from Cedar Rapids (there you go, another city in Iowa), an Iowan proud to call Iowa his home. Not all Iowans have been so proud. Ashton Kutcher. He's Iowan. He's even brought Demi Moore to Iowa.

Brandon Routh, the guy who played Superman and Clark Kent in Superman Returns. Iowan. Bryan Singer, the director, was there for the Iowa debut at Routh's hometown. He probably had little reason to go there otherwise. They've convinced Lance Armstrong to bicycle in Iowa. Captain James T. Kirk says he's from Iowa, and a small town in Iowa makes claims to be his future birthplace.

Did you know Elijah Wood, of Lord of the Rings fame, was born in Cedar Rapids? Zach Johnson only grew up there. He was born in Iowa City (yet another city in Iowa!). Of couse, Elijah's been acting since he was a kid, so much like the Beverly Hillbillies, he moved away from there and headed to Beverly. Hills, that is. Or somewhere in the vicinity of Hollywood.

Steve Alford? Well, he coached at Iowa, but decided to leave them for New Mexico, where they understand basketball better. Or something like that.

Iowa can lay a claim against rival Ohio. Spelled with just as many letters and vowels, but has unique vowels. Those Ohioans use two "o"'s, don't you know?

So Zach Johnson, once proudly golfing in the Hooters tour wins the tournament that Hootie runs, that is Hootie Johnson. Remember that? Martha Burk protested that the membership at Augusta was exclusively male. Tiger Woods, wanting to keep his sponsors happy, kept mum on the issue. It was Martha vs. Hootie. Hootie must have won, because there was nary a peep from Martha Burk.

Hootie's gone (replaced by Billy Payne). So's Martha.

We have Zach Johnson left.

And he's proud to tell you he's from Iowa.

Inappropriate Flashing

My friend, Justin, told me a while back: "Don't use flash!". I'm sure he said it more strenuously than this, like "Using flash is the worst pain ever...your mom!".

He was, of course, referring to flashes on digital cameras. These devices of pure blinding brilliance are almost always amped up way too much, creating the most amateurish results. Yet, camera company after camera company insist on making a flash that's far too strong.

Worse still, you can't even control it. Wouldn't it be nice to say "80% flash" or adjust some number that would reduce the flash by the amount it thought was necessary? I know there's some doodad that attempts to measure how much light makes it into the lens, and then turns off the flash, all done in fractions of a second.

You'd think some camera company would catch on. That it would serve as a product differentiator. They could say "our camera does flash right!". But instead, they doom the average photographer to crappy photos. David Pogue, save us! Your humorous vlogs will repair an oversight that has gone far too long!

Flying Coach

Shortly after the NCAA tournament ends, and sometimes during its tenure, there is a mad rush of firing and hiring. There's a subtext to the NCAA men's tournament. The text, as it were, is for a team to win the national championships, the pinnacle of division 1 college basketball. The subtext is to do well enough to get a "better" job, that is, for the coach.

Let's review what happened. Kentucky's Tubby Smith, the successor to Rick Pitino, who heard the siren song of the NBA, became head coach of the Celtics, and drove the once proud franchise into the ground, before heading back to greener pastures, becoming cross-town coach at rival Louisville, decided the pressure of being Kentucky coach was too much.

Tubby had won the national championships once, but it was early on, with Pitino's kids. The Wildcat faithful never quite embraced Tubby, and although he frequently made the tournament, he rarely made it that far. Kentucky fans wanted final four appearances on a Kryzewski-like consistency, which meant basically every other year, a feat that few college programs can expect to reach.

Much like being Alabama (or Notre Dame)'s head coach, being Kentucky's head coach is often a thankless job. You're expected to win big, out-competing up to a hundred other programs seeking the same status.

Tubby finally said adios to Kentucky, and went for the much less known, Minnesota, what many consider a step down. However, Minnesota would be thrilled to get to the tournament regularly, and has little expectations of winning a championship. This was more to Tubby's liking.

Arkansas fired Stan Heath, who got the position after Kent State did well in the NCAA tournament back in 2002. Arkansas had just fired Nolan Richardson, an African American coach, who was a bit controversial. To Arkansas's credit, Heath was also African American, and coached five years. However, he didn't win as much as Richardson, so they looked elsewhere. Arkansas wanted Billy Gillespie, but we'll get back to him in a moment.

Arkansas then hired Dana Altman, the coach of Creighton, one of the mid-majors that do well tournament-time. He backed out after a day, deciding he didn't want the Arkansas job.

Michigan fired Tommy Amaker, who had been Michigan's coach for five years, and never once made the NCAA tournament, though his team won the NIT one year and was runner up another year. Michigan hired John Beilein, who had two successful NCAA runs with West Virginia in 2005 and 2006, but barely missed making it in 2007. Beilein was replaced by Bob Huggins, who once coached Cincinnati, and was asked to coach WVU, before he was fired from Cincinnati and had just wrapped up a year at Kansas State.

Texas A&M had a successful tournament, ranked as a 3 seed, and a team many felt could go far. They did pretty well, reaching the sweet 16. Coached by Billy Gillispie, Texas A&M made it from an afterthought in basketball to being a serious tournament threat.

Kentucky, who had hoped to bait Billy Donovan, two time national championship coach of the Florida Gators, but just as important, former assistant coach to Rick Pitino when he was at Kentucky, had to settle for Gillispie, when Donovan decided to stay at Florida. Gillispie, much like Ben Howland, former Pitt coach and current UCLA coach, is considered a workaholic, married to the sport, spending more time analyzing games then, say, having a wife.

Gillispie benefited from a decent if not outstanding tournament run, just as Beilein did. Rather than look at a body of work, they figure the proof is in the tournament pudding. Get a good team to play at the NCAAs, and that can be a resume builder like no other.

Strange hiring practices, wouldn't you say?

Rings a Bell?

Ever heard of Joshua Bell? If classical music is not your cup of tea, then maybe not. I can't say I'm a classical music buff, but my dad had many classical albums of the Time-Life variety, which meant it was classic vinyl, and often wrapped up, unused, until either my brother (most usually him) would wonder why we had albums we never opened, and would open them for a listen.

Of course, at that time, Bell was a bit too young, and would have released no albums. More than likely, he was on a youthful apprenticeship, learning to be the master musician he is today. And it doesn't hurt that Bell is fairly attractive. It never hurts for any public performer to be easy on the eyes.

Bell does have an interesting lineage. His dad was one of the several Kinsey researchers. I knew little of Kinsey except that he had written a book on sex, until seeing the film, Kinsey. Kinsey's success, at least as portrayed by Liam Neeson, was that he treated sex as a research, as through and meticulous as his research on gall wasps. This fastidiousness gave him some credibility as he did research on human sexuality, which was surprisingly woefully under-researched in the early 1940s.

For example, that staple of young men (and not so young)--masturbation, was considered unhealthy and taboo in its day. Kinsey did much to convince people that this was not at all unhealthy. He gave credibility to homosexuality as a normal way of living, rather than a psychological disease. Even if 10% population being gay is considered a bit high (it's been suggested the number is maybe 5%), it gave gay people confidence that hasn't been matched until the advent of the web.

But, I digress.

Joshua Bell wanted to try something out. Here's the full story.

He wanted to know, if he looked like something of a vagrant musician, begging for money at a popular Metro stop, would anyone stop to give him money. To make it somewhat less obvious who he was, he wore a baseball cap. Playing his million (actually, several million) dollar violin, he wondered if virtuosity would stop the busy commuter, off to his job.

He played for just under an hour, and made about forty bucks. Hardly anyone recognized him. One woman, near the end of his performance, did recognize him, having been to his concert only weeks earlier. Although she was baffled why he was out there begging for money, she knew it was him.

This article was posted to reddit, where it received a number one ranking. Comments, as they are wont to be, was mixed, some negative, saying that this was a cheap stunt.

One has to point out that few people enjoy classical music so much that they recognize virtuosity. Virtuosity is, by definition, extreme skill. Heavy metal, which can be well nigh unlistenable to a non-fan, is nevertheless, a virtuoso skill. The best metal players play with such proficiency that few can match the ability to play notes so quickly and accurately. Banjo players also attain this level of virtuosity.

Even so, how many people actually like classical music? Had the person been, say, a beautiful woman--and there are plenty, highly-talented attractive women who play the violin, would the reaction have been different? While we've come to expect good, yet out-of-work musicians having to beg for a living, most are male. The oddity of seeing women music performers might draw a crowd, far more easily, and perhaps be a far more incongruous site. And, never underestimate having a beautiful woman playing to attract people, much like seeing a young child virtuoso would draw more attention due to the fact s/he's a child, not because s/he's a virtuoso.

Some people don't like to be insulted, to be told they can't recognize genius. Thus, this experiment would be considered folly, the height of arrogance.

I see it rather differently. Joshua Bell has played in concert halls to a certain kind of audience, one that presumably recognizes and appreciates his talent. But he lives in something of a rarefied atmosphere. Just as there are some people who travel to exotic countries to build up their repetoire of experiences, Joshua Bell has, I gather, as well. Even if he ostensibly did it (or an editor at the Post) to find out how people would react, he may have also done it to explore some facet of a life he's never had to live.

One has to imagine that gifted musicians, especially classical ones, are extremely lucky. While the average Joe band might have some hope of making a small living as a musician, you have to be near the top of your game to be a classical musician. But being there, you can do pretty well for yourself. Still, it takes only a little less talent, and you might be out begging. There, but for the grace of God...well, you get the idea.

Perhaps Bell is arrogant, but maybe he's just curious. His dad was a social scientist interested in behavior. And perhaps he's not so elite as to think this wouldn't be a bit of fun.

I know. When you open up a forum for comments, you find people who say the silliest things, and often, it lacks much insight or intelligence. People are always willing to criticize, because that's what humans do so well. Indeed, it's a skill, one that some people do well, and others do poorly.

I've always thought I should get a CD by Joshua Bell, and oddly enough, a stunt like this has made it more likely I will.

Sanjaya

I've finally been broken. Sorta. Tony Kornheiser has been back on the air since January or so, so my morning quota of Mr. Tony, which had been on the same hiatus Tony was on (he was doing Monday Night Football on ESPN), was now met again.

Tony's always been a big fan of American Idol, but I've never bothered to check it out until recently, and really, only on YouTube, and the like. I've listen to Sanjaya bashing for the last few weeks. In the meanwhile, I've seen videos of Chris Sligh, Chris Richardson, LaKisha, Gina, Melinda Doolittle, Phil, Blake, Jordan, and Haley. So I'm basically up-to-date on pretty much who everyone left is.

As I've pointed out before, American Idol focuses on the singing, which if you really think about it, is only one-half of the equation, the other part, not surprisingly being, you know, the song. This is why, as much as people get hooked on Idol, about which singer they like or don't, the singers never seem to do fantastically well afterwards.

Having a great voice is one thing--and many of these singers have pretty good voices, but singing songs people like is another.

Now, part of listening to Mr. Tony is hearing wacky stories like the "Peter Yarrow burglar". To recount this story for those who don't listen (which is probably all of you), a man apparently walked into Tony Kornheiser's house. It was late enough that Tony was in bed, but his wife was awake.

He was carrying a suitcase, and upon seeing Tony's wife, he notes that he is in the wrong house, and is dreadfully sorry, that he's jet lagged from a trip to Israel, and oh, by the way, he's Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul, and Mary, the folk band from the 60s, who made famous a song called Puff the Magic Dragon.

Days after the event, Tony milked it for what it was worth, trying to decide if this were somehow, inexplicably, the real Peter Yarrow, or a burglar claiming he was Peter Yarrow, so he'd have an excuse, just in case he was caught, just as he was now.

As it turns out, it was the real Peter Yarrow, and he came on the air to do an interview, to explain how sorry he was and so forth. Mr. Tony had to ask Peter Yarrow if he followed American Idol, to which he said he did not.

But it's the reason why he chooses not to listen, that's most interesting. While he had nothing against people wanting to sing for a career, indeed, he feels people should do what they want, much to his 60s ethos, it's the manner which the show goes about finding good singers. In particular, they are judged, and sometimes this judging can be particularly nasty. Simon has gotten nicer over time, but he has an acid tongue, pointing out people's flaws, bringing them to the edge of tears, and beyond.

Now, some people have pointed out that Americans live in a society where they are coddled, where they are made to feel good about anything, where failure is meant to be brushed under the carpet. Criticism is kept to a minimum, while everyone feels good about every accomplishment, no matter how small. It's been argued that criticism, and people's responses to it help people become better, strive for more than just to be.

However, Peter Yarrow feels, in only a way that Peter Yarrow can, that this is wrong. Little kids criticize others for being too fat, too tall, too ugly, and so forth, and such comments are hurtful, and to his mind, wrong. Indeed, he expressed his sentiment on Tony's show in the form of a song, and of course, in the context of American Idol, you had to think, this man's singing stinks! (As the show's motto is "This show stinks"). And you had to feel this sentiment, even as the song's sentiment reaches at something deeper, much as folk music of the 60s tried to do.

But it also makes an interesting critique of Idol itself. American Idol is not so great because the audience can vote, and their vote counts. No, it's that these singers are not uniformly great. They're pretty good, but you can hear their vocal flaws, and so that means, the average American, who loves music, but typically lack any vocal training, can weigh in.

Indeed, there are several "vlogs" (video blogs) that do that each week, much like Tony critiques Idol with his co-hosts. That most of the vlogs are hosted by men (many claim straightness even!)--indeed, I haven't seen one by a woman yet, though I'm sure they are out there, shows that Tony isn't the only guy who has fallen under the Idol spell.

Idol's mystique lies in your own criticism of the singers. You become the judge. And amazingly, this ties to all the baser instincts of people that Yarrow was singing against. I was once visiting my cousin in Seattle, and his then fiancee. We went to one of their friend's apartment, and there sat one of those Hollywood rags. One of the girls opened it up, and started brazenly criticizing how ugly, or old, the person she was looking at was.

She did it almost reflexively, as if it had been built up from many years of she and her girlfriends, passing the hours (or possibly from her mom!) criticizing others. Man, do we love doing this! It makes us feel better about our humble lives.

Say, did you see Sanjaya! He can't sing a lick, but look at that hair! What the hell kind of hair cut was that? It wasn't a mohawk! His hair is poofed up like Marvin the Martian's brush helmet on steroids!

Indeed, had I not found out that Sanjaya Malakar was Bengali Indian, as is a friend of mine, I would have not bothered to check out this Sanjaya phenomenon. And sadly, his rendition of Gwen Stefani's Bathwater, apparently a not-very-well known song by No Doubt sung by frontwoman, Stefani, is so catchy, that I can't seem to get it out of my head, syncopated to the beat of Sanjaya's head.

One of the YouTube comments that Sanjaya's version was superior to Gwen's, even as Mr. Tony feels Gwen's singing is wretched. Still, despite not having the pipes of a good singer, Stefani's singing style is unique enough, and perhaps tall, thin, blond things do well, especially with a ska backup band to give the band its sound.

And it goes to show you, that the quality of singing isn't everything! It's to Idol's credit that it puts singing front and center, albeit singing of a certain style, which I'd have to say, has been greatly influenced, as much of modern American, even modern English-speaking music, by African Americans. Popular singers are about everything, their voice, their looks, their general hotness, and yes, occasionally the songs they sing.

I'd love to see a version of Idol where the song was put front and center, where prolific singer/songwriters/bands would play an originally composed song each week. To be fair, learning a song, and writing a good song in a week are far different. While Jonathan Coulton and maybe Sufjan Stevens is that prolific (indeed, many a songwriter claims they wrote the song in ten minutes), it may stress real bands to have to compose this quickly.

To be fair, one way around this is for the band to have some time to write up songs ahead of time. But the key, in my mind, would be to compel them to write songs in a wide variety of styles, which would show off songwriting and song-singing prowess.

You'll note that Idol never has a "rap" night, because, well, rap ain't singing. I don't know if they've had country night, or hard rock singing night, as that would really put people out of their comfort zones. When you have "British Invasion" night, it still leaves open quite a variety of songs, one of which ought to be something you can sing well.

Well, now I've come to a close, and fortunately, I'm now awake, so that nefarious bump-bump-bump of Sanjaya's head doesn't come tap-tap-tapping in the night.

Twitter

Twitter used to be called Twttr, at least, I thought it was. It's hard to find evidence of this.

It's the latest new thing, and as with many latest new things, I find it through Dave. Dave somehow manages to figure out the pulse of new things. He told me about Flickr before Flickr was big (and arguably, it's not that big).

What is Twitter? If you have some IM buddies that are younger than a certain age, they often list their away message letting you know where they are at any particular place and time. Modern youth do not seem that concerned about privacy, perhaps an outgrowth of reality TV shows like Big Brother, where people actually want to be filmed 24 hours a day.

Indeed, the latest online example of this is justin.tv where former Kiko employee, Justin Kan, straps a small camera on a cap, and films whatever he sees all day long. When he sleeps, he aims he camera at his bed, and using night vision, you can see him sleep, which is modestly dull.

The lesson one learns from having a camera is that no matter how boring someone's life is, someone is always watching. Two things have pushed Justin.tv to the next level beyond the cam sites that were popular a decade ago (JenniCam, being the most famous person) are the quality of video, which is much better than the old days when images refreshed once in twenty seconds, and even the best of them, Camarades, would stutter all the time, and that Justin takes the camera everywhere. In its day, the cams were mostly stationary, in the room of the cam star. When the star was not around, the room was empty. A viewer would get a terribly limited view of the person's world. Oh yes, there's also sound. Many cams of its day lacked sound.

Right now, due to its increased popularity, a hundred people might be watching at any one time, which means it's become increasingly difficult to see any video at all.

But I digress.

Twitter is much simpler. The idea is to have a website where you can update everyone by any means necessary. You can go to the website itself and put a note on what you are doing right then and there. You can send a text message from your phone. I think you can even IM to it.

And, while I haven't checked it out, you can keep up in similar ways. If I want to keep up with Dave's every move, I could probably route his updates to my phone. Now, he doesn't actually update enough to make that realistic, and he may indeed get tired of it very quickly.

But for now, Twitter seems to have caught the fancy of many people, especially at this thing called SXSW (which is short for "South by Southwest", a riff on a Hitchcock film) which I believe is hosted in Austin Texas each year.

Why would people want to update everyone on what they are up to? And why would people care? Yet, people have done this. Perhaps someone addicted to Twitter can enlighten me.

I'm just here noting it down, even as others have already noted it too.

More Phelps

Some followup. Michael Phelps continues to rack up medals and break world records. The FINA World Championships in Australia are done, and Phelps had hoped to get eight gold medals, but instead he has to settle for seven (boo-hoo). The last medal was a medley, which requires four swimmers, and one of his rivals and teammates, Ian Crocker, had left 0.01 of a second too soon. I mean, you'd think they could simply penalize this time at the end, though certainly it creates problems if everyone is doing this.

Phelps had beaten Ian in some previous event.

Let's just say his accomplishments have been amazing, and the media can hardly overstate this. Indeed, they have a hard time getting enough enthusiasm for this. Why? Lance Armstrong, another sports figure who has resonated with the American public, has succeeded where Phelps has not. Why?

There are several reasons for this. First, Lance won over many, many years. Each year, they would go back to the Tour de France, and each year, Lance would win. The public probably didn't even follow Lance until after he won his third Tour. That's just how much people cared (or didn't) about the Tour.

Second, Lance is a cancer survivor, so there is a secondary story that people can relate too. Many people know of someone else that are cancer survivors.

Third, the Tour de France runs over several weeks, and there is coverage on OLN (which didn't happen until he was roughly on his fifth win). People could watch it live, and it would last a few hours. As people learned more about the race, they could figure out its nuances. There are even nutty situations where the spectators are literally inches from the riders, and at any point, they could knock over a competitor.

Let's face it, the Tour, as is, would never happen in the US, at least, if we cared about the sport to any degree. Athletes would want to be protected from rabid fans. Indeed, a French rider of some repute, Eddie Merckx, lost a title because someone knocked him off his bike. And Eddie was French!

On the other hand, swimming takes only a few minutes, if even that. It's like watching track and field. It's over quickly. So we can appreciate the import of the event, even if lacks the kind of drama that racing can have (in particular, last year's win by Floyd Landis had him make up some 8 minutes in one day, with only about two days left in the event, which is practically unheard of. Most people thought Landis was done for, and to make up that time was not possible. When he did, there was some question of doping).

His accomplishments seem less notable than Mark Spitz, the guy he's most often compared to. There's a reason for that. First, Mark Spitz won in the 70s, when there was no cable TV. The Olympics, when it was on, had a huge, captive audience. And they loved it. These days, the Olympics are meh.

Mark Spitz was also something of a golden boy. Just as Chris Evert was not only successful for her excellent play that made her one of the two players you think of during the late 70s and 80s (the other being Martina), she was also noted for being good looking. Spitz had that 1970s good look, where folks like Tom Selleck and Burt Reynolds--guys with moustaches, seemed something like men's men (though not John Wayne types).

Let's face it, Michael Phelps looks rather wiry, and still very much like a kid. And there's a tendency for one white swimmer to look like another. Put Ian Thorpe side by side with Phelps, and you'd probably find the average person unable to decide who is who!

And, unlike Spitz, Phelps didn't even break these records at the Olympics! True, the World Championships are no small deal, but it's not the Olympics.

I'm starting to read a touch more about Phelps, that he's a bit of a jokester, and he's hugely into rap music, which just goes to show you the crossover influence of rap for white audiences (he is from Baltimore, which has a rather large African American population). Still, it's amazing how little I know about this guy, even though I've heard of him for years.

Pryor Work

Joel Spolsky co-founded Fog Creek Software with Michael Pryor. That's right. Co-founded. Startup CW says you should create a start up with a co-founder. Helps divide up the work.

But you hardly hear of Michael Pryor. Why is that? Presumably because Pryor, like many software types is an introvert, and doesn't like the limelight. Perhaps Joel is so much better at being interviewed. Hey, there's no shame in that, right? Recently, the two were interviewed by Robert Scoble (I think, as I have no idea what Scoble looks like). Scoble has his own website and is one of those big bloggers, much like Joel himself.

I am reminded of a movie I saw long ago, called Prick Up Your Ears, which was well-reviewed, but I never knew much about it until seeing it. It tells the story of Joe Orton, a gay writer, who lived with Kenneth Halliwell, and the two became lovers. Eventually, Halliwell killed Orton, though the reason isn't clear. The film posits that Halliwell was frustrated with Orton's success and when Orton won an award, he invited his editor, instead of him, it pushed him over the edge. As this murder was actually a murder-suicide, the actual reason is not known despite a suicide note from Halliwell. The film stars Gary Oldman and Alfred Molina, when they were not so well known (Molina is still not that well known, but played Dr. Octopus in the last Spiderman movie).

I have yet to listen to the full interview which runs about an hour, having only listened to the short six minute highlights version, but I suspect Joel does most of the talking. It begs the question why Michael Pryor is in the interview at all.

To be fair, being an interviewee requires thinking quickly and being able to give interesting responses, though this has not stopped Shaquille O'Neal (though he does say some funny things, despite his rather whispery voice--one time he was talking about how he is able to do well at the end of a season when it matters. He says "some guys are all roses and chocolates". By itself, it's not much, but in context, you see that this is incredibly funny.)

(OK, fine, I'll explain it. Why does someone give roses and chocolates? To woo women. Why? To get women in bed. So, thus, Shaq is joking that some guys are great at the beginning, when it doesn't matter, and can't deliver in the end. It was his analogy to his situation in basketball.)

I don't know why the two relate to me, only whether there's a sense of wanting to share more of the visible face of Fog Creek. Google has two lead guys, but I'd say Sergey is the more outgoing of the two. Indeed, I'm told Larry Page spends more time at the "Googleplex" than Sergey.

So why did I blog about this? I read some followup comments where someone felt bad for Michael, and he followed up himself. I suppose he was mildly embarrassed.

Shrug.

Generic Particulars

Sports commentators love to refer to people as generics. Not even people, but places too. For example, you might hear "The Kobe Bryants, Kevin Garnetts, and Lebron Jameses of the world" to refer to successful straight-from-high-school to the NBA players, or "the Ohio States and the Floridas of the world" (notice the "of the world") rather than say "players like Kobe or Kevin or Lebron" or "college programs like Ohio State and Florida".

I dunno, it just peeves me to hear it.

A Thousand Cuts

Like most people, I watch movies. I've heard of a particular film term that I never bothered to look up until just yesterday: the jump cut. Apparently, this idea was popularized by the French New Wave, films that often lacked a strong story arc, following wayward rebels doing whatever came naturally.

I finally looked it up--where else?--Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets a bad rap, and I have no idea why. I know that it's edited by people, and thus, anyone can put up anything. For the most part, they haven't, and so the content is reasonably reliable, especially for non-controversial topics.

A cut refers to a switch of scenery. For example, suppose you have two people talking to each other. You see one person's face, then another, then back to the original person. The two do not share screen time together. This is a cut. Or more drastically, you had a scene on Tatooine, and now you have a scene on a Star Destroyer. You cut from one to the other.

A jump cut is not exactly like that. The idea is to jump in time. It's still a cut because it's not continuous in time. For example, in Ocean's 11, there's a guy who's trying to tap the security cameras. As he's leaving, he realizes he's lost because the directions he wrote on the back of his hand are smudged, when he wiped his sweaty brow. So, he walks down one hallway, then comes back and walks a different hallway.

Now, this would normally take up quite a bit of time as he walked down and back, and that would leave the viewer impatient, so they skip little bits here and there, to show advancing of time. Usually, the jump in time is only a few seconds, skipping over "boring parts".

Although Wikipedia notes a related kind of cut called the match cut, the two are quite different. A match cut is also a cut, but it tries to relate two different scenes together by creating a similar scene. The most famous match cut (I'd imagine) is the scene in 2001 where an ape throws up a bone into the sky, as it flips end over end, and then melds into a lengthy space craft flipping end over end. The idea is that the bone has become a tool (in this case, a weapon) and similarly, the space station also happens to have nuclear weapons in it. It matches a weapon in the past to one in the near future.

I'm sure there are as many cuts as there are directors to imagine them, but I've always been curious about what a jump cut is. In the old days, I could look it up, but it would have taken some work. Now, I just get on a computer and look the information up, and indeed Wikipedia helps in situations like this.

I wonder what the next Wikipedia will be. Search engines are good, but lack a good way to organize the information. A colleague recently asked me whether baby drumsticks come from baby chickens. Apparently not, but if you look at the Wikipedia entry on chickens, it talks mostly about the kinds of chickens out there, and spends no time talking about the processing of chicken into food, despite the fact that chickens are one of the few domesticated animals that humans eat with regularity (others being cows and pigs).