Archive for the ‘in general’ Category
Some Good News to Report — An All-Around October ’13 Update
I know it’s early Wednesday morning, and it’s been a week since my last blog. But there’s been a good deal going on that’s taken my energy away from blogging — plus, there really haven’t been any stories that have demanded I write about them, either.
Let’s start out with the good news: The story I worked so hard on was bought. I cannot tell you who bought it yet, as the contract hasn’t been signed and the editor hasn’t made a public announcement. But I can tell you the story was accepted, and I’m looking forward to receiving the contract and signing it.
I also am nearly done with a book-length edit. I have three others in progress at this time, not counting my own final edit of the first half of ELFY, which is over 3/4 complete as of this writing. As this is most of how I make my living, it’s obvious I’ll be spending a lot of time editing in the weeks to come (as I always do).
My plans for the week include a new book review for Ash Krafton’s BLOOD RUSH over at Shiny Book Review (long-delayed due to my health), an interview with author Stephanie Osborn (it may be up next week, but I’m working on it right now), and continuing to write, edit, and comment as often as possible.
Now let’s talk about the World Series, which starts later today between the Boston Red Sox and the St. Louis Cardinals. I’ve already said on my Facebook page that I am underwhelmed by this matchup for two reasons: One, Boston is an older, veteran team without superlative pitching and thus doesn’t seem to have the wherewithal to stand up to St. Louis, a younger team with far better pitching. And two, I’m really tired of seeing the same teams going year after year.
Look. I basically lost interest in the National League playoffs once the Pittsburgh Pirates were out. I really wanted the Pirates to go to the National League Championship Series because it’s been so long since they’ve been there (or to the World Series, either). I knew that Pittsburgh had the best shot of knocking the Cardinals out — and if Pittsburgh couldn’t do it, it was likely the Cardinals would sweep everyone else out of the way and go to the World Series.
Which, of course, they did.
As for the American League playoffs, I lost interest there far earlier as what I’d wanted to see was a Cleveland-Boston matchup — the old Red Sox manager turned Indians manager Terry Francona against new Boston skipper John Ferrell. But Cleveland lost the Wild Card game and was out right away.
After that, while I had a mild interest in Detroit as I wanted to see if Prince Fielder would be able to hit any better in the postseason this year (he didn’t), I wasn’t riveted. I did think Detroit would go back to the World Series because the Tigers have two excellent pitchers in Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander and Boston’s pitchers, while still good in Clay Buchholz and Jon Lester and John Lackey (the latter victimized by poor run support), weren’t in the same class.
However, in a short series anything can happen. Detroit was plagued by some poor defense, some baserunning miscues (poor Prince Fielder, getting caught off third base in a rundown), and just wasn’t able to handle the pressure of returning to the World Series.
My best guess as to what will happen — knowing full well guesses don’t mean much until at least one or two games have been played — is that St. Louis will win easily over Boston. (I like Boston better. But they don’t seem to stand much of a chance.) St. Louis’s pitchers are far better, they have excellent hitters and their defense was among the best in the National League all year long. I just don’t think Boston has enough to compete with the Cardinals.
The main questions remaining are: Does Boston have some fight left? Or did they use it all up getting Detroit out of the way in the ALCS?
If they don’t, this particular World Series is likely to be a yawner for all but hard-core Cardinals fans.
Electronic Oddities
Sometimes, folks, I just need to vent. And what better thing to vent at than our electronically driven lives?
I’ve had four things happen lately that are really vexing, but in a very slow-burning sort of way. The first one was when I took an online exam for a place of employment — this is something many employers do these days — and was told after I took it that I “must be a computer” because I’d “gone too fast to be a human being,” and was immediately disqualified from that particular job!
I still don’t know what to think about that one, with one exception: I’m obviously not a computer. No matter what that particular program thinks.
The second thing was back in August, when I played the contest “Beat the Streak in a Day” through MLB.com’s fantasy page. In case you don’t know about the whole “Beat the Streak” contest, it’s named after Joe DiMaggio’s legendary 56-game hitting streak. Fans pick 57 players (over time in the regular Beat the Streak contest, but in one day for BTS in a Day) who we hope will all get hits. You can pick any position player (it won’t let you pick pitchers), providing they’re not on the disabled list, the suspended list, or are otherwise unavailable.
I saved all my picks, did everything the program said to do — and then seven of my picks somehow were not updated even though the site said they were.
When I compared notes to the picks I knew I had made, I had 43 out of 57 right. This would not be enough for a prize. It certainly does not beat Joe D’s streak, and many others came closer than I did to getting all of the players they’d picked to get hits right. But I was annoyed with this program for saying I’d only gotten something like 35 out of 57 right rather than the 43 I know I had right.
When this happened again with the BTS in a Day contest this past Friday — where I couldn’t even check to see how my picks had done because the site glitched, though I checked twice before all the picks were locked and made sure of my actual picks (I wanted no repeat of the August issue, thanks) — I was extremely frustrated, and did write to the contest to ask for an explanation.
This time, the results page said I got 36 right. I don’t have any idea if this is correct because I cannot check it; I can basically go over every player I know I picked, painstakingly (which is what I did last time), but my rough estimate had me getting around 44 or 45 right rather than 36.
I don’t know if I’ll get an answer. I don’t know if they’ll actually get my real picks right — the “results page” I got was for the earliest BTS in a Day contest back in June, I think, because some of “my picks” were Ryan Braun (who I used to pick before his suspension), Yasmani Grandal (same) and a few others like Paul Konerko who I know I didn’t pick this last time.
So that’s two and three — which means you might be wondering what the fourth vexing issue is. (Even if you aren’t, I’m going to tell you anyway. Lucky you, huh?)
It’s simple. An e-mail to me got trapped somehow in the ISP aether, and I didn’t get it until five full days after it was apparently mailed. As it was a professional e-mail — meaning it has bearing on one of my joint careers (music and writing) — this was not good.
Obviously, I couldn’t answer the e-mail until I saw it. But I didn’t see it in my inbox for five full days — and then, it showed up only as spam, which it wasn’t. (I check my spam folder every day, and I know it was not there all that time before it finally did show up.)
Because of this electronic glitch, I wasn’t able to answer this professional e-mail. And it was a time-sensitive e-mail, to boot, which makes me appear less than professional — all because of my ISP doing something really bizarre.
Mind you, this sort of thing happens far less than it used to. But e-mail, reliable though it usually is, can still go astray . . . I just have to hope that my explanatory e-mail will make sense, and that they’ll believe me that this really did happen.
Anyway, that’s four solid things that have something to do with computers, computer programs, or otherwise electronically driven oddities. And while I understand how programs can get messed up from time to time, I’m beyond tired of it.
Let me know if I’m the only one these weird things are happening to, OK? Because I’m starting to wonder if Murphy has my number on speed dial.
How the World has Changed Since 1999
Folks, I don’t often write much about the changes I’ve seen during my lifetime . . . in fact, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I’ve ever written about this particular subject before. Yet it came to mind because yesterday would’ve been my Grandma’s 103rd birthday, had she lived . . . as she died in 1999, I thought I’d talk about what I’ve seen happen in the world since then, the good and the bad alike, and reflect on what my Grandma might’ve thought about it all.
First, Grandma would’ve been utterly horrified by 9/11. She’d have been shocked that anyone had been able to do something like that on American soil. She’d have been livid that our various “alphabet agencies” (the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, etc.) all got caught with their pants down.
But she’d also have seen the Patriot Act as an overreaction. She’d have cheered our Wisconsin Senator, Russ Feingold (a D), for his principled opposition — the only Senator to oppose it, I might add — but she’d have wondered what the world was coming to when the United States had to start spying on its own citizens in a way that could no longer be hidden or swept under the rug as a “necessary evil,” instead being brought out into the sunlight as something that was “right and proper,” something that every right-thinking American should want in order to prevent more terrorism.
The lack of privacy would be something that deeply upset my Grandma, who was a very private person. That the government has admitted to spying on its own citizens (albeit supposedly in a limited way) through the Patriot Act and now through the revelations caused by NSA leaker Edward Snowden would be quite distasteful to her. But that there are so many cameras on street corners, at street lights, that everyone and his brother seems to have a cell phone complete with camera available to take pictures at a moment’s notice . . . that the police, in many states, now use computers to run license plates of everyone on the road, including those who’ve done nothing wrong whatsoever, or worse, tape people’s license plates as their cars are sitting in their own driveways, would weigh heavily on her heart, too.
I think she’d wonder, “What have we given up in order to use all this high-tech stuff? And can we ever get our privacy back after all this?”
One positive thing that’s changed that my Grandma would probably have appreciated is the rise of e-books (and the technology to read them), as putting type in bold face and larger fonts would’ve been something that greatly appealed to her. She’d have been pleased about people reading anything, as she believed fervently in the power of reading in order to help anyone educate him or herself in order to do whatever we want to do. And she’d probably think that this was one aspect where technology had greatly improved life for the better . . . or at least had the capacity to do so.
Grandma would’ve been quite bemused by the ascent of cellular phones, which were around in 1999 but in a much less usable fashion. She’d have wondered a whole lot about this phenomenon of “texting,” which wouldn’t have made any sense to her. (She understood e-mail as a type of telegraphy, which makes as much sense as anything else to someone born in 1910. And she saw computers as helpful to businesses, but something that had no practical value to herself or her family.) She’d have wondered even more about the people who get behind the wheel of a car but cannot keep themselves from texting while driving.
The way people go on and on when talking on their cell phones, as if their conversations were in a private room rather than, say, in the middle of a Wal-mart would be distressing to her also. She used to watch the Jerry Springer show, and she’d tell me all the time that people seemed to have lost their moorings — a different way to say that people didn’t seem to know where their boundaries should start, or end. Well, half the conversations I’ve unwittingly overheard in the grocery store, or in the pharmacy, or on the street corner make me blush . . . and though Grandma might not have blushed the same way I do when I hear such things, she’d definitely have wanted to give the person (or people) using the cell phone a piece of her mind.
Grandma would not have understood Twitter, Facebook, or much about instant messaging. (I tried to explain to her about IMs before she died.) She probably would’ve accepted something like Skype as video conferencing has been around for at least the past forty years (though it used to be far rarer and quite a bit more expensive than it is now), but she’d never have used it herself.
The plethora of people sending digital pictures to all and sundry would have made her shake her head, too. (I can hear her now. “Whatever happened to privacy? Don’t these people care that everyone else knows all their business?”)
And this phenomenon where people seem to have to record any event, whether it’s a wedding, a funeral, a baseball game, or the running of the bulls in Pamplona, from all angles and from every viewpoint possible . . . well, let’s just say she definitely wouldn’t have understand that, either.
In other words, most of what has changed since 1999 has to do with technology. But some of what’s changed has to do with mindset. And while technology will come and go, mindsets usually do not change very often, which is why the changes that I’ve described would be extremely distressing to her.
How we get back to a mindset that says to the world, in essence, “Yes, I’m out here. Yes, I have a Web presence. But no, I’m not going to share everything with you. Sorry, my private life is none of your business” is something that I will continue to ponder.
Why? Well, I look at it this way . . . my Grandma was no fool. She believed strongly that a person had a right to keep her own counsel and that whatever you shared with her should go no further.
A life where everyone shared everything with everyone, all the time, would be looked at in horror by my Grandma as a specific type of Hell.
And as we get closer to such a society with every new technological gadget that comes down the pike (such as that Google “everywhere” headset, which made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever as people shouldn’t be walking and be on the Internet at the same time as it’s too dangerous to do both for 99.9% of the population), I can’t say that I disagree.
An All-Around, Generalized Update
Folks, I’ve been hip-deep in editing this past week — I’ve been doing a last-ditch edit of my novel, ELFY, and have decided to re-do some chapter lengths. I also edited a short project for a friend, and have consulted on two other projects . . . and as if that’s not enough, I prepared for a concert with the Racine Concert Band that was unfortunately rained out last evening, too. (I was to play my alto saxophone.)
So I’ve had plenty going on, which is why I haven’t written a blog in over a week, why I haven’t reviewed any books, either, and quite frankly, haven’t really had much time to even turn around. (Ask my friends, as they barely see me, online or off.)
At any rate, here’s what I think about this, that, and the other, July 2013 style:
The George Zimmerman trial stirred up a lot of bad feelings. The African-American community is outraged, as is completely understandable, that Zimmerman wasn’t held accountable for his actions by the Florida court system. The Hispanic community is upset because they mostly seem to believe that Zimmerman is a poor reflection on them. And many white Americans seem to believe that Zimmerman is a martyr and should be embraced at all costs.
While I completely understand how the public at large could have conflicting feelings — and these three segments of the American “melting pot” could feel in completely different ways — the fact remains that as Zimmerman was not initially charged with anything for over a month, many bits of evidence were completely lost. The prosecution didn’t have much to work with, which may be partly why they seemed to do such a terrible job in going after Zimmerman. And the laws of Florida are such that there was absolutely no way with the evidence the prosecution had left to work with that the prosecution could have ever gotten a jury to sign off on the charge of second degree murder, either, no matter how competent the prosecution had been.
I said on my Facebook page that I thought Zimmerman would not be convicted of second degree murder or the high degree of manslaughter, which came into play only in the final days of the trial and was ill-defined to boot, not because I think Zimmerman is an innocent — he’s not — but because the prosecution hadn’t proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Had the prosecution gone after something much more likely to have been understood by the jury, albeit with much less high of a profile than second degree murder, they would’ve charged Zimmerman with whatever Florida calls “reckless endangerment of human life” coupled with “unlawful use of a firearm.” Zimmerman most likely would’ve been acquitted of the last due to the way Florida’s laws are written, but at least the prosecution would’ve had a snowball’s chance in Hell of making the charges stick.
A sentence for something like that in Wisconsin to a first-time offender is usually anywhere between two to five years in jail coupled with the loss of the firearm in question. I think if the jury had been looking at something like that for Zimmerman rather than the lengthy stints in jail required for second degree murder or the high degree of manslaughter the Florida authorities were going after, they may have been able to consider the actual evidence in a different light.
All I know is, I’m glad there weren’t nationwide riots after the verdict was read, and that the jury’s verdict has been respected (even if not appreciated by vast segments of the population). Because truly, there are better ways to continue the conversation Trayvon Martin’s untimely death has prompted than to cause permanent damage to people and objects — like actually talking.
Edited to add:
A very interesting column by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Eugene Kane has this to say about the Zimmerman trial:
After Zimmerman’s acquittal, widespread dissatisfaction was expressed by black and white supporters alike who didn’t understand how an African-American teenager’s life could have so little value in the criminal justice system.
Without a video, the Zimmerman jury felt compelled to buy the defense portrayal of Zimmerman as someone just defending himself from attack, even though testimony showed he sought the confrontation by stalking the teenager in the dark of night. Zimmerman’s self-defense argument (not technically “stand your ground”) angered many black parents, who wondered how someone could be considered not guilty after initiating contact with a black teenager who ended up dead.
I agree wholeheartedly with Kane’s assessment, and think this is the main reason why the jury wasn’t able to do any more than acquit Zimmerman of what he’d been accused of — particularly because the evidence was definitely not there (something the prosecution must have known) for second degree murder due to the 45-day delay between the death of Martin and the arrest of Zimmerman.
(Now back to my original post.)
I’m also reading a really interesting book right now by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called THE GREAT PARTNERSHIP: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning. I have found it most enlightening thus far, and may post some quotes from it soon.
So that, and watching baseball (thoughts about the 2013 Milwaukee Brewers and Ryan Braun accepting a 65-game suspension will be forthcoming, honest), and working are what I’ve mostly been doing this past week.
And because of all I’ve been doing in July, I didn’t get a chance to mention that I’d passed my third year of bloggery (is that even a word? ‘Tis now.) here at WordPress earlier this month. (Hip, hip . . . something?) But I hope things will have calmed down so much by this time next year that I will be able to write a much more proper celebratory blog — or at least an informative one — discussing what I’ve learned from blogging, my fellow authors, and you all . . . because I’m sure that post is inside me somewhere.
At any rate, thanks for continuing to read my blog despite the infrequency of my recent postings. I truly appreciate it.
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA, California’s Prop. 8, in Historic Rulings
Today, the United States Supreme Court struck down two laws, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) and California’s controversial Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in that state. With two different 5-4 rulings, the Supreme Court has affirmed that discrimination on the basis of whom people love is illegal — at least, if you are in one of the twelve states where gay marriage is legal already, the District of Columbia (where it’s also legal), or in California, where it’s soon to be legal again.
Here’s a link to a story on Yahoo regarding the overall historical impact of these two different decisions, what the groups on both sides plan to do next, and so forth and so on.
As for what I think? Well, I’m very pleased that the Supreme Court struck down DOMA and threw out California’s Prop. 8 (albeit on a technicality), because I believe everyone who’s above the age of consent and is in love with a supportive and loving partner should be allowed to marry that partner. Whether it’s a man and a woman marrying, two women, two men, or two transgendered individuals, what matters is the love — not the form of that love.
The only thing that bothers me about these particular decisions is the limitations placed upon them by the Supreme Court. In striking down DOMA, the Supremes basically said that if you legally married a same-sex partner in the various states where it either is legal now or has been legal in the past (and was legal at the time, such as in California until Proposition 8 was voted for by that state’s voters), the federal government must treat you as married. And that way, you have all the rights and privileges of a married couple — which is exactly as it should be.
However, if you’re in a state like Wisconsin, where we have a state-specific version of DOMA on the books, if you are a same-sex couple you still cannot marry under the law. You are still allowed to be legally discrimination against in taxation, adoption, and other issues, under the law. And unless and until we get a Democratic Assembly and/or a Democratic Governor, things are unlikely to change due to the bunch of radical Republicans we have right now in Wisconsin, as in addition to these radical Rs running the state into the ground, they also oppose same-sex marriage on reactionary terms — not on realistic ones.
In other words, the Rs in Wisconsin see marriage as a religious ceremony first, with statehood recognition of that ceremony coming second. (This does not really make much sense because many non-religious people or those who are religious but want to save on money go and get married before the judge in a courthouse in a non-religious ceremony. But it’s how they seem to believe.) The rights and privileges a married couple gets in Wisconsin cannot go to a same-sex couple — not even in Madison, which has had domestic partnership benefits for many years — because that’s what the radical Rs want.
I have news for these Rs. Marriage is for everyone. That’s basically what the Supreme Court said today, even though they stopped short of striking down other statehood bans like Wisconsin’s in their narrowly targeted rulings. If you are in love, and you want to get married, and if you want to raise a family, you should be allowed to get married and raise that family. Period.
This is one of the few cultural issues where the Rs have largely been out of step with the mainstream of Wisconsin and the rest of the country. For example, there are now three Republican U.S. Senators who are for gay marriage — Rob Portman of Ohio, who has a gay son, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. There are a few others, like John McCain, who’ve said before that they have no problem with gay couples, per se, but they don’t think these couples should be allowed to marry. Then the rest of the Rs basically want to take the country back to the 1950s, if not earlier, on cultural issues — which isn’t likely to happen, fortunately for the rest of us.
In Wisconsin, I don’t know of any single one Republican Senator or Assemblyman who believes that same-sex marriage should be legal in all 50 states. (Or even just in Wisconsin.) All eighteen Senators oppose same-sex marriage; all sixty Republicans in the Assembly oppose it.
And, of course, Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker also adamantly opposes same-sex marriage, mostly on religious grounds.
Look. For the most part, I’m for most religions, providing they help people and give meaning and value to their lives. But when a religion insists that some people are better than others — in this case, a heterosexual married couple matters more than a same-sex married couple — that’s where I start to get upset.
And when a politician can’t even be bothered to say, “Look. I haven’t really studied the issues yet, but my religion has always said that gay people are sinful. That’s why I really cannot support marriage equality,” but stands behind the religious fig-leaf as if the religion is doing his or her thinking for him, that really bothers me.
My thought right now is that this issue, along with the new legislation that Scott Walker said he’ll sign that mandates that all women get trans-vaginal ultrasounds before having a medically necessary abortion (unless you’ve been raped or a victim of incest and have gone to report the same), is the most likely one to defeat the Wisconsin Rs.
So those of us who worked so hard to recall Scott Walker (myself included) may still have hope. This is an obstinate man we’re talking about, someone who firmly believes everyone in the state is behind him despite the recall evidence to the contrary. And he’s leading a radical party that’s done a lot of things that voters disagree with, to boot — so when he’s up for re-election in 2014, if we have a Democrat with statewide recognition to run against him (please, not Tom Barrett again — I like him, but he has proven he can’t win against Walker), we should be able to get him out.
As for me, I voted against Walker, signed the recall, voted to replace him, and will vote against Walker again in 2014. (I’m on the record as saying I’d rather vote for an empty paper bag rather than Walker, as that empty paper bag will do far less harm.) But I’m a realist. I know Walker hasn’t done what he said he would do — not with regards to jobs, not with regards to honesty and transparency, not with regards to anything, except for one (he kept his promise to turn down the money for light rail, as he found it unnecessary; however, in so doing, he also eliminated at least three hundred prospective new jobs) — and I want him out of there before he manages to harm the state even further.
My advice for the Wisconsin Rs is this — get with the program regarding same-sex marriage. This issue is not going to go away any time too soon, and most younger voters disagree with you and your stated beliefs on this issue. And if you are unwilling to change with the times, and admit that all marriages should be equal under the law, you will be voted out.
Maybe not in 2014. Maybe not even in 2016.
But you will be voted out.
And I, for one, will be very happy once you are, as you’ve done more than enough damage already.
Went to U-C Clinic, Have Bronchitis
Folks, as you know from today’s earlier blog, I have been sick for not one, not two, but five long weeks. And I’ve been to the local urgent care clinic, Prompt Care, at least twice before . . . once I’d been given antibiotics for a sinus infection, the second time I’d been given prednisone and sent home again.
Well, today I went back to the same clinic and saw a different doctor. This particular doctor has seen me several times in the past few years, as this particular clinic serves a lot of people in my particular situation (low income/underinsured/uninsured) but has a rotational physician system (this is why you don’t see the same doctor every time). Anyway, he said three things:
- I have acute bronchitis,
- I do need an antibiotic, and
- He doesn’t know how this was missed the last time I was in there, as he agreed I’ve been sick with this for at least the last three weeks by looking over the notes the last doctor left (they were consistent, but not as bad, as what I presented with today).
We have a very nice pharmacy here that gives out a certain amount of free antibiotics a year, and I’m going to take advantage of this free program tomorrow when they open up. (I also was prescribed a cough syrup to help me sleep at night.)
Otherwise, it’s pretty much the same as before — rest as much as possible, drink as many hot liquids as possible (tea with honey, again, or clear soup) to break up the phlegm and work to tolerance (he was surprised I could work at all under the circumstances, and said that I’m much more ill than he can ever recall seeing me — which, considering he works at an urgent care clinic and has seen me ill many, many times, is really saying something).
Anyway, that’s the update. But I’d still like any thought you might have, including anything regarding holistic cures, because this illness is obviously very, very far from over.
Still Really Sick
Folks, if I knew what was going on for sure, I’d have put a stop to all this coughing, wheezing, and sneezing weeks ago.
Seriously.
I’ve counted up how long I’ve been sick and it’s been at least five weeks. I have been to the doctor twice in that time (Prompt Care; all I can access and afford). Once I was given antibiotics; the second time I was given prednisone, mostly because I have been on antibiotics five times since late October and the doctor was afraid the antibiotics were not helping.
As a woodwind musician, I have better lung capacity than most. And I found out years ago that it is possible for me to have a bad bronchitis or even pneumonia and have it not sound nearly as bad as it is due to my extra lung capacity.
I wonder if this is why I keep staying sick and nothing seems to improve.
I am going to have to go back to the doctor again in the next few days, and I will do it. I’m not looking forward to it, mostly because I know I have limited energy and I hate wasting my time on things that are intensely frustrating (like the doctors telling me I’ve already had five courses of antibiotics since October, so this can’t possibly be an infection).** But I don’t see a choice; I’m going to have to go, and I’m going to have to insist that they do a chest X-ray if I continue to cough like this for another twenty-four hours.
This is why my editing (paying work) remains way behind and I have absolutely no idea when it can be finished — something that’s never before happened, even when I’ve been extremely sick. But usually, within three to four weeks, I’ll start to have a bit of physical energy, stop coughing, my sinuses will drain and then I’ve been able to get caught up again.
Not this time, I fear.
Those of you who pray, I’d appreciate some support right now. And for those of you who don’t, please wish me well, send positive energy if you have any, or even send along your best home remedies for nasty coughs that don’t go away. (Maybe it’ll help, and it certainly can’t hurt.)
———–
** Note: The doctor I saw last week had no doubt I was sick. He just didn’t think this was an infection, and I didn’t present in a way that was symptomatic for pneumonia. But I’m wondering if, because of the one time I actually was diagnosed and how many times I had to go back (three) before I got a chest X-ray and thus a diagnosis, I just don’t present in the usual and expected way due to being a woodwind musician since the age of ten or eleven.
Obvious Takes, Pt. 1: Most Blogs are Opinions
Folks, I never thought I’d have to write these words, but here they are: most blogs, believe it or not, are opinions.
This is such an obvious thing to talk about, but apparently there are people out there who don’t realize this simple fact. For example, if you blog specifically about sports, most of what you’re talking about are your opinions about what’s going on in the world of sports. Ditto for politics (except double that, and then some), current events, and just about everything else.
Yet some people are concerned that the quality of writing on the Internet is so low that it’s leading people to forget this. Take economist Graeme Maxton, for example. In his recent book THE END OF PROGRESS: How Modern Economics Has Failed Us, Maxton said on p. 76:
It is not just that much of the information on the Internet is of dubious provenance, it is that much of what is posted as “fact” is actually opinion.
Maxton also goes on to say on p. 77 that:
The Internet is a particular problem. As well as offering a cozy home for factual mistakes or a platform for those with ill-thought-out opinions, there is the diversion it provides. Studies’ show that people who read text that is scattered with hyperlinks understand less than those who read the old-fashioned printed word.
Note that Maxton does not directly reference these studies, as there is no endnote available. He also does not discuss anything specific regarding any actual studies that have been done in this paragraph, though in the next paragraph down he references a book by Nicholas Carr called THE SHALLOWS: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains that discusses the problem of hyperlinks and Web pages.
And, if you read the above-referenced paragraph very carefully, you’ll note that Maxton doesn’t point out the excellent, fact-based and fact-checked blogs that do exist on the Internet; he instead seems to paint all blogs and everything on the ‘net with a broad brush. While it’s possible Maxton was making the case that fact-based research should not begin and end on the Web due to these limitations (a completely inoffensive statement), he cheapened his argument when he didn’t admit that at least some good, hard-hitting, factually-based articles have been posted on the Web — and that some of these hard-hitting, factually-based articles have certainly been posted on blogs.
So these words by Maxton, while to a certain extent truthful, are also a way for Maxton to frame the narrative. In this case, Maxton’s narrative is simple: “The Internet is creating a bunch of morons who can’t think for themselves. Because of that, people who read blogs on the Internet may not realize they’re actually reading opinions, rather than facts. We must fix this!”
Yet that narrative, while it does contain truth, is also an opinion, is it not? (And in a hard-bound book, no less. For shame!)
That said, Maxton’s words remain prescient because there unfortunately are people out there who will read just about anything, then parrot it back without much further thought. And at least some of those will send material “viral” that may not deserve to be read by many people — or at least may not deserve to be thought of as factual rather than the opinions most blogs truly are (this blog included).
Mind you, most people who read blogs do seem to understand the difference between fact-based commentary (which can and usually does offer an opinion) and opinions.
But just in case you’re one of the people who haven’t figured that out as of yet, consider this lesson #1 in the importance of being overly obvious. Because when it comes right down to it, most blogs are opinions, folks. And it shouldn’t take an economist like Graeme Maxton to tell you so, either.
When Big Brother Goes Wrong: Pair Fired for Affair in AZ
Recently, a student caught a secretary and a school principal kissing lustily on camera. The two people, Stephen McClenning and Billie Madewell, are married to other people; worse yet, they kissed on school time.
The student, Myranda Garber, 16, posted the video of the kiss online at YouTube; it’s several minutes long. Then, outraged condemnation followed — first other students were upset, then parents were inflamed, and then, of course, media outlets glommed on to the scandal, including the UK’s Daily Mail (where I found this article).
The narrative framing here is simple: how dare these two consenting adults kiss on school time? (With the additional parental framing, to wit: My children saw this on school time? For shame!) They’re married! It’s wrong! And how disgraceful these two did this, when they should’ve been working!
Now, I put all those exclamation points there for a reason, which is this: the artificial “shock and awe” over two adults over the age of consent having an affair is way overblown.
Here’s the truth about this affair: it was stupid. It wasn’t morally admirable. It hurt the two spouses unnecessarily, and no matter how hot these two were and are for each other, it never should’ve happened on school time.
But notice the words I used there — stupid. Not “morally admirable.” Hurt. “(Not) . . . on school time.”
Did you notice which words I didn’t use? (Hint, hint: anything that says this was a shocking, outrageous thing to happen in the 21st Century, and how dare this happen in front of supposedly-innocent kids, is what I was going for.)
I’m not personally offended by this couple even though I am against married people straying outside their given vows and word. Instead, I’m far more offended by the fact this 16-year-old student taped these two people kissing without their consent. I’m also upset that no media source has quoted a parent, or a student, who seems to think this simple act was wrong, even though it was.
Just because “everybody does it” doesn’t make it right.
In this case, the student was wrong to post a video of these two consenting adults publicly; she had every right to bring it to the school board, she had every right to bring it to her local news outlet, even — but to post a video at YouTube in order to shame these two while ousting them? That’s not just outrageous — it’s disgraceful.
That’s why my personal outrage is saved for the “Big Brotherish” aspects of this case. For example: the student doesn’t feel any remorse; in fact, her mother is upset that the girl has had to have been pulled out of school rather than the fact her daughter was using a cell phone on school time. Then, consider that neither the parent nor the child seem to feel that posting the video on YouTube was wrong, even though it blew up two families (which, granted, would’ve eventually blown up anyway) and was a blatant invasion of their privacy.
Worse yet, no lawsuits seem to be in the offing, because videos of this nature are now so commonplace that they hardly even get reported on any more (witness the lack of outrage by most United States newspaper outlets if you don’t believe me).
In American culture today, too much of what we used to expect as part of the United States Constitution — our right to privacy, which is codified under the Fourth Amendment — has been violated as a matter of course. Everyone, seemingly, has a cell phone, and most cell phones have cameras. People take pictures of everything and post it online, sometimes to make fun of someone doing something that’s minor but odd (such as picking your nose in public), sometimes to make fun of someone for not wearing any underwear (a la Britney Spears).
And no one thinks anything of this anymore, because so many people do it.
But that still doesn’t make it right, which is why I urge you to consider the following questions:
Where has the right to privacy gone?
And why aren’t more people complaining to get the word out that the erosion of our personal rights must stop forthwith?
Now, all that said, I reiterate that these two lovers definitely should not have kissed on school time. Getting caught doing that deserved reprimands and possible suspensions for a first offense (which as far as I know, this was); one of the two, probably the secretary as she was the lower-ranked person, should’ve started looking for another job. (It’s a sad truism that usually the higher-ranked person, who is almost always male, tends to get away scot-free in such cases.)**
Here’s the upshot: if the principal was a good educator, as he’s been alleged to be, and if the secretary was a good secretary who didn’t make mistakes on the job and actually helped the running of the school (as good secretaries the world over tend to do), they shouldn’t have lost their jobs for one indiscretion — especially as it was an indiscretion that was captured by a student who had a cell phone and felt the world had a right to know what these two people were doing.
And the fact these two lost their jobs over this seems extremely disproportionate, especially as the student, herself, has lost nothing at all.
————–
** Note: I believe that the principal was far more at fault than the secretary; he’s the one in the position of power, and he’s the one who should’ve been fired if anyone was. Yet the secretary was forced out — this is what I meant by “sad truism” — while the principal was allowed to resign.
This is wrong, as the principal had all the power in that relationship, both personal and professional.
If the school, the parents, etc., were really so outraged, the principal should’ve been fired instead, and the secretary should’ve been allowed to submit her resignation.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 