Archive for the ‘Prescient observations’ Category
Advice for Valentine’s Day, 2016 Version
Folks, it’s nearly Valentine’s Day. And I wanted to write a few words, just in case you haven’t read my two previous blogs on the subject (which, for the record, are here and here).
Too many people get caught up in conspicuous consumption on Valentine’s Day, because commercials and books and movies and nearly every possible thing says, “You must buy a whole lot of unnecessary things, or your partner won’t know you love them!” Even if you walk into a grocery store, there will be reminders that Valentine’s Day is just around the corner, so have you bought your cake/roses/card/fill-in-the-blank yet? (The most inventive one I’ve seen around here was over at Festival Foods in Mount Pleasant, where they’re offering a Valentine’s Day dinner, catered, that you can pick up for something like $42. That might actually be useful, and didn’t bother me…but I can see where it might bother someone who feels pressured to do something for Valentine’s Day.)
The thing is, as I’ve said before, Valentine’s Day is not for conspicuous consumption. It is for love. But somehow, in our consumer-driven society, we’ve gotten it into our heads that the only way to love someone is to buy him or her a whole lot of stuff…and that’s just not right.
Let me give you a few examples.
The best Valentine’s Day I’ve ever had was in 2003. Why was it so good? Well, Michael was with me, then, and the two of us had a great and quiet dinner at home, watched some of his favorite “Danger Mouse” videos (Michael loved them, and I enjoyed ’em, too — mostly because I liked seeing how he reacted to them), and then retired to “none of your business land.”
Note that this didn’t cost us anything. We already had the “Danger Mouse” videos. We already had the food. We already had anything else we needed in the house…we didn’t need roses, or wine, or fancy chocolates, or even sushi (something Michael and I both enjoyed, and I continue to appreciate), because we had each other and that’s what counted.
And my second favorite Valentine’s Day was in 2004. Michael and I had just moved from San Francisco to Iowa, and were living in a motel. The move had been stressful and we were close to flat broke, and finding work was a challenge that we hadn’t expected.
So, what did Michael do? This time, we went to a scenic overlook outside Davenport on I-80 with a couple of sub sandwiches, some soda, and sat and talked. It was the middle of winter, but I didn’t feel cold…and I don’t think he did, either. We felt the world was full of possibilities, because we were with each another…and I was touched that Michael remembered I liked spicy-hot peppers on my sub (something he wouldn’t touch because of long-term stomach distress).
You see, if a guy remembers what you like, that is sexy to a woman. Michael knew that.
Now, what did I do for these Valentine’s Day outings? (Maybe you’re asking this, and it’s a valid question.) Mostly, I was there and fully in the moment…yes, I’d asked Michael what he wanted on both days, and I’d actually tried to cook for him in 2003, but he wasn’t having it. (Mostly, Michael cooked for us, because he enjoyed it. And besides, he said I’d done too much for people as it was, over the years; now it was time someone did something for me.) I did suggest the “Danger Mouse” videos in 2003, and I probably suggested going out for subs in 2004…but for the most part, Michael made those outings happen.
So, to sum up…the important thing about Valentine’s Day, or any day, is for your partner to know that he or she is loved. Spending large amounts of money on a Pajamagram or a Vermont teddy bear or fancy chocolates (much though I enjoy that) is not necessary. Showing you care, that you pay attention, that you know what your partner likes…listening to him/her speak and asking intelligent questions (or giving intelligent answers)…being fully in that moment with him/her, with your cell phones/tablets off and your attention undivided…well, those are by far the best gifts you can give.
Don’t let the “must spend big money NOW!” narrative of the commercials blind you to this, OK?
Thoughts on the Meaning of the Term “Mixed Marriage”
Folks, it’s December 27, 2015. And I was thinking this morning about the changing definition of the term “mixed marriage.”
We rarely hear the term “mixed marriage” these days, but when we do, it usually refers to a marriage between two people of different races. For example, a black man marries a white woman, maybe…or an Asian woman marries a Hispanic man. So if you use the term “mixed marriage,” it’s usually seen to mean a marriage between people of two different races.
Now, does it matter much that one person is one color and the other is a different one, if the love is there? No, it does not. But there are still cultural differences, so the term “mixed marriage” seems to apply even if the awareness of the term and the meaning behind it seems to be changing.
That said, when my grandmother was a girl — in the 1920s and early 1930s — the term “mixed marriage” meant something entirely different. Then, it meant “a marriage between two people of different religions.” She entered into a marriage with my grandfather despite the fact she was Irish Catholic and he was German Protestant — and while in today’s terms no one would bat an eye, back then, that was not “the done thing.” (It might not have been scandalous, but it wasn’t exactly easy, either.)
Unfortunately, we seem to be returning to this earlier definition to a degree. Now, if a Muslim lady marries a Christian man in the United States, that term is getting trotted back out. And the feelings that term engenders of fear, disbelief, anger, worry, misunderstanding and more are back with a vengeance…mostly because the dominant culture of the United States doesn’t seem to know what to do with people raised in a different culture — and religion — entirely.
I don’t know why this is, to be honest. I do know that this isn’t the first time the United States has dealt with such an issue — and I know that because of my own, personal history.
It took years for my grandmother’s marriage to be first tolerated, then accepted, and then finally — in her seventies and eighties, after my grandfather passed away — seen as “what’s the big deal?”
We are starting to see that now, in mixed-race marriages. All sorts of biracial children are coming into their own — President Barack Obama is far from the only one. No one bats an eye at them, and no one should.
I hope that in time, we will see more tolerance and respect for people of all faiths, all cultures, all ethnicities, all skin colors, and all gender expressions.
Love is love. And we need to start respecting that, wherever we may find it.
Milwaukee Brewers Shut Down Ryan Braun for the Rest of 2015
Folks, this is how you know the Milwaukee Brewers have had a horrible year.
Ryan Braun has a back injury that he’s been playing through for most of the year. Recently, when he spent seven games without playing whatsoever, the team admitted that Braun will have surgery in the off-season to repair a herniated disc. So the assumption was that Braun would not play any more during 2015.
Then Braun played last night in St. Louis.
Now, the Brewers have returned to their original script with Braun. He’s been shut down for the remainder of the year, mostly because there’s no point to playing as the Brewers cannot affect the outcome of the regular season at all. Every playoff team in the National League is now set; three of them, the Cardinals, the Chicago Cubs, and the Pittsburgh Pirates, come from the NL Central Division. And the only thing that could change between now and the end of the season is whether the Cardinals hold on to their NL Central lead, or if the Pirates manage to best them.
Everything else is set in stone, barring a major losing streak for the Pirates and a major winning streak for the Cubs — and all that will change is which team hosts the Wild Card game.
Look. I understand why the Brewers have shut Braun down. There is nothing for him to prove, and very little for him to gain. Braun could worsen his back if he plays, though that wasn’t a concern last night for some reason…and if Braun worsens his back injury, that may put part or all of 2016 in jeopardy.
I get all that.
But as a Brewers fan, I’m disheartened. There are very few stars on the Milwaukee baseball club right now. The team that started 2015 has been almost completely dismantled; Braun is out, Carlos Gomez got traded to the Astros (and has been in a hitting funk ever since, from what I can tell), Gerardo Parra got traded to the Orioles, Aramis Ramirez got traded to the Pirates (at least he’s going to the playoffs), Mike Fiers — possibly the Brewers most consistent starter during 2015 — got traded to the Astros and promptly threw a no-hitter.
As for those who remained?
- Jean Segura had a nice bounce-back year on both offense and defense. He narrowly avoided a major injury a few weeks ago (more on that in a bit). But he’s not playing much right now, as the 2015 season is lost.
- Jonathan Lucroy was out for nearly ten days with a concussion, though he’s back now (and limited to first base).
- Jimmy Nelson got hit in the head by a batted ball and was shut down for the year with a concussion.
- Wily Peralta was generally ineffective during 2015 and has been shut down, reason unknown or untold.
- Matt Garza also was ineffective, and has been shut down since mid-September.
- And poor Elian Herrera — he ran into Shane Peterson while trying to field a ball in “no man’s land” (behind third in shallow left field shading toward the foul line), and has been on crutches ever since with what’s been called a “thigh contusion.” Herrera was one of the few guys who’d stepped up after all the trades, and performed consistently both on offense and defense; his steady presence in the infield has been missed since he got injured. (As for Peterson, he’s pinch-hit a few times; he came away from that collision injured, but lightly so, compared to Herrera…who, of course, has also been shut down for the year.)
So who’s left?
Well, Francisco “K-Rod” Rodriguez has done well as the closer, and he’s still here. (He gets maybe two attempts a week to close a game, but that’s not his fault.) Lucroy is able to play a little at first base. Adam Lind’s back has been a little balky lately, but he’s played more games with the Brewers than he managed with the Blue Jays last year (at least, that’s what they keep saying) and he’s done better defensively at first base than I’d expected.
And then there are all the rookies. Only three have impressed me thus far: Zach Davies, who the Brewers got in the Parra trade, has shown some good flashes since getting the call to come to the big leagues. Catcher Nevin Ashley spent ten years in the minors, and reminds me a great deal of Vinny Rottino (my favorite player, also overlooked to my mind). And Domingo Santana has shown unusually good plate discipline and some real power, even though he’s been forced to play out of position most of the time in center field (he’s a corner outfielder).
The rest…meh.
For weeks, watching games has been like watching Spring Training, except these games count. Most of the guys seem eager, young, and want to make a good impression. But for me, as a fan, I feel fatigued; there have been 11 guys making their major league debut this year, with a twelfth coming today. I have a hard time keeping up with all these people, and while I’m glad all these young guys have managed to get call-ups (most especially Ashley), it’s hard to figure out what I’m watching.
Truly, these teams are like seeing a Triple-A version of the Brewers with a few stars sprinkled in. And that’s not what I’d expected for the 2015 season, even though I do think retiring General Manager Doug Melvin did the best he could with what he had (and received several strong players in return for our previously established stars).
So here we are: Braun won’t play again this year. The young, eager, Triple-A-like Brewers will continue to do their best to make some sort of impression.
And while I’ll continue to watch, I don’t hold out a lot of hope that this depleted Brewers club will win many more games.
Why Are People More Worried about #Deflategate than #NFL’s Pay-for-Play Faux Patriotism?
Folks, a while back, I wrote about the biggest scandal to hit the NFL in quite some time.
No, it wasn’t Deflategate. (For the record, I truly don’t care whether Tom Brady threw deflated footballs or not.)
No, it wasn’t even Spygate, which is a much worse problem in that the New England Patriots admitted to spying on at least one other team in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
Instead, it was a pay-for-play scandal that Keith Olbermann found out about while browsing the Internet. NFL teams, including the Green Bay Packers, the Miami Dolphins and the Pittsburgh Steelers were paid $5.4 million dollars to put “Hometown Hero” spots on jumbotrons; the Department of Defense gave the NFL this money to promote not patriotism — faux patriotism though this is — but for recruitment purposes.
It’s like the Department of Defense was saying, “See, men and women? If you join the military, you can be feted at a NFL game! Yet another reason to sign up!”
The reason this was and is plain, flat wrong is because most people — myself included — believed that these men and women were being singled out truly because they were — and are — heroes. Not because the Department of Defense had paid money to 14 NFL teams to do so.
The only major broadcaster who picked this story up was Keith Olbermann. He was passionate, explaining just what’s wrong with this sort of faux patriotism, and read NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell the riot act.
Olbermann was right to do this. What the NFL did in taking this money was absolutely shameful. That the NFL pushed the blame onto the 14 teams that took the money is at best a deflection; it is not an excuse.
At the moment, Olbermann is off the air. (Rumors abound that Olbermann will be reunited with MSNBC, one of his former employers, soon — MSNBC has a huge ratings problem, and Olbermann always drew great ratings. I hope for once that rumor will prove to be fact.) No other major broadcaster has taken up the baton in this area — meaning it is impossible for me, as a fan, to know that the “hometown hero” segments that continue to go on to this day in both the NFL and in major league baseball are legitimate — or if they’re the same type of phony patriotism Olbermann rightly excoriated months ago.
Now, there are two Senators, both from Arizona, who are continuing to look into this, these being Senator Jeff Flake and Senator John McCain. They’ve both been critical of this practice. (McCain is a former POW, as well as being a former Presidential candidate, and his voice carries great weight.) Flake said, according to an ESPN report from May of 2015:
“You go to a game and you see a team honoring ‘Hometown Heroes,’ and you think it’s some sort of public service announcement, that the team is doing it out of the goodness of their heart,” Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said to ESPN on Monday. “Then you find out it’s paid for? That seems a little unseemly.”
What I want to know is this: Why is everyone so worried about whether or not Tom Brady threw deflated footballs, when taking money to “promote” the military in this cynical fashion is a far bigger scandal?
As Olbermann rightly said months ago (see his full comment on YouTube here):
If this time, our time, is one in which the country is pro-military, and if that is reflected at sporting events, so be it. But for that sense for where the nation is regarding sending our citizens in harm’s way — for or against — for that to be secretly tampered with by the government, by the Defense Department, using your money to purchase public sentiment and pay off the NFL, MLB, NBA, the HIGH SCHOOLS, and all the rest to influence that, that is intolerable! And it is dishonest! It is dishonest in an area where honesty is the only acceptable policy. As dishonest as if the LA clubs never revealed that they are paid nearly $6 million to call it Staples Center and instead insisted that they did so out of admiration for the company.
Folks, I hope the two Arizona Senators continue to be vigilant. Because until Olbermann gets another program, it is very unlikely we’re going to find out the whole story…because no one else seems to care.
And I, for one, see that as incredibly sad.
Thoughts About Discrimination
Happy Labor Day, folks!
My mother suggested today’s topic, which is simply this: discrimination. Who faces it, what can we do about it, and why are we still having to talk about it in 2015?
Look. Most of us have faced some form of discrimination in our lives. Some face far more than others, including African-Americans, Latinos, LGBT individuals, and the disabled. Women are often discriminated against in subtle ways, even in the United States, even when able-bodied; straight men sometimes get discriminated against because of their race, ethnicity, creed, or religion.
It is a rare individual indeed who’s faced no discrimination whatsoever in this life.
So why is it that politicians make so much hay pointing one group against another group? Do we not understand that every single one of us is likely to be discriminated against for one reason or another before we die?
Again, some of us face this discrimination every day. One of my earliest friends, an African-American viola player in high school, used to tell me that when she’d show up at auditions, conductors would give her a surprised look. (This quickly went away, as she was a very fine player.) Another of my friends, who is Japanese-American and disabled, has faced so much discrimination in her life, it would be harder for her to find a day where she didn’t deal with any discrimination than the reverse.
I, too, have faced discrimination. I’m disabled — I walk with a cane and wear braces on my hands on bad days due to carpal tunnel syndrome, and these two issues are very hard to camouflage. Plus, I’m not a small woman by any stretch of the imagination; as I’ve told people in the past, people come in all shapes and sizes, and my size is definitely curvier than most.
This might be one reason I have a great deal of sympathy for those currently facing overt and systematic discrimination. (Though just being human should do it, many people cannot put themselves in someone else’s shoes unless they’ve actually been there.) I think people should be judged on what they say, what they do, rather than what they look like or whether or not they need a wheelchair to get around.
And lest you think discrimination is a newfangled idea, it isn’t.
Most of us know about Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. He fought hard for civil rights, for labor unions, and for the dignity of the individual. But did you know other groups of United States citizens have been systematically discriminated against in the past?
My grandmother was of Irish descent, and grew up in Chicago. She told me about the signs she used to see, when she looked for employment in her teens — “No Irish Need Apply.”
And before the Irish were discriminated against, the Italians were discriminated against. Then the Poles. The Finns. The Swedes. The Norwegians. And on, and on…for some reason, the newcomers to the U.S. always seem to see this.
Then, usually, it settles down.
(Why it hasn’t settled down for African-Americans, Latinos, GLBT individuals, or the disabled is something I can’t answer. But I digress.)
All I know is this. We have to do our best every single day. Whether we’re gay, straight, bisexual, gender-fluid, Christian, Wiccan, Buddhist…whether we’re able-bodied or disabled…no matter what the color of our skin, the content of our character matters far, far more — just as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said.
I urge you to become acquainted with people of different backgrounds. Get past your personal prejudices. Try to see others as individuals. And see where common ground might be found.
Who knows? You might just make a new friend.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 