Archive for the ‘Public figures’ Category
Neil Armstrong Dies at 82
Tonight, raise your glass to commemorate the life of Neil Armstrong, a remarkable man who made history, yet remained humble afterward. He died today at 82.
Now, most of us know that Armstrong was one of the United States of America’s first astronauts and the first man on the moon. But did you know that Armstrong was also an engineer, a businessman, a farmer, and the role Armstrong seems to have relished the most, that of a “quiet old retired guy?” (I hadn’t, and didn’t, before I read so much today about Armstrong’s life after the moon landing.)
Please see this link for more information about Armstrong’s remarkable life and career; a brief excerpt follows:
Armstrong commanded the Apollo 11 spacecraft that landed on the moon July 20, 1969, capping the most daring of the 20th century’s scientific expeditions. His first words after setting foot on the surface are etched in history books and the memories of those who heard them in a live broadcast.
“That’s one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind,” Armstrong said.
In those first few moments on the moon, during the climax of heated space race with the then-Soviet Union, Armstrong stopped in what he called “a tender moment” and left a patch commemorate NASA astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts who had died in action.
“It was special and memorable but it was only instantaneous because there was work to do,” Armstrong told an Australian television interviewer this year.
Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin spent nearly three hours walking on the lunar surface, collecting samples, conducting experiments and taking photographs.
“The sights were simply magnificent, beyond any visual experience that I had ever been exposed to,” Armstrong once said.
The rest of the Yahoo article points out the historical significance of Armstrong’s moonwalk, puts Armstrong’s life in context, and discusses Armstrong’s private life (which was very, very private indeed).
Armstrong leaves behind his wife of thirteen years, Carol, and two grown sons from a previous marriage — and, of course, the many people around the world who remember his remarkable achievements, and will forever more.
Plagiarism, Pt. 2 — Zakaria Cleared, Reinstated by Time and CNN
Well, folks, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised — yet I am.
It appears that Fareed Zakaria, who blatantly plagiarised from a column by the New Yorker’s Jill Lepore for his most recent column at Time magazine, then got suspended last week from both CNN and Time (my earlier blog post about this is here), will resume his jobs in September.
Here’s tonight’s article from the Huffington Post, which states:
Fareed Zakaria is off the hook at both Time magazine and CNN after he admitted plagiarizing a New Yorker column last Friday.
The upshot of the article is, Time and CNN both have agreed to let Zakaria keep his jobs even though Zakaria most definitely plagiarised from Lepore. Zakaria’s employers view this as an “isolated” incident, even though Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic pointed out back in 2009 that Zakaria had also plagiarised him without attribution.
Basically, Zakaria is getting away with doing something unconscionable, merely because he is a celebrity. This should not be tolerated, but apparently in today’s hyper-conscious celebrity culture, the bigwigs at Time and CNN just don’t care.
And by refusing to can Zakaria due to his plagiarism, it’s obvious that journalistic ethics — writerly ethics — have gone out the window at both CNN and Time. Despite the fact that they’re supposedly devoted to the news. Despite the fact that they should wish those who report the news for them will be honest, fair-minded, and at least have the common courtesy to properly attribute their sources.
I’m shocked that Time and CNN have chosen this course. They’re both news-oriented organizations. The people who work for them should be above reproach.
Yet Zakaria no longer can be considered above reproach, if indeed he ever was — which is why he should’ve been fired without delay no matter how high-profile he is and no matter how much of a celebrity, either.
By retaining Zakaria despite his blatant plagiarism, both of Zakaria’s employers have proven that the almighty dollar matters far more to them than the truth. Or ethics. Or even common sense.
Even in this day and age, wrong is wrong — and we all know that what Zakaria did is plain, flat wrong.
Usually, committing blatant acts of plagiarism is the one thing that can get a reporter, host, or “basic writer” fired without an appeal. It’s utterly wrong that Zakaria didn’t even have to sweat a little bit before he found out that he would, indeed, keep his jobs.
Instead, it appears he got what amounts to a “get out of jail free” card from his employers.
That’s wrong.
That’s shameful.
And it should not be allowed to stand. Period.
Writer Fareed Zakaria Suspended from Time and CNN for Plagiarism
On August 10, 2012 — two days ago, to be exact — Fareed Zakaria, a writer for Time magazine and a host at CNN, was suspended for plagiarism. Something like this happens only rarely to top-level, nationally-known pundits, which is why I wanted to see what the fallout would be before I wrote about it.
Here’s what happened. Zakaria wrote a column on gun control for Time that used a number of passages from a similar article by Jill Lepore that appeared in the April edition of the New Yorker. Here’s a copy of what Lepore wrote back then:
“As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, ‘Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the ‘mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.’”
Now, see Zakaria’s version of the same thing from his recent column in Time magazine:
“Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the ‘mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.’”
As you see, there’s little difference.
What’s worse, there’s no excuse for this — none whatsoever — because Zakaria did have other options than to simply lift a passage from Lepore’s piece without proper attribution.
The first and easiest thing Zakaria could’ve done is this — give Lepore her due. Say, “Recently, in the New Yorker, Jill Lepore wrote an excellent article on gun control. As I cannot improve upon her words, here’s what she said back in April:” and go on from there.
But Zakaria had a second option available as well if Time wouldn’t go for that. He could have either used a different source, or if he really liked Adam Winkler’s book, he could’ve interviewed Winkler directly, thus getting different words but getting at the same thing. This would not have been plagiarism because Winkler, as an author, is allowed to cite his own words whenever he feels like it. And if Winkler wanted to point out that Lepore had written an article back in April that was really good, Zakaria could’ve mentioned that without using any of Lepore’s words, too.
And do you know what else shocked me? This isn’t even the first time Zakaria has been accused of plagiarism. Because as an article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic back in 2009 points out, Zakaria lifted some of his words, too!
So it appears that Zakaria has been lifting quotes from other people and not giving proper attribution for years. However, this time, he lifted a whole paragraph, which is why he got caught.
So what did Zakaria do after he got caught? He apologized, which is here:
Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore’s essay in the April 23 issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers.
The problem with the apology is, it’s too little, too late. Zakaria knows better than this. Writers, reporters, journalists, and even hosts — like he has been on CNN for years — know that the only thing we have going for us, ultimately, is our bare word that we’ll tell the truth as we know it. Any writer worth his or her salt knows that. And we know that if we plagiarise, our credibility is completely and utterly blown. Forever!
And as I said before, Zakaria had other options. He did not have to do this. He should not have done this. And he deservedly got suspended for doing it anyway.
What’s truly sad and shocking about all of this is that Zakaria still has the potential to go back to work, when so many other writers who would never have done what Zakaria just did either aren’t working at all, or are working far below their capacities. No other writer I know would catch a break like this, yet it appears Zakaria just might due to his celebrity status.
And that’s wrong — so wrong that I do not have the words to explain just how wrong it is.
Look. Writers write. But we don’t crib from other writers intentionally, then refuse to give proper attribution. Because it’s ethically utterly wrong, and we know this, so we just don’t do it. Which is why Zakaria should not have done this, period.
So what comes next for Fareed Zakaria? My guess is that he’s going to have far fewer speaking engagements, he’ll be closely monitored at CNN, and if Time allows him to write any more articles, they will be extensively fact-checked so that no repeat performance is possible.
That’s better than what he deserves. Because after doing something like this, he really should be fired, celebrity or no. Because he’s proved he has no honor.
Former Calumet County DA Ken Kratz Pleads No Contest, Says He’s a Sex Addict
For the past three years, I’d believed that the former District Attorney of Calumet County, Ken Kratz, wasn’t going to be charged with anything, even though he’d sent racy text messages to a victim of domestic violence. After all, the Wisconsin Department of Justice failed to file charges, one of the most disgraceful non-actions I’ve seen out of the DoJ. After that, Kratz opened up a small law practice in Kimberly, Wisconsin.
Yet late in 2011, the Office of Lawyer Regulation filed an eleven-count complaint against Kratz, seeking a six-month suspension. That prompted a hearing today that was held in Appleton; Kratz was asked to answer to six counts of professional misconduct due to the scandal over his “sexting” incident (which I wrote about here and here). Kratz officially pleaded no contest to all six counts.
Please see the following story for details:
And here’s a few words from today’s Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article:
Kratz, 51, began the morning by pleading no contest to six counts of professional misconduct related to texts and comments he made to women in 2009. The incident came to light in the fall of 2010 when The Associated Press re ported Kratz had tried to start a sexual relationship with a 25-year-old woman, the victim in a domestic violence case he was prosecuting.
The case quickly earned national attention, in part because Kratz, the elected district attorney of Calumet County, was also the chairman of the state’s crime victims’ rights board and had played a key role in passage of the state’s victims’ rights law. He also had earned statewide attention for prosecuting Steven Avery in 2007 for the sexual assault and murder of a photographer.
An aside — the Steven Avery case was very big news here, one of the biggest and nastiest cases Wisconsin has seen in the past twenty-five years or more. The fact that Kratz was the prosecuting attorney speaks to the fact that Kratz was professionally able; that Kratz also was the head of the Wisconsin victims’ rights board also speaks to his ability.
Yet Kratz was a sex addict, something he now knows and isn’t afraid to tell anyone; this, apparently, is the reason he sent those nasty texts to Stephanie Van Groll (then only twenty-five, or about half of Kratz’s age).
Honestly, I don’t know what to say about Kratz’s sex addiction, except that it’s good he’s getting treatment (Kratz said elsewhere in the Journal-Sentinel article that he goes four times weekly to a twelve-step program for people dealing with “compulsive sexuality issues”). But it still bothers me that a respected DA with so much ability would do any of this, and at least a small part of me cheered the following remarks by a well-known women’s advocate:
Patti Seger, executive director the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said Tuesday’s hearing was “a long time coming,” and that it appeared for months as if he would not be held professionally accountable.
“Kratz was sworn to protect the vulnerable,” Seger said in a prepared statement. “Instead, he caused victims in Calumet County and beyond to question their faith in the justice system.”
Absolutely right.
Anyway, I don’t wish to kick anyone, not even Ken Kratz (someone I’ve previously called one of the “world’s worst people”), when he’s down. So at this point, I’ll just wish the former DA good luck with his treatment for sex addiction — and I’ll also hope that with time, luck, patience, and good health treatment that Kratz will once again be able to use his formidable ability with the law for good. (Rather than for his own, personal gratification, which is what got him into this mess in the first place.)
Reflections on Good Friday
Tomorrow is Good Friday, the day Christians observe Jesus’s crucifixion. It can be a very depressing day, partly because the idea of anyone being crucified for any reason is abhorrent, mostly because Jesus is adjudged one of the best people who’ve ever walked the face of the Earth even by most non-Christians. (Of course, Jesus is seen as the Son of God by Christians.) But he died via crucifixion, in agony, despite his goodness/divinity.
Yet for whatever reason, most non-priests would rather speak of Easter than Good Friday. Granted, Easter is a much easier holiday to speak of as it’s a day of celebration, forgiveness, and hope. (I wrote about Easter last year.) It’s a day that should be celebrated. But we also need to consider the importance of the day that preceded Easter — the day made Easter possible. That day is Good Friday, one of the worst days in the history of the world . . . the day the Son of God was “cut down to size” and forced to endure horrible suffering, then death, mostly because the politicians of his time were afraid of him.
Without getting too much into Jesus’s story (that’s for the Bible to tell, not me), I believe the reason we still observe Good Friday is because as a people, we cannot believe that perhaps the best person ever created was treated this terribly. Most religions, aside from Judaism, see Jesus, bare minimum, as a very good man: for example, some Buddhists see Jesus as a bodhisattva — someone who’s delayed his entry into the positive afterlife because he knows people alive on Earth need his help.** Others see Jesus as an important prophet, even if not the very last Son of God; the religions who see Jesus this way include the Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and all branches of the Muslim faith (including my favorite branch, the Sufis).
That the politicians of that time could see Jesus, a very, very good man who helped others and went out of his way to do so, as some sort of threat to themselves still rings true 2,000 years later. That even the Son of God could be treated this way, with such callous cruelty, does not sit well with anyone of any reputable faith.
The good news is, we haven’t forgotten what happened to Jesus, and others like him (many other Christian and non-Christians). And because we haven’t forgotten, such terrible things as crucifixions became less common in the Western World within decades, then nearly extinct within a few hundred years.
Of course, the fact that Jesus was killed in this particular fashion — the most revolting, scary, dishonorable death known to the ancient world — resonated with anyone who heard it as the disgusting, disgraceful act that it was, which might be why crucifixion eventually died out. (Yes, Emperor Constantine I abolished it throughout the Roman Empire in 337 due to his faith in Jesus. But many others were disquieted by it before Constantine took his first breath, otherwise Constantine wouldn’t have been able to outlaw this form of punishment.)
Christians view what Jesus did as transforming the worst imaginable form of death into a sacred thing. Jesus took the pain of the world on his shoulders (and hands, and feet), and was able to largely keep from bitterness. Then, he was cut down from the cross and laid in a tomb.
Jesus died on the cross and is said, by Christians, to have saved everyone else who believes in Him from sin, and that is a weighty message indeed. But to put it in plainer, more secular, terms, we should try not to lose hope no matter how bad things are. Because no matter how bad we think it is, there’s always the possibility something better can happen. Which is why the death, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ should be of interest even to non-Christians.
———
** Please excuse this very rough way of looking at Buddhism; while I know better, I can’t seem to explain it any better than this. My late husband Michael was a Buddhist, and my late best friend, Jeff, admired Buddhism also . . . I’m sure they’d do a better job explaining Buddhist views on Jesus, but I hope this will serve.
Former Packers Radio Network Announcer Jim Irwin dies at 77 from Kidney Cancer
Former Green Bay Packers Radio Network announcer Jim Irwin has died at age 77 of kidney cancer. Irwin, who worked mainly for WTMJ-AM 620 Milwaukee in Wisconsin, announced games on the radio for the Packers, Milwaukee Bucks, Milwaukee Brewers (as a fill-in announcer) and Wisconsin Badgers for many years, starting in 1969 and retiring in 1998. Irwin also occasionally worked as a sportscaster for WTMJ-TV channel 4 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Irwin was a mainstay of the Packers Radio Network** for years as first a color commentator, then a play-by-play voice. Irwin called games for the Packers through many losing seasons before they finally got and stayed good in the 1990s; he retired after the Packers went to their second successive Super Bowl in 1998. Irwin was the last remaining radio announcer from his particular broadcast team, as long-time color commentator Max McGee died in 2007 and statistician Jim Palm died in 2010. (Note that in the 1997-8 season, Irwin called games with color announcer Larry McCarren as Max McGee retired one year before Irwin; McCarren continues those duties to this day with current Packers play-by-play announcer Wayne Larrivee.)
Irwin was inducted into the Packers Hall of Fame in 2003; prior to that, he had been inducted into the Wisconsin Broadcasting Hall of Fame and the Milwaukee Press Club Hall of Fame. Irwin was named the Wisconsin Sportscaster of the Year for a record-setting ten times in a row. (Please see this biography from the Packers Hall of Fame Web site for further details.)
Irwin was an outstanding, passionate announcer who loved the Packers and didn’t try to hide it, but wouldn’t hesitate to call out plays he felt were dumb or unnecessary. Irwin also could be caustic with regards to bad coaching, though it took a lot to get him there; as Bob Harlan said today on WTMJ radio 620 in Milwaukee during the Wisconsin Afternoon News program, Irwin was extremely “enthusiastic” about the Packers, was always “well-prepared,” but had “a temper” and would occasionally let it loose, especially if he felt something was wrong due to someone not doing his or her homework (either for the radio broadcast, or regarding the team itself).
Listening to some of the calls Irwin made fifteen years after the fact (as some were from 1996 and early 1997) reminded me how much I enjoyed the way Irwin called a game. He didn’t insert himself into the commentary as so many do nowadays; instead, he let the game come to him, and he explained what he saw in a way that was both clear and entertaining.
I’ve missed hearing Irwin’s smooth voice and insightful commentary on a regular basis since 1998, but he had occasionally worked on behalf of WTMJ AM so I still heard his thoughts now and again in recent years. There also had been an interview with Irwin on Today’s TMJ 4 (WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee, Wisconsin) last May that referenced the beginning of Irwin’s fight against kidney cancer, a fight Irwin was certain he’d win; that link is here.
Please see this link for a few transcribed Jim Irwin play-by-play calls, along with a great deal more information about what Irwin actually did for WTMJ radio and TV:
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/137903348.html
Irwin led exactly the life he’d hoped to live, one filled with professional and personal success. And my guess is, he’d not have had it any other way, as referenced by this quote from the TodaysTMJ4 article:
When asked about how he would rate his life on a scale of 1-10, Irwin answered, “Is there a 12 or a 14?”
Rest well, Jim Irwin.
————
** Wisconsin is unusual in that we’re a state that follows one, single NFL team, the Green Bay Packers. The Packers Radio Network in 2011-12 is comprised of thirty-six separate Wisconsin stations (see list here) and stations in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. That’s why our broadcasters often have a wider scope than some in other, much bigger media markets.
Whither Iowa? Thoughts on the 2012 Iowa Caucuses
If you watch politics on television as much as I do, you probably have seen a great deal of hoopla surrounding the 2012 Iowa Caucuses. This is the first test of several Republican candidates** who’ve had their moments in the sun — including Michele Bachmann (who won the Ames Straw Poll last year), Newt Gingrich (ahead in the polls in Iowa in early December), Rick Perry (ahead in the polls in mid-September), Ron Paul (ahead in some Iowa polls as little as two weeks ago), the hard-charging Rick Santorum (who could actually win tonight) and, of course, well-heeled frontrunner Mitt Romney, who ran in 2008 and whose support seems to run a steady 25% whether he campaigns hard — or doesn’t — in Iowa.
But the question remains, “Why does what the people in Iowa think of these candidates matter so much year after year?”
There’s an easy answer that goes like this: “Well, c’mon, Barb! These Iowans see the candidates every four years. They’re less likely to glom onto a candidate who’s all talk and no action — that goes without saying!”
But that’s a facetious answer. The real reason Iowans matter so much is because most of ’em are middle-income folks and below. These are as close to “real people” as the candidates on both sides are likely to see; between Iowa and New Hampshire, ordinary citizens get to have more dialogues with candidates than anywhere else. And this may give campaigns like Romney’s a better idea of what middle-income people want out of their government, especially as the words “Romney” and “middle-income” go together about as well as a bullwhip and iced tea.
As a long-time political watcher, I’ve seen candidates do well in Iowa but flash-and-fade otherwise (2008 Republican winner Mike Huckabee comes to mind, here; so does 1980 Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush). I’ve seen some candidates, like Barack Obama, do very well — surprisingly so — in Iowa, which helps them overall, yet others who’ve done well in Iowa, like Howard Dean and/or John Edwards, aren’t able to maximize their opportunities down the road and end up with that flash-and-fade effect, which looks the same regardless of party.
See, some of the candidates just peak too soon, that’s all. Newt Gingrich seems to be one example of this, though he may well rally as he’s an intelligent, highly-seasoned political operative and if anyone can do it, he can. Rick Perry is yet another one, though in Perry’s case he’s been his own worst enemy in the debates and that has definitely hurt him.
Over time, what the Iowa caucuses have shown is this: if a politician is smart, and can rally from this experience (whatever it may be), he or she will do well. But you must learn from whatever it is the Iowans are telling you; if they’re saying, as I believe they are to Rick Perry, “Rick, we really like you, but you don’t have the gravitas. You need to go work on your public speaking, develop a foreign policy, and come back in four to eight years,” the best thing Perry could do going forward is give himself a crash course in foreign policy, do his best to look like a statesman, and study up before he goes into another debate lest he have another one of those “oops!” moments.
Or if they say to Ron Paul, “Ron, we really like your energy. You’re a breath of fresh air and we wish that more Republicans were like you in speaking their minds,” Paul needs to realize that what they’re saying, while gratifying personally, may not translate to electoral success in other states. I’ll be interested to see if Paul can indeed follow up what I’m sure will be a very strong showing tonight — top four, easily, and he could possibly win the state as Romney isn’t beloved in Iowa — with a good showing in New Hampshire and a halfway decent one in South Carolina. If he can do that, then he has real potential nationally.
And the guy with the most to gain — or lose — is obviously Rick Santorum. The pundits have claimed for the past several days that Santorum will win, or come in second or maybe a close third, but that Santorum will definitely be a major factor.
As I see it, Santorum could gain much if he wins Iowa; he’ll have instant national attention, a bigger flow of money toward him (as many people back a winner, but fewer flock to those who are seen to lose unless they’re super-committed — and those, in this crowd, mostly go for Paul or Gingrich, not Santorum), and more media types reporting on what he does every day, thus an easier way to get on free TV and make a bigger difference nationally.
But what he loses if he doesn’t come in the top four (assuming the top four will be nearly evenly split) is breathtaking, considering how far the expectations for his campaign have been ratcheted up.
My prediction, for what it’s worth, is that Romney, Paul, Santorum and Gingrich will all have around 15% of the vote (or a bit more). I think it’s more likely than not that Paul will win Iowa because his voters are passionate, committed, will caucus, will stay as long as is necessary and are vocal about their support. But I have a sneaky suspicion that Gingrich will do better than he’s polled, too, because the folks who are backing Gingrich do it for these reasons: he’s smart. He has good answers in the debates. He’s a wily, resilient old pol in the best sense of that word; he knows how to roll with the punches. And best of all for Gingrich’s supporters, Gingrich is the only one of the lot who seems to understand that to become President someday, you must turn your liabilities into strengths. (I’m not totally sold on whether or not Gingrich has actually done this. But I can see that he’s really tried to do so and that attempt matters.)
And I believe that Santorum, at the end of tonight, will either be ecstatic — in that he’s greatly exceeded expectations — or crushed. I’m unwilling to say at this time which is more likely.
———–
Note: As President Obama is running unopposed in the Democratic caucuses, those are expected to be far more quiet — and far less well attended — than the Republican caucuses. (As you might expect.)**
Author Anne McCaffrey, 85, has died
Just a quick note to express my condolences to the family of author Anne McCaffrey, who passed away today at the age of 85. Ms. McCaffrey was world-renowned for her Dragonriders of Pern series and published in the fields of science fiction, fantasy, romance, science fiction/romance and the “blended” field of speculative fiction that mostly contained her best-known and best-loved series, the aforementioned Dragonriders of Pern.
I never met Ms. McCaffrey, save through her books, but I always felt like reading one of her books was like greeting a long-lost friend. Some of my favorites included the novella NERILKA’S STORY, the first three books in the Dragonriders of Pern Series (those being DRAGONFLIGHT, DRAGONQUEST, and THE WHITE DRAGON), and the Harper Hall trilogy DRAGONSONG, DRAGONSINGER, and DRAGONDRUMS.
She will be greatly missed.
DWTS Non-Shocker: David Arquette Goes Home
Is it just me, or did the fact that David Arquette went home tonight on “Dancing with the Stars” rather than Nancy Grace seem like a total anticlimax?
Last night, I predicted that if Arquette hit the bottom two (called the B2, for short), he’d go home because I believed his fan base was most likely lower than either Grace or Hope Solo. Arquette danced better, in my opinion, than either Grace or Solo, but in a reality show competition, how many people are willing to vote for you is the major thing that either keeps you in or sends you home (that’s what I mean by a fan base).
Consider that Solo is one of the best-known female athletes in the world as she’s the goalie for the United States of America’s national soccer team. So you’d figure she probably has a much bigger fan base than Arquette and Grace, as she did not hit the B2 tonight.
As for Grace, while she’s really not a good dancer, she has two things on her side: her partner, Tristan MacManus, who many DWTS fans have taken to as he’s a delightfully low-key presence, and her own show on HLN (formerly CNN Headline news), where she’s actually called in to her show and asked her viewers to text her number to keep her in.
This week, we were told who was definitely in the B2 — sometimes, they only say “one of these two really is in the B2, while the other may or may not be” — and it was definitely Arquette and Grace. This means that Grace’s huge fan base probably won’t be enough to save her next week, considering by any objective measure, Solo’s should be far higher — and the other three dancers (including Rob Kardashian, of all people) are all much better than Grace, so are likely to outscore her by plenty.
What I know from watching DWTS for years is this: when a good dancer who’s improving is booted “too soon” by the viewers (this was Arquette’s role tonight), the judges get tough the next week on the undeserving person (or people) who stayed instead of him. Grace’s time should’ve been up several weeks ago but she’s outlasted several better dancers, now including Arquette; watch for the judges to be in an uproar next week and give Grace the extremely low scores she’s likely to deserve no matter how much the judges approve of her pro.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 