Archive for February, 2007
Democrat Plan for Iraq: Put Soldiers, I mean, Republicans in Jeopardy
Friday, February 23rd, 2007Betsy should be a Republican strategist, she knows her some Democrats. She says:
And Rahm Emanuel is quite public about how it’s all about political calculation to him.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) pointed out that Democrats still have public opinion strongly on their side and that a vote on any plan would place Republicans in more jeopardy than Democrats.Remember that statement when you listen to the Democratic congressmen debating what to do in Iraq. They want to “place Republicans in more jeopardy than Democrats.” Putting our troops in jeopardy is not the issue for them. Republicans are.
In the cacophony that is the media these days, does any message rise above the din? It is definitely the message I hear coming from Democrat corners, but those who hear it from the mushy middle and loony left seem to hear a lovely life-saving message. Saving soldiers remains their ostensible goal. Saving Democrats doesn’t seem to make headlines.
PTA Power
Friday, February 23rd, 2007It must be school week, here at Dr. Clouthier. The New York Times on powerful PTAs:
In suburbs like Livingston, the ranks of parent groups now include lawyers, bankers, marketing executives and other professionals who tote laptops and briefcases to monthly school meetings — where refreshments are catered rather than homemade. They have raised tens of thousands of dollars for extras like new playgrounds and writing workshops amid budget cutbacks, and have taken over administrative functions that principals no longer have the time or inclination to do, like screening acts for school assemblies or signing contracts with instructors for after-school programs.
I think parent involvement is a good thing. Our school got a new play set and some covers outside which were desperately needed to shade from the Houston heat. The local PTO is indeed run by an executive. He treats it as such and seems to be a very nice, innovative guy.
Even still, I’m not involved with the PTA. I don’t have the time or inclination. My kids are in after-school sports, piano, dance and drama. I spend hours weekly working with my autistic son, getting him caught up. Meanwhile, a two year old runs around dismantling the house. More power to the power PTA-ers.
Teacher, What’s A Scrotum?
Friday, February 23rd, 2007
Controversy swirls around this year’s Newbery Award winning book which has this passage:
“The Higher Power of Lucky” is the story of a 10-year-old girl in rural California and her quest for “Higher Power.” The opening chapter includes a passage about a man “who had drunk half a gallon of rum listening to Johnny Cash all morning in his parked ’62 Cadillac, then fallen out of the car when he saw a rattlesnake on the passenger seat biting his dog, Roy, on the scrotum.”
The scrotum is what you don’t see in this picture. It is that chicken-like sac surrounding the testicular-epidydimal complex. It’s not pretty and its aesthetic shortcomings are exploited by pubescent boys everywhere. Girls generally ignore the scrotum.
Scrotum-awareness doesn’t dawn until boys start noticing their pubic hairs sprouting down south–I’m guessing at this developmental milestone as none of my children have reached it. Now, every literate fourth-grader in America will wonder, “What’s a scrotum?” And how will a teacher answer her curious charge? And will she enjoy all the scrotum talk that is sure to follow the answer to the question? Ah, yes, third grade teachers will love anatomical discussions about testicles, penises (they are in the vicinity after all) and scroti.
Here’s my question: Can you imagine JRR Tolkien or Mark Twain writing about a scrotum?
Please. My biggest concern for my children isn’t alcohol and it isn’t the scrotum. I can explain both. (Though, should I have to explain a scrotum to my seven year old who is reading chapter books? Nancy Drew and other adventures manage to be less banal than this.) My biggest concern is that the literary level of books has diminished to an almost ridiculous point. One book given to my kids is written using quasi-ebonics. The lazy language and lack of denouement to the story just grates on me. It’s not good writing. The illustrations are cute, so I kept it.
At home, I’m encouraging my children to read challenging and fun books. I don’t mind more adult stories–the classics can be read on many levels. I mind average writing passed off for something great because it’s controversial and makes nerdy librarians feel dangerous. Mark Twain pushed the envelope. JRR Tolkien pushed the envelope. Neither had to condescend to children to do it.
Here’s a source of children’s books by a former librarian–Glenn Reynold’s mom. She also positively reviews the book here. Still, I wonder if she would be happy to answer a ten year olds questions about a scrotum.
Via reader Matt
Taliban Recruits
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007LGF has a must-see video. Young teen suicide bomber weened on hate and death interviewed.
Revisiting Little Miss Sunshine
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007Ace, who obviously doesn’t read this cutting-edge blog, talked about the boring Indy movie tripe that passes for sophisticated, smarter, funnier-than-thou fare put forth by boring supposedly sophisticated, definitely dumber, and sometimes mildly amusing artistes. He says:
Maybe that’s what grates — that it’s comedy for those who look down scornfully on actual comedy, and what annoys me is the posturing as being above comedy grunts while, in fact, delivering fewer, and shallower, laughs than “regular” comics.As Cartman observed, there’s really no point in watching any indie movie, because they’re all about “gay cowboys eating pudding.” And they really all are. Quirky people acting kookie. Pretty much says it all.
The amateur leftist webzine Slate wonders why there’s so much backlash against Little Miss Sunshine, and focuses on the public’s — even the indie-lovin’, art-house-supportin’ public’s — growing tedium with the increasingly formulaic and predictable variations of quirkiness. The article as a whole defends indie-quirk, and wonders where the hate is coming from.
He’s responding to this hit on indie-quirk by Time’s Richard Corliss:
The kind of indie film nurtured by Sundance has become the dominant non-Hollywood movie form for smart people. They’re the ones who made Little Miss Sunshine a hit, and Ryan Gosling’s turn in Half Nelson a must-see. The moguls have taken note too. In terms of product and talent, Sundance has become the crucial farm system for the major studios.
Ace then talks about “road trips” and I snickered. Ah, the car memories…. Sideways (good movie, best full frontal, car), Thelma and Louise (average movie, nice Brad abs and undies, car), Road Trip (hilarious movie, lots of boobies, big underwear, car), The World’s Fastest Indian (good movie, prostate problem, surprise old people sex, oops! motorcycle). Big Hollywood, Little Hollywood…what’s the difference? They’re all a bunch of pretentious snobs. Some are just bigger, big pretenders.
This is what I said originally about Little Miss Sunshine that beloved little Hollywood gem:
Change the subject of the movies. Good grief! Can’t we even have a kid’s penguin movie without Hollywood moralizing? They talk about the Religious Right’s strident dogma, Hollywood mass produces their feel-good/cynical/anti-American pap and are surprised no one is buying. Nearly every movie is like a bad Steven Seagal film now. For example? I watched the Little Miss Sunshine movie–a supposedly feel-good American family movie. But…. the parents were fighting non-stop, the grandpa was a swearing drug-addict, the kid took a vow of silence and the Little Miss Sunshine did a stripper routine in front of a pedophile. All-American family, indeed. I don’t know one family like that. To me, the movie just spoke of more contempt for the American family. The fact that Hollywood can’t see this demonstrates their own bias. Personally, when I see movies like Little Miss Sunshine, it makes me think that the writers and actors and producers are so happy to be out of the little, psycho “hell-hole” they grew up in where they were an outcast because they were weird. Their disgust and anger comes through in their product loud and clear. Just ’cause you couldn’t make it in the small-time, Hollywood, doesn’t mean you have to be a hater when you make the big-time. (As an aside, the acting was incredible in this movie. Greg Kinnear should have gotten an Academy Award for As Good As It Gets. He is consistently great. Toni Collette, Alan Arkin, Steve Catrell and the kids made for perhaps the greatest ensemble movie last year, acting-wise. There were moments of incredible poignancy but the overall message was Americans are messed up, dude.)
Hollywood wearies me. Preach. Preach. Preach. Chide. Chide. Chide. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! I’ve got one mother nagging me. I don’t need to pay, a lot, for another one.
So, to answer the question “Is Indy formulaic?” The answer is “Yes”. Is it wrong? As wrong as Hollywood, which is to say, predictably wrong.
P.S. If it sounds like I’m overly hard on pretentious Hollywood, please know I’m a big fan of pretentious musicians with vacuous politics. What can I say? I’m not pure in thought. Still, I dislike the Dixie Chicks and this gives me an opportunity to tell the music industry that they are as cliquish and silly as Hollywood when it comes to honoring marginal musicians with lock-step politics. How daring! Way to stick to the man!
Such Nice Little Terrorists
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007Using chemicals in addition to the regular destructive methods*:
The insurgents’ recent use of chlorine gas in bombings appeared to be a new attempt to heighten fears among Iraqi citizens, he said on CNN.
“What we are seeing is a change in tactics, but the strategy has not changed,” General Caldwell said, adding that the recent bombings were a “crude attempt to raise the terror level by taking and mixing ordinary chemicals with explosive devices and instilling that fear within the Iraqi people.”
Women To Make Equal Money At Wimbledon
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007I read the whole New York Time’s article to try to find who makes more money for Wimbledon–men or women. Couldn’t find it.
To me, it’s not a matter of gender equality, it’s a matter of market equality. If women have more fans, scores more ad revenue, they should get paid more and vice versa. If the seats are sold out for the same price whether a man or a woman is playing, why would one gender make more?
I did find this at Economist’s View:
What is the product here? They are selling entertainment and compensation to inputs is based upon the added entertainment value provided by men and women players. It doesn’t matter if people come to the stadium or tune in on TV to watch tennis or a swim suit model, all that matters is that they watch. The argument that tournament sponsors can sell less adds during women’s matches stated above is relevant as that affects revenue, but if the ads are more valuable because of higher viewership, its not necessarily the case that compensation should fall. It’s interesting that when confronted with higher viewership for women’s matches, the writer argues that men should be paid more because “There was a time, and it will come again, when the male players are the bigger television draw.”
The idea of men getting paid more because their matches are longer is ridiculous. Five minutes of Michael Jordan is worth more than five hours of Steve Alford.
If you find any info about the nuts and bolts of tennis economics, let me know.
Can You Say Grade Inflation?
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007America is Lake Woebegone. Suddenly, American students aren’t average–they are above average according to grades. Strangely, they’re below average according to standardized test scores.
There are a couple causes of this:
- Nobody is getting smarter. Kids never were getting smarter.
- To get into college grades are important. Kids are taking tough classes (maybe) but grades are getting pushed up so they can get into college.
MacBook Rumors
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007A rumored 15.4 inch MacBook is coming out says Gizmodo. Me? I want a little, light MacBook to carry around with me–maybe a fold-out keyboard. Just small, but full-screened. Some of the nerds said a 12″. Sounds good to me.
I think I’ll wait.
Home Schooling Socialization
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007One of my concerns about home schooling, besides the fact that I’d be the teacher, is that my kids wouldn’t get the variety of subjects–art, music, sports, and other group-oriented activities. I don’t worry about the vague “socialization” issue. First, that assumes that school kids are social. Most I see are asocial. But I must say, some of the kids who come out of home schooling are socially strange. And I wonder about their confidence level in a competitive environment when they’ve never been around people to compete against.
Kim Du Toit says:
6. We wanted to control the content of what they read, or saw on TV or on the Internet. This was especially true during the pre- and early-teen years, so that we could teach them right from wrong.
Yeah, there’s a lot of control in all the above. That used to be called “parenting”, and we’re not ashamed of it. Kids are not adults: they need guidance, rules and regulation, and just as importantly, they need to know why the rules and regulations exist.
So if at some point in the future they screw up, or make mistakes, at least they’ll make them knowing that the responsibility was entirely their own, and that ignorance was not a factor.
Well, I’m not sure as a parent I’ll feel less responsible for my kid’s outcome because he’s a public-school product. I just keep coming back to that vague weirdness thing. Maybe what is weird is unadulterated sweetness that never got beat out of them.
Via Dr. Helen
