Yesterday, as I sat Twittering at my desk (yes, it's a work related Twitter), I noticed a tweet that said there was a hostage situation in Roseville. Since I work in Roseville (well, St. Paul technically, but it's really Roseville...sort of like Sarah Lawrence is really in Yonkers) I clicked on the link and saw a news story that said there was a hostage situation at the Rosewood office building and that the nearby school was on lockdown.
Funny, I thought, isn't this the Rosewood office building? The one I am currently sitting in? If there's a hostage situation here, why didn't anyone bother to tell us? When I left work at 2:00 pm, I saw police cars and the Ramsey County Sheriff, but the cars just sat there, with their lights quietly flashing.
Well, I discovered that reason this morning. In today's Strib, the article says that the hostage situation happened in the Rosedale East building, which is next door to our building. Funny, the things you'd never know about, but for Twitter...
Friday, December 11, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Why the Anti War Movement is Mum on Afghanistan
I wanted to respond to a letter that ran in the Strib about a week ago now, about Obama's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. The letter writer wondered why there aren't 50,000 people protesting this decision and stated that, if McCain were president and had made this decision, there would be 50,000 people protesting. The writer went on to say that his daughter, who was involved in the anti-war movement, now thinks that the movement was really an anti-Bush movement.
I don't think this is true. While Bush made great kindling for the anti-war fire (in the metaphorical effigy sense) the movement wasn't all about him. The unfortunate thing about movements is that, in the end, they're actually all about their leaders. Generally speaking, leaders of movements are people who love to hear themselves talk, and movements sustain their momentum as long as there is an audience willing to listen. Too often, these leaders talk a lot but say little, and lose their audience.
I was involved in the anti-war movement in the beginning, too. I went to the first protest in New York City on February 15, 2003 (my 19th birthday) and voiced my disapproval with the other 100,000 people. It was fun; the thing about protests is that they give you a natural high, an unique euphoria that comes only from standing next to thousands of people who agree with you.
But I didn't go to any more protests after that. As great as that day felt, I knew that the protests weren't going to stop the war machine. Protests didn't stop the Vietnam war--why would they have stopped Iraq? And secondly, it quickly became clear that the movement was providing a platform for self-indulgent narcissists.* My then boyfriend recounted all the other protests he attended after that first one in February, told me about how he drummed on a plastic bucket until it shattered, how strangers hugged him, and complained that the police called the protesters "babies". He mentioned nothing about the message they were trying to send, or what was said at the protest. It was all about him. Additionally, I read a newspaper article several years later that quoted him saying, "If there were a draft there'd be 100,000 more people here" (or something to that effect; I'm paraphrasing). That almost sounds like he was whining, doesn't it? As in, "gee, I wish there were a draft--that way there would be so many more people here to listen to me." I sensed that there were people who were happy there was a war on, because the war gave them a sense of purpose, a reason to unite and make noise. I was reminded of Jeremy Sisto's character in that movie The Sixties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl58QbpVLHw
He's the one who leads the protesters to charge the armed guards, endangering all of them including his girlfriend, proving that he cares more about a flashy protest than the people around him; sorry I couldn't find a better clip.
In the 2004-2005 school year, I was abroad, but I read about changes that were happening within the movement. Military families who joined the movement after losing sons and daughters joined the movement only to discover that it had little to do with Iraq--the movement leaders held up placards that said "US out of the Philippines NOW!" They were confused and dismayed--the Philippines had nothing to do with Iraq. The anti-war movement had morphed into an anti-Imperalism movement. Meanwhile, the families of Iraq vets were frustrated, because they wanted the movement to be about Iraq. The disconnect between the leaders of the movement and the Iraq war is a clear one--for the leaders, Iraq was a concept, an idea, just as "imperialism" and "colonialism" are concepts. For the military families, Iraq was a painful reality. The movement killed itself by shifting away from the war and into the murky conceptual territory of imperialism, because by doing so it lost the support of military families and vets.
Another reason why there aren't protests against Afghanistan (actually, I've seen some footage of people protesting...and they're still chanting the anti-imperialist mantra) is that the people who were at the forefront of the movement in 2003 most likely don't have time for the movement now. They were in college then. Now they're working or looking for work. Their main concern is the economy, like everyone else. When I was a senior in 2005-2006, the underclassmen didn't seem interested in continuing the movement.
Lastly, Obama's decision isn't the same as those made by the Bush administration. Why? Because he spent months conferring with advisors before he made this decision. Because he has a brain and isn't a cowboy gone wild. And because, as many have said, Afghanistan is where the focus should have been all along. That, and: these wars have been going on for ages. The movement petered out five years ago. Who has the engery any more? Ask the kids who are currently in college.
*Read The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer
I don't think this is true. While Bush made great kindling for the anti-war fire (in the metaphorical effigy sense) the movement wasn't all about him. The unfortunate thing about movements is that, in the end, they're actually all about their leaders. Generally speaking, leaders of movements are people who love to hear themselves talk, and movements sustain their momentum as long as there is an audience willing to listen. Too often, these leaders talk a lot but say little, and lose their audience.
I was involved in the anti-war movement in the beginning, too. I went to the first protest in New York City on February 15, 2003 (my 19th birthday) and voiced my disapproval with the other 100,000 people. It was fun; the thing about protests is that they give you a natural high, an unique euphoria that comes only from standing next to thousands of people who agree with you.
But I didn't go to any more protests after that. As great as that day felt, I knew that the protests weren't going to stop the war machine. Protests didn't stop the Vietnam war--why would they have stopped Iraq? And secondly, it quickly became clear that the movement was providing a platform for self-indulgent narcissists.* My then boyfriend recounted all the other protests he attended after that first one in February, told me about how he drummed on a plastic bucket until it shattered, how strangers hugged him, and complained that the police called the protesters "babies". He mentioned nothing about the message they were trying to send, or what was said at the protest. It was all about him. Additionally, I read a newspaper article several years later that quoted him saying, "If there were a draft there'd be 100,000 more people here" (or something to that effect; I'm paraphrasing). That almost sounds like he was whining, doesn't it? As in, "gee, I wish there were a draft--that way there would be so many more people here to listen to me." I sensed that there were people who were happy there was a war on, because the war gave them a sense of purpose, a reason to unite and make noise. I was reminded of Jeremy Sisto's character in that movie The Sixties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl58QbpVLHw
He's the one who leads the protesters to charge the armed guards, endangering all of them including his girlfriend, proving that he cares more about a flashy protest than the people around him; sorry I couldn't find a better clip.
In the 2004-2005 school year, I was abroad, but I read about changes that were happening within the movement. Military families who joined the movement after losing sons and daughters joined the movement only to discover that it had little to do with Iraq--the movement leaders held up placards that said "US out of the Philippines NOW!" They were confused and dismayed--the Philippines had nothing to do with Iraq. The anti-war movement had morphed into an anti-Imperalism movement. Meanwhile, the families of Iraq vets were frustrated, because they wanted the movement to be about Iraq. The disconnect between the leaders of the movement and the Iraq war is a clear one--for the leaders, Iraq was a concept, an idea, just as "imperialism" and "colonialism" are concepts. For the military families, Iraq was a painful reality. The movement killed itself by shifting away from the war and into the murky conceptual territory of imperialism, because by doing so it lost the support of military families and vets.
Another reason why there aren't protests against Afghanistan (actually, I've seen some footage of people protesting...and they're still chanting the anti-imperialist mantra) is that the people who were at the forefront of the movement in 2003 most likely don't have time for the movement now. They were in college then. Now they're working or looking for work. Their main concern is the economy, like everyone else. When I was a senior in 2005-2006, the underclassmen didn't seem interested in continuing the movement.
Lastly, Obama's decision isn't the same as those made by the Bush administration. Why? Because he spent months conferring with advisors before he made this decision. Because he has a brain and isn't a cowboy gone wild. And because, as many have said, Afghanistan is where the focus should have been all along. That, and: these wars have been going on for ages. The movement petered out five years ago. Who has the engery any more? Ask the kids who are currently in college.
*Read The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
If my posts make no sense...
...it's because I write them in the morning in between force feeding myself oat bran and dashing off to the bus stop. And I'm too lazy to reorganize my thoughts after I've written them.
I also don't post often enough, again because I'm lazy. Most of the time I don't really have enough time to scour the pages of the paper for errors or follies, and when I do, I forget to write about it, and a day passes, and it's too late.
There was a letter in the paper the other day that I liked though. (I'm channeling my grandma right now...she always says "the other day" and it could mean two days ago or some Saturday afternoon sometime in the summer of 1954). The writer called out someone in the paper for their misuse of the word "peddle". I kicked myself for missing that mistake originally.
There was also a letter about the anti-war protests and the absence of such protests against Obama's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. I composed a response to that in my head the morning it ran, but didn't write it. That'll be my next post.
Enough of this rambling.
I also don't post often enough, again because I'm lazy. Most of the time I don't really have enough time to scour the pages of the paper for errors or follies, and when I do, I forget to write about it, and a day passes, and it's too late.
There was a letter in the paper the other day that I liked though. (I'm channeling my grandma right now...she always says "the other day" and it could mean two days ago or some Saturday afternoon sometime in the summer of 1954). The writer called out someone in the paper for their misuse of the word "peddle". I kicked myself for missing that mistake originally.
There was also a letter about the anti-war protests and the absence of such protests against Obama's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. I composed a response to that in my head the morning it ran, but didn't write it. That'll be my next post.
Enough of this rambling.
Obama is to Jesus as Britney Spears is to Virgin
I'm really getting tired of people comparing Obama to Jesus and saying things like "The Messiah has lost his halo". It's ironic, since Bush was the biggest theocrat west of the Saudi oil fields. It's also unoriginal.
Charismatic people have always drawn comparisons to Christ--just look at the Beatles. They were known not only for their music but for the witty answers they gave to journalists; when one journalist asked whether it was true that the song "Drive My Car" was about a prostitute and "Norwegian Wood" was about a lesbian, Paul answered, "We were just trying to write about prostitutes and lesbians, that's all."
The Beatles were adored all over the world (does that ring any bells?) and fans brought people in wheelchairs--people with serious disabilities--so that the Beatles could touch and cure them.
But they weren't messiahs or faith healers. They were men with star power.
I guess that's what the whole issue boils down to. The other side is jealous of Obama's star power, and now that Obama's numbers are sinking, they're trotting out the Christ comparisons so they can gloat. But in late 1966, after the Beatles stopped touring, the press began to speculate that the Beatles had dried up.
And in 1967, the released Sergeant Pepper.
I wish the pundits and members of the media who insist on using terms like "anointed", "chosen one", "messiah", "halo" and "savior" would a) stop it, and b) admit that they are the ones who used and continue to use those words to describe Obama--no one in the Obama camp has ever used them. So their view of Obama as a self proclaimed instrument of God is really a projection of their own envy--Obama is charismatic and bright and they don't have anyone on their side who has that kind of stage presence. They did, however, have their own self proclaimed instrument of God, but no one on the opposite side ever made snide comments about Bush losing his halo.
Charismatic people have always drawn comparisons to Christ--just look at the Beatles. They were known not only for their music but for the witty answers they gave to journalists; when one journalist asked whether it was true that the song "Drive My Car" was about a prostitute and "Norwegian Wood" was about a lesbian, Paul answered, "We were just trying to write about prostitutes and lesbians, that's all."
The Beatles were adored all over the world (does that ring any bells?) and fans brought people in wheelchairs--people with serious disabilities--so that the Beatles could touch and cure them.
But they weren't messiahs or faith healers. They were men with star power.
I guess that's what the whole issue boils down to. The other side is jealous of Obama's star power, and now that Obama's numbers are sinking, they're trotting out the Christ comparisons so they can gloat. But in late 1966, after the Beatles stopped touring, the press began to speculate that the Beatles had dried up.
And in 1967, the released Sergeant Pepper.
I wish the pundits and members of the media who insist on using terms like "anointed", "chosen one", "messiah", "halo" and "savior" would a) stop it, and b) admit that they are the ones who used and continue to use those words to describe Obama--no one in the Obama camp has ever used them. So their view of Obama as a self proclaimed instrument of God is really a projection of their own envy--Obama is charismatic and bright and they don't have anyone on their side who has that kind of stage presence. They did, however, have their own self proclaimed instrument of God, but no one on the opposite side ever made snide comments about Bush losing his halo.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Tom Horgen Can't Write
I want to punch Tom Horgen in the face. His writing is pathetic and his articles are a joke, but his picture in the paper--with that impish smirk--settles it for me. He must be punched in the face. Preferably by my fist.
In his most recent article he wrote about places to go during the week, and he wrote something to the effect of, "You've heard of weekend warriors. Well now you can be a weeklong warrior." I mean, like, wow. That is one impressive turn of phrase. It puts Shakespeare to shame. It humbles Byron. Langston Hughes is totally kicking himself for not having thought of it first.
With the unemployment rate as high as it is, it irks me that people who are bad at their job still have jobs. If I were an employer and I had an employee who wasn't turning out stellar work, I'd be interviewing. There's a vast pool of incredibly talented people out there right now, so I don't understand why people who can't write well, or (in the case of the receptionist at my dentist's office) can't figure out how to file an insurance claim, or don't perform well still have jobs.
I think that this would be the perfect time for the Star Tribune to reinvent itself. Unload some of the people who aren't the best writers, let Kim Ode get back to writing columns (please!), and bring on some people who can do better than "weekend warrior...weeklong warrior".
The one good thing about Tom Horgen's articles is that they let me know where NOT to go. It's obvious that he's the type who likes to party with the frat boy, "let's take over Mayslack's and run down the street barking" kind of crowd. I'll forego the priviledge.
In his most recent article he wrote about places to go during the week, and he wrote something to the effect of, "You've heard of weekend warriors. Well now you can be a weeklong warrior." I mean, like, wow. That is one impressive turn of phrase. It puts Shakespeare to shame. It humbles Byron. Langston Hughes is totally kicking himself for not having thought of it first.
With the unemployment rate as high as it is, it irks me that people who are bad at their job still have jobs. If I were an employer and I had an employee who wasn't turning out stellar work, I'd be interviewing. There's a vast pool of incredibly talented people out there right now, so I don't understand why people who can't write well, or (in the case of the receptionist at my dentist's office) can't figure out how to file an insurance claim, or don't perform well still have jobs.
I think that this would be the perfect time for the Star Tribune to reinvent itself. Unload some of the people who aren't the best writers, let Kim Ode get back to writing columns (please!), and bring on some people who can do better than "weekend warrior...weeklong warrior".
The one good thing about Tom Horgen's articles is that they let me know where NOT to go. It's obvious that he's the type who likes to party with the frat boy, "let's take over Mayslack's and run down the street barking" kind of crowd. I'll forego the priviledge.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Rickety Claims
I'm back. I admit I'm a lazy-ass blogger. Moving on...
In today's paper there's a piece in the Op Ed pages titled "Over there, gays get less respect" by Charles Lane of the Washington Post. He argues that gays actually have it better here in the United States compared to Europe, and cited Sarkozy's France, Italy and Latvia as examples of European countries where gays get less respect. (Too bad for all those gays who were planning building settlements on the outskirts of Riga and turning it into gay Mecca.)
The subtext of the article is that gays should quit complaining already, since they actually have it pretty good, and that Europe isn't all it's cracked up to be. Too bad the foundation of Lane's argument is more rickety than...a person with rickets (sorry, I'm out of practice). He cherry picks the countries in Europe that are behind on gay rights and extrapolates it to all of Europe, while ignoring all the countries in Europe that give gays rights. Gay adoption is legal in Spain, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, and gay individuals can adopt in most of Europe except for Latvia, Lithuania and Italy. Gay marriage is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and...what's that country between France and Italy...? oh, that's right SPAIN. And civil unions are legal in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Iceland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland, the UK and...could it be...FRANCE?
Well, I'll be.
That's still better than the majority of the United States.
What frustrates me about articles like these is that they ignore certain facts in order to make the claim that they want to make. An argument like this wouldn't hold up in a high school debate tournament, so why is it in the Washington Post?
In today's paper there's a piece in the Op Ed pages titled "Over there, gays get less respect" by Charles Lane of the Washington Post. He argues that gays actually have it better here in the United States compared to Europe, and cited Sarkozy's France, Italy and Latvia as examples of European countries where gays get less respect. (Too bad for all those gays who were planning building settlements on the outskirts of Riga and turning it into gay Mecca.)
The subtext of the article is that gays should quit complaining already, since they actually have it pretty good, and that Europe isn't all it's cracked up to be. Too bad the foundation of Lane's argument is more rickety than...a person with rickets (sorry, I'm out of practice). He cherry picks the countries in Europe that are behind on gay rights and extrapolates it to all of Europe, while ignoring all the countries in Europe that give gays rights. Gay adoption is legal in Spain, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, and gay individuals can adopt in most of Europe except for Latvia, Lithuania and Italy. Gay marriage is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and...what's that country between France and Italy...? oh, that's right SPAIN. And civil unions are legal in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Iceland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland, the UK and...could it be...FRANCE?
Well, I'll be.
That's still better than the majority of the United States.
What frustrates me about articles like these is that they ignore certain facts in order to make the claim that they want to make. An argument like this wouldn't hold up in a high school debate tournament, so why is it in the Washington Post?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Frivolous Rubbish
Today, Bill Ward "throws down" with a writer from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the result is a front page "article" in which the two journalists trade barbs like schoolchildren. It boils down to this: "You elected a wrestler as governor." "Oh yeah? Well, you had Jeffrey Dahmer." Na-na na-na boo-boo.
I didn't realize that, when the paper changed the name of the E section back to "Variety" that "Variety" was a euphemism for "drivel receptacle". The Variety section holds so much crap, it's like a Rubbermaid container full of useless junk leftover from a yard sale. Case in point: to the right of the juvenile "Badgering Wisconsin" article, there is an amateurish sidebar that attempts to rename TV shows along the lines of "Jon & Kate Plus Eight" becoming "Kate Plus Eight". This could be clever, but what does Bill Ward come up with? He gives us "Desperate Divorcees", "Everybody Hates Raymond" and "Queen of Queens".
Bravo.
"Everybody Loves Raymond" and "King of Queens" are no longer on the air, to say nothing of the fact that the "Everybody Hates Raymond" joke became cliche after the show's first season. Also, one of my California relatives used that "Queen of Queens" joke on me when I mentioned I was moving to Astoria--it was a lame joke then, but at least at that time the show was still running.
This kind of stuff (er, fluff?) belongs out here in the hinterlands of the blogosphere, not in the realm of professional journalism. No wonder papers are going under--no one wants to do any research on anything interesting or interview anyone or review any books. No one wants to do even a schmaltzy human interest piece! They'd rather churn out this frivolous rubbish while cartoon states that resemble Blue Meanies take up a quarter of the page.
I didn't realize that, when the paper changed the name of the E section back to "Variety" that "Variety" was a euphemism for "drivel receptacle". The Variety section holds so much crap, it's like a Rubbermaid container full of useless junk leftover from a yard sale. Case in point: to the right of the juvenile "Badgering Wisconsin" article, there is an amateurish sidebar that attempts to rename TV shows along the lines of "Jon & Kate Plus Eight" becoming "Kate Plus Eight". This could be clever, but what does Bill Ward come up with? He gives us "Desperate Divorcees", "Everybody Hates Raymond" and "Queen of Queens".
Bravo.
"Everybody Loves Raymond" and "King of Queens" are no longer on the air, to say nothing of the fact that the "Everybody Hates Raymond" joke became cliche after the show's first season. Also, one of my California relatives used that "Queen of Queens" joke on me when I mentioned I was moving to Astoria--it was a lame joke then, but at least at that time the show was still running.
This kind of stuff (er, fluff?) belongs out here in the hinterlands of the blogosphere, not in the realm of professional journalism. No wonder papers are going under--no one wants to do any research on anything interesting or interview anyone or review any books. No one wants to do even a schmaltzy human interest piece! They'd rather churn out this frivolous rubbish while cartoon states that resemble Blue Meanies take up a quarter of the page.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Front Page Flop
Today, the Strib leads with an article about the Vikings and how they want a new stadium. Leaving aside the volatile issue of public expenditures on behalf of millionaire sports figures, I want to explore another issue: why is this story front page news? I'm sure there are far more important stories that could occupy that spot today. The New York and LA Times both lead with stories about Obama in Denmark pitching Chicago as host for the Olympic Games and the rise of the jobless rate to 9.8%.
Ok, so maybe the Strib isn't exactly in league with The New York Times, as it doesn't serve as large a market. But that doesn't mean it can't aspire to be a tad more relevant. After all, the Vikings have their very own section of the newspaper--it's called the sports section--that is the perfect place for headlines about their whining for a new stadium. Can't we save page A1 for something meatier? Like David Letterman's off-air sexcapades?
Ok, so maybe the Strib isn't exactly in league with The New York Times, as it doesn't serve as large a market. But that doesn't mean it can't aspire to be a tad more relevant. After all, the Vikings have their very own section of the newspaper--it's called the sports section--that is the perfect place for headlines about their whining for a new stadium. Can't we save page A1 for something meatier? Like David Letterman's off-air sexcapades?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
No Brains?
I can't decide whether this is clever or silly:
"One day after Randy Williams' fastball hit him in the back of his helmet, Span experienced occasional headaches and could still feel where the ball hit him. It was a no-brainer to keep him out of the lineup Tuesday; he will be checked out again today."
A no-brainer? Did the ball knock his brain out of his skull? I can't tell whether or not this was intentional and supposed to be ironic, or accidental. If it's the former, it's funny, and if it's the latter, it's still pretty funny, but for different reasons. Also, is it surprising that Span's head still hurts, one day after getting beaned?
I think it would be funnier if La Velle E. Neal's article read like this:
"One day after Williams' ball dislodged his brain from his head, Span seemed absent minded as he chatted with the groundskeeper who found Span's naked brain, shoved it into a jar, and asked Span to autograph it."
"One day after Randy Williams' fastball hit him in the back of his helmet, Span experienced occasional headaches and could still feel where the ball hit him. It was a no-brainer to keep him out of the lineup Tuesday; he will be checked out again today."
A no-brainer? Did the ball knock his brain out of his skull? I can't tell whether or not this was intentional and supposed to be ironic, or accidental. If it's the former, it's funny, and if it's the latter, it's still pretty funny, but for different reasons. Also, is it surprising that Span's head still hurts, one day after getting beaned?
I think it would be funnier if La Velle E. Neal's article read like this:
"One day after Williams' ball dislodged his brain from his head, Span seemed absent minded as he chatted with the groundskeeper who found Span's naked brain, shoved it into a jar, and asked Span to autograph it."
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Emphasize This
I know, I know, it's late...so late in fact that in less than an hour, today's paper will be yesterday's, but I've been so engrossed in the John Lennon biography I've been reading that I decided to put off my post. However, this morning as I rubbed my groggy eyes and got ready for work, a little tidbit jumped out at me from the front page of the B section.
In Gail Rosenblum's article about Darcy Fox, a rape survivor and advocate for victims of sexual assault, Rosenblum writes, "It is extremely important to Fox that I emphasize a few things: First, the attacks occurred on their four-star, all inclusive resort. Second, the 20-something man who hit on her, then drugged her beer when she rebuffed his advances, was American, not Mexican."
I don't mean to undermine Fox's advocacy or achievements, but I have to ask--why does Rosenblum have to "emphasize" that the attacker was not Mexican? At first, I wanted to give both Fox and Rosenblum the benefit of the doubt and conclude that they wanted to nip in the bud any reactionary, racist statements generalizing Mexican men as rapists that might have surfaced if not for this qualification. However, after I reread the paragraph, I saw that there was no doubt that this was not their intent.
Look at it again: "The attacks occurred on their four-star, all inclusive resort," as opposed to a seedy motel, where you'd expect date-rape to take place. This part of the message is laudable--don't take your safety for granted; date-rape can happen anywhere. However, the second part is rather cringe-worthy. It says, "even that nice white tourist in khaki shorts with the digital SLR camera strapped around his neck can rape you," as if rape perpetrated by non-white Mexican locals is par for the course. It says, American is to Mexican as four-star resort is to grungy flophouse with cockroaches embedded in the frayed shag carpeting.
I point this out not because I think it's politically incorrect, or because it's offensive (although it is the latter), but because it neatly perpetrates the tired stereotype of the "dirty" Mexican. And while there are undoubtedly some people--namely, people who buy into this stereotype and live in sheltered suburbia--who need to be told that the nice white guy who buys you your margarita is just as, if not more, likely to rape you as the Mexican who sells you a michelada on the street, I don't think it is necessary to "emphasize" her attacker's nationality. The implied racism, however ambiguous, undercuts Fox's real message. The focus here should be on her advocacy for better care for rape victims in Anoka County. But for this reader, the ham-handed "He was American! Really!" aside is entirely distracting.
Maybe I'm not giving Fox and Rosenblum enough credit--maybe they did intend to be diplomatic with this statement. I just think that if that's the case, it could have been stated in a clearer, more thoughtful way.
In Gail Rosenblum's article about Darcy Fox, a rape survivor and advocate for victims of sexual assault, Rosenblum writes, "It is extremely important to Fox that I emphasize a few things: First, the attacks occurred on their four-star, all inclusive resort. Second, the 20-something man who hit on her, then drugged her beer when she rebuffed his advances, was American, not Mexican."
I don't mean to undermine Fox's advocacy or achievements, but I have to ask--why does Rosenblum have to "emphasize" that the attacker was not Mexican? At first, I wanted to give both Fox and Rosenblum the benefit of the doubt and conclude that they wanted to nip in the bud any reactionary, racist statements generalizing Mexican men as rapists that might have surfaced if not for this qualification. However, after I reread the paragraph, I saw that there was no doubt that this was not their intent.
Look at it again: "The attacks occurred on their four-star, all inclusive resort," as opposed to a seedy motel, where you'd expect date-rape to take place. This part of the message is laudable--don't take your safety for granted; date-rape can happen anywhere. However, the second part is rather cringe-worthy. It says, "even that nice white tourist in khaki shorts with the digital SLR camera strapped around his neck can rape you," as if rape perpetrated by non-white Mexican locals is par for the course. It says, American is to Mexican as four-star resort is to grungy flophouse with cockroaches embedded in the frayed shag carpeting.
I point this out not because I think it's politically incorrect, or because it's offensive (although it is the latter), but because it neatly perpetrates the tired stereotype of the "dirty" Mexican. And while there are undoubtedly some people--namely, people who buy into this stereotype and live in sheltered suburbia--who need to be told that the nice white guy who buys you your margarita is just as, if not more, likely to rape you as the Mexican who sells you a michelada on the street, I don't think it is necessary to "emphasize" her attacker's nationality. The implied racism, however ambiguous, undercuts Fox's real message. The focus here should be on her advocacy for better care for rape victims in Anoka County. But for this reader, the ham-handed "He was American! Really!" aside is entirely distracting.
Maybe I'm not giving Fox and Rosenblum enough credit--maybe they did intend to be diplomatic with this statement. I just think that if that's the case, it could have been stated in a clearer, more thoughtful way.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Lame, lame, go away
The front page of today's paper is sporting a giant, glittering example of a crappy rhyming title: "Trapped on a plane, instant fame". This is not a rhyme, this is a near rhyme, and my take on this is, if a near rhyme is as close as you can get, skip the damn rhyme!
Here, I'll fix it for them: "Trapped on a plane, instant fame/The Star Tribune is totally lame". There, now it's a real rhyme.
I swear I'll write about something other than rhyming headlines, but for the moment that's all I have time for, since I'm starting a new job today and have to catch the bus in about an hour.
Here, I'll fix it for them: "Trapped on a plane, instant fame/The Star Tribune is totally lame". There, now it's a real rhyme.
I swear I'll write about something other than rhyming headlines, but for the moment that's all I have time for, since I'm starting a new job today and have to catch the bus in about an hour.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Katherine Kersten's Extra Strength Idiocy
Gather round, kiddies, it's Sunday, and we all know what that means--it's time for our weekly dose of Katherine Kersten's Extra Strength Idiocy. This week, Kersten tells us what our childrens should be learning in school and thinks that the only literature that schoolchildren should be reading is "classic" literature. As a writer, I have nothing but contempt for this sentiment; the notion that the only books worth reading were published before the twentieth century is entirely reductive and, frankly, ignorant. To say that there are no contemporary titles that are worthwhile is to make clear that one has not read very many contemporary titles.
I don't think Katherine Kersten has read very many recently published books--in fact, I don't think she's read very much at all. It also seems that she didn't really read the article she refers to in her column. The original New York Times piece, "The Future of Reading-'Reading Workshop' Lets Students Pick the Books'", gave this example of a student who chose a book based on pop culture and went on to read more challenging books:
"Many students began the year choosing books [teacher Ms. McNeill] regarded as too simple, and she prodded them to a higher level. After Khristian Howard, an earnest seventh grader, read “Chaka! Through the Fire,” a memoir by the R&B star Chaka Khan, Ms. McNeill suggested that she try Maya Angelou’s autobiography, “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.”
Khristian, who found the book tough at first, ended up writing an enthusiastic six-page entry in her journal. Ms. McNeill went on to suggest “The Bell Jar” by Sylvia Plath and “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” by Betty Smith, a book, Khristian wrote, that she “really didn’t want to come to an end.“"
Kersten twists the above passage thusly: "McNeill no longer teaches 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl'. Instead, her students are reading chick-lit books, the Captain Underpants comic-book-style novels, or pop literature such as 'Chaka! Through the Fire,' a memoir by R&B star Chaka Khan. Though some students have chosen more challenging books, all are contemporary titles."
So, there's something wrong with "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn", even though it was published in 1943, four years before "The Diary of Anne Frank"? "To Kill a Mockingbird" was published in 1960--merely three years before "The Bell Jar", and nine before "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings". Why is “To Kill a Mockingbird” any less “contemporary” than two books that were published in the same decade? And why does Kersten bemoan the fact that McNeill no longer teaches “To Kill a Mockingbird”? Kersten makes it pretty clear that we should only read “classic” titles, like “The Iliad” (which she doesn’t refer to by name) or “Oliver Twist”. Charles Dickens and Harper Lee didn’t exactly meet for coffee at Homer’s house, so I can’t decide whether Kersten is being inconsistent or can’t be bothered to check copyright dates.
The most infuriating thing in this article, though, is Kersten’s dismissal of books from the canon of African American literature, namely, “The Color Purple”. She writes: “In the 1960s, the cry for ‘relevance’ led some to trade Hamlet for the adolescent angst of Holden Caulfield in ‘The Cather in the Rye’. Later, obsessions with multiculturalism, racism and sexism made politically correct books like Alice Walker’s ‘The Color Purple’ de rigueur.”
What she’s saying here is that the only reason a teacher would choose a book written by a non-white author is to indoctrinate students against racism, sexism or ethnocentrism. This statement implies that books written by non-white authors can’t be great literature, they can only be chosen for their “political correctness”.
I don’t think Kersten has read “The Color Purple,” and I don’t think she realizes that Alice Walker won a Pulitzer for it. I’m sure Kersten would accuse the Pulitzer Prize committee for being politically correct when they chose the book, but she would be wrong. “The Color Purple” is an amazing book, and I’m not just saying that because Alice Walker and I share an alma mater. “The Color Purple” is as beautifully written as it is innovative, and is decidedly not politically correct—“The Color Purple” is number 17 on American Library Association’s list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books. Do you know what else is on that list? There it is, at number 40: “To Kill a Mockingbird”.
This list isn’t the only thing these novels have in common. They both take place in the South, they both feature racism as a common theme, they’re both “coming of age” stories”, and they both include rape in their plots. What they don’t have in common is the race of the protagonists--and authors. In other words, a book that features a white girl and her white father as crusaders against racism is heroic, while a book that features a young black woman who survives incest, domestic violence and racism is “politically correct”.
Well, here’s a bit of political incorrectness for you: Fuck you, Katherine Kersten. Your racism is so thinly veiled it’s pathetic, and what’s equally pathetic is your inconsistency. Instead of perpetuating a list of books you think people should read, you ought to let other people make a reading list for you…and you should start with “The Color Purple”.
I don't think Katherine Kersten has read very many recently published books--in fact, I don't think she's read very much at all. It also seems that she didn't really read the article she refers to in her column. The original New York Times piece, "The Future of Reading-'Reading Workshop' Lets Students Pick the Books'", gave this example of a student who chose a book based on pop culture and went on to read more challenging books:
"Many students began the year choosing books [teacher Ms. McNeill] regarded as too simple, and she prodded them to a higher level. After Khristian Howard, an earnest seventh grader, read “Chaka! Through the Fire,” a memoir by the R&B star Chaka Khan, Ms. McNeill suggested that she try Maya Angelou’s autobiography, “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.”
Khristian, who found the book tough at first, ended up writing an enthusiastic six-page entry in her journal. Ms. McNeill went on to suggest “The Bell Jar” by Sylvia Plath and “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” by Betty Smith, a book, Khristian wrote, that she “really didn’t want to come to an end.“"
Kersten twists the above passage thusly: "McNeill no longer teaches 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl'. Instead, her students are reading chick-lit books, the Captain Underpants comic-book-style novels, or pop literature such as 'Chaka! Through the Fire,' a memoir by R&B star Chaka Khan. Though some students have chosen more challenging books, all are contemporary titles."
So, there's something wrong with "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn", even though it was published in 1943, four years before "The Diary of Anne Frank"? "To Kill a Mockingbird" was published in 1960--merely three years before "The Bell Jar", and nine before "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings". Why is “To Kill a Mockingbird” any less “contemporary” than two books that were published in the same decade? And why does Kersten bemoan the fact that McNeill no longer teaches “To Kill a Mockingbird”? Kersten makes it pretty clear that we should only read “classic” titles, like “The Iliad” (which she doesn’t refer to by name) or “Oliver Twist”. Charles Dickens and Harper Lee didn’t exactly meet for coffee at Homer’s house, so I can’t decide whether Kersten is being inconsistent or can’t be bothered to check copyright dates.
The most infuriating thing in this article, though, is Kersten’s dismissal of books from the canon of African American literature, namely, “The Color Purple”. She writes: “In the 1960s, the cry for ‘relevance’ led some to trade Hamlet for the adolescent angst of Holden Caulfield in ‘The Cather in the Rye’. Later, obsessions with multiculturalism, racism and sexism made politically correct books like Alice Walker’s ‘The Color Purple’ de rigueur.”
What she’s saying here is that the only reason a teacher would choose a book written by a non-white author is to indoctrinate students against racism, sexism or ethnocentrism. This statement implies that books written by non-white authors can’t be great literature, they can only be chosen for their “political correctness”.
I don’t think Kersten has read “The Color Purple,” and I don’t think she realizes that Alice Walker won a Pulitzer for it. I’m sure Kersten would accuse the Pulitzer Prize committee for being politically correct when they chose the book, but she would be wrong. “The Color Purple” is an amazing book, and I’m not just saying that because Alice Walker and I share an alma mater. “The Color Purple” is as beautifully written as it is innovative, and is decidedly not politically correct—“The Color Purple” is number 17 on American Library Association’s list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books. Do you know what else is on that list? There it is, at number 40: “To Kill a Mockingbird”.
This list isn’t the only thing these novels have in common. They both take place in the South, they both feature racism as a common theme, they’re both “coming of age” stories”, and they both include rape in their plots. What they don’t have in common is the race of the protagonists--and authors. In other words, a book that features a white girl and her white father as crusaders against racism is heroic, while a book that features a young black woman who survives incest, domestic violence and racism is “politically correct”.
Well, here’s a bit of political incorrectness for you: Fuck you, Katherine Kersten. Your racism is so thinly veiled it’s pathetic, and what’s equally pathetic is your inconsistency. Instead of perpetuating a list of books you think people should read, you ought to let other people make a reading list for you…and you should start with “The Color Purple”.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
What rhymes with "Lutherans"?
I know I'm beginning to sound like an old vinyl LP with a big gash through it but why does the Star Tribune insist on the rhyming headlines? Today's sports page says, "Twins not out of clout". I suppose I should let this one slide (heh) considering that baseball has a longstanding tradition of inspiring rhymes, i.e., "Casey at the Bat" and "The Sultan of Swat". Also, as a Twins fan, I'm glad they're not out of clout, even if they aren't exactly in it to win it. (I mean that sarcastically, of course; I'm fighting the urge to put in one of these: :P)
I'd give "out of clout" a pass if it weren't for this horribly ridiculous headline on the front page of the Variety section: "Getting the News out to Jews". The article is about a blog "aimed at helping young Jews find their way through a religion that many have lost touch with." Aren't the Strib writers lucky it isn't a blog aimed at Lutherans? Additionally, since when is it acceptable to end a sentence with "with"? Should it not be a blog "aimed at helping young Jews find their way through a religion with which they have lost touch"? It might be fine to have "with" as a dangling preposition in casual conversation, but is it acceptable on the printed page?
Oh, and what about the little rhyme hidden in the body of the article: "So what's a young Jew supposed to do today?" Oy. Hello, this is a newspaper, not the current events according to Mother Goose! How long will it be before we see articles that begin with "There once was a man from Nantucket"? Why don't they just write the whole damn paper in Limerick form? Better yet, they should assign each section of the paper a different form of poetry...the Metro section should be composed entirely in sonnet form, while the Taste section ought to be free verse, and naturally, the Op-Ed section should be in haiku form because the world would be a nicer place if Op-Ed commentators were allowed only seventeen syllables.
I'd give "out of clout" a pass if it weren't for this horribly ridiculous headline on the front page of the Variety section: "Getting the News out to Jews". The article is about a blog "aimed at helping young Jews find their way through a religion that many have lost touch with." Aren't the Strib writers lucky it isn't a blog aimed at Lutherans? Additionally, since when is it acceptable to end a sentence with "with"? Should it not be a blog "aimed at helping young Jews find their way through a religion with which they have lost touch"? It might be fine to have "with" as a dangling preposition in casual conversation, but is it acceptable on the printed page?
Oh, and what about the little rhyme hidden in the body of the article: "So what's a young Jew supposed to do today?" Oy. Hello, this is a newspaper, not the current events according to Mother Goose! How long will it be before we see articles that begin with "There once was a man from Nantucket"? Why don't they just write the whole damn paper in Limerick form? Better yet, they should assign each section of the paper a different form of poetry...the Metro section should be composed entirely in sonnet form, while the Taste section ought to be free verse, and naturally, the Op-Ed section should be in haiku form because the world would be a nicer place if Op-Ed commentators were allowed only seventeen syllables.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Strib Gets a New Mommy
A front page article in today's paper declares that the Star Tribune will "exit Chapter 11" and will "emerge with new owners, lower costs and reduced debt". One wonders whether these new owners will bring with them a new business model--one that includes hiring better writers, observant proofreaders and competent fact-checkers.
The paper quotes the editor Nancy Barnes as saying that her staff should feel "proud" of their accomplishments, and I suppose they should be, considering that the paper reduced its workforce by 40%. That leaves a lot of work to be done by the people who are left over, so I suppose they deserve some slack for the little mistakes that appear here and there. But one person whose job it is to proofread articles should, theoretically, be able to catch things like "The Supreme Court has tickled weighty issues", and of the 779 people that the Strib laid off, they could have spared one or two of them to dedicate themselves to scanning the pages for errors. They could also get some poor, hapless, unpaid interns to do it, a couple of college kids who will do it for a few credits and a reference.
On the other hand, I'm beginning to wonder whether proofreading in general is on the decline. I'm currently reading "John Lennon: The Life," by Philip Norman, an 800 page tome that chronicles the life of John Lennon and borrows several passages from Norman's bestselling biography of the Beatles, "Shout! The Beatles in Their Generation", and I've noticed a few little mistakes in there too. For the most part, it's tiny things that pass through the sieve of spellcheck undetected--things like the word "of" appearing where the author meant "on"--the kind of things that require a human, and not computerized, brain.
The internet is to blame for some of this. The ability to publish a post or fire off an email instantly often gives us a tingle of excitement that causes us to forget that we need to stop and look over our work before we make it live. My college philosophy professor once told us to always proofread on hardcopy and with good reason--for some reason it it always easier to miss mistakes on screen that appear plainly on the printed page. I don't think there are many people who print out blog posts and proof them before posting--I certainly don't--but as technology progresses, we seem to be moving away from careful crafting of the printed word and more toward instant gratification. I like instant gratification as much as the next person--that's why I use iTunes and YouTube--but I still think that laziness should not supplant careful proofing.
The paper quotes the editor Nancy Barnes as saying that her staff should feel "proud" of their accomplishments, and I suppose they should be, considering that the paper reduced its workforce by 40%. That leaves a lot of work to be done by the people who are left over, so I suppose they deserve some slack for the little mistakes that appear here and there. But one person whose job it is to proofread articles should, theoretically, be able to catch things like "The Supreme Court has tickled weighty issues", and of the 779 people that the Strib laid off, they could have spared one or two of them to dedicate themselves to scanning the pages for errors. They could also get some poor, hapless, unpaid interns to do it, a couple of college kids who will do it for a few credits and a reference.
On the other hand, I'm beginning to wonder whether proofreading in general is on the decline. I'm currently reading "John Lennon: The Life," by Philip Norman, an 800 page tome that chronicles the life of John Lennon and borrows several passages from Norman's bestselling biography of the Beatles, "Shout! The Beatles in Their Generation", and I've noticed a few little mistakes in there too. For the most part, it's tiny things that pass through the sieve of spellcheck undetected--things like the word "of" appearing where the author meant "on"--the kind of things that require a human, and not computerized, brain.
The internet is to blame for some of this. The ability to publish a post or fire off an email instantly often gives us a tingle of excitement that causes us to forget that we need to stop and look over our work before we make it live. My college philosophy professor once told us to always proofread on hardcopy and with good reason--for some reason it it always easier to miss mistakes on screen that appear plainly on the printed page. I don't think there are many people who print out blog posts and proof them before posting--I certainly don't--but as technology progresses, we seem to be moving away from careful crafting of the printed word and more toward instant gratification. I like instant gratification as much as the next person--that's why I use iTunes and YouTube--but I still think that laziness should not supplant careful proofing.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Lame-brained headlines
Today's paper features a collection of truly crap-tastic headlines.
More unnecessary rhyming:
"Sublime to Slime" (page B1)
"Book Designer: Jackets are his Racket" (page E1) Honestly, are these people running a newspaper or trying to win a first grade poetry contest?
Mind-numbingly generic:
"One Year Later" (page D1) Well, that's real specific.
"Beauty on a Budget" (page E1) And that's real original. They found this headline in the recycle bin of snore-inducing titles. Where have I seen this before? Oh, that's right, every issue of Lucky, Cosmo, Glamour and even Vogue that has been issued since the start of the recession.
"Up to the Challenge" (page C1)...[sound of crickets].
Just plain confusing:
"Bad trumps good: Morneau's out" (page C1) Personally, I think "Morneau has stress fracture" is a far more attention-grabbing headline, but what do I know.
More unnecessary rhyming:
"Sublime to Slime" (page B1)
"Book Designer: Jackets are his Racket" (page E1) Honestly, are these people running a newspaper or trying to win a first grade poetry contest?
Mind-numbingly generic:
"One Year Later" (page D1) Well, that's real specific.
"Beauty on a Budget" (page E1) And that's real original. They found this headline in the recycle bin of snore-inducing titles. Where have I seen this before? Oh, that's right, every issue of Lucky, Cosmo, Glamour and even Vogue that has been issued since the start of the recession.
"Up to the Challenge" (page C1)...[sound of crickets].
Just plain confusing:
"Bad trumps good: Morneau's out" (page C1) Personally, I think "Morneau has stress fracture" is a far more attention-grabbing headline, but what do I know.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Katherine Kersten in the Sierra Maestra
Katherine Kersten doesn't like the way the mainstream media are nice to Obama. In her September 13th column, she complains that the "mainstream media" like Obama too much. She mentions the "mainstream media" three times: "The mainstream media seem dumbfounded that any thinking person could object to President Obama's speech to schoolchildren on Sept. 8...why are the mainstream media so clueless about the anger and disillusionment growing among independents and conservatives...today, average Americans are beginning to see something in Obama the mainstream media can't." Apparently, Kersten thinks she writes for Citypages. Well, I have a little message for her:
Hey, Lady, you write for the Minneapolis Star Tribune--that's a newspaper that serves a major metropolitan area, and it's not one of those alternative media papers that they give away for free in gas stations and gay bars. You, Katherine Kersten, are a part of the mainstream media.
This reminds me of my second year in college, when, in my International Law lecture, a student was making derisive remarks about "elites" when the professor broke in and said, "Excuse me, but you're at the most expensive college in the country. You're all elites."
Kersten conviniently forgets that there are plenty of people who are "disillusioned" with Obama who also are major players within the mainstream media. Fox News averages 3.3 million viewers daily--it's not some piddly little station that only comes in when you constantly tweak the antannae while standing on tin foil. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, even Tom Bernard--these are all people who don't have a lot of good things to say about Obama, and they are all part of the mainstream media.
Kersten writes as if she, Bernard, O'Reilly and Limbaugh were a band of rebels in the mountains, like Che and Fidel in the Sierra Maestra. They aren't, though, and Fox News isn't Radio Venceremos (that's a reference to El Salvador, not Cuba, just FYI). Frankly, if Katherine Kersten hates the mainstream media so much, she really ought to stop writing for them.
Instead, she should buy a ham radio and a turtle.
Hey, Lady, you write for the Minneapolis Star Tribune--that's a newspaper that serves a major metropolitan area, and it's not one of those alternative media papers that they give away for free in gas stations and gay bars. You, Katherine Kersten, are a part of the mainstream media.
This reminds me of my second year in college, when, in my International Law lecture, a student was making derisive remarks about "elites" when the professor broke in and said, "Excuse me, but you're at the most expensive college in the country. You're all elites."
Kersten conviniently forgets that there are plenty of people who are "disillusioned" with Obama who also are major players within the mainstream media. Fox News averages 3.3 million viewers daily--it's not some piddly little station that only comes in when you constantly tweak the antannae while standing on tin foil. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, even Tom Bernard--these are all people who don't have a lot of good things to say about Obama, and they are all part of the mainstream media.
Kersten writes as if she, Bernard, O'Reilly and Limbaugh were a band of rebels in the mountains, like Che and Fidel in the Sierra Maestra. They aren't, though, and Fox News isn't Radio Venceremos (that's a reference to El Salvador, not Cuba, just FYI). Frankly, if Katherine Kersten hates the mainstream media so much, she really ought to stop writing for them.
Instead, she should buy a ham radio and a turtle.
The Time for Silly Mistakes is Past
Listen up, kids: today we get a lesson in grammar and it's right there on the front page! In the far left column on page A1, the headline reads, "The Time for Games is Passed". This phrase, which is repeated in the body of the article, comes from the speech President Obama made at Target Center yesterday. What's the problem, you ask? The problem is that "the time for games is passed" is incorrect. The correct sentence should read "the time for games is past."
Let's break it down, shall we?
P-a-s-t is a noun, adjective or adverb. In the above example, "past" describes "the time for games". "Past" is synonymous with "over", meaning that the sentence could read "the time for games is over" and still make sense.
P-a-s-s-e-d, on the other hand, is the past (see? adjective!) tense of the verb "to pass". "The time for games is passed" has a tense problem, since "is" is present tense of the verb "to be", and "passed" is past tense. This is a sentence that can't make up its mind. It should be written, "The time for games has passed".
Since "passed" and "past" are phonetically identical, it's possible that someone transcribed the speech incorrectly, but this error shouldn't have made its way onto the front page of the newspaper. Sure, it's possible that this mistake originated somewhere in the Obama camp, but if that's the case, the Star Tribune editors should have made it clear that this wasn't the paper's mistake by including the [sic] bracket. The fact that [sic] appears nowhere on the page indicates one of three things: a) this was the Star Tribune's mistake and the editors ran out of espresso, or b) this mistake originated elsewhere and the editors didn't catch it, or c) the editors didn't know that they could use a [sic] bracket to exonerate them from this foul-up. Whether the answer is a, b or c, the end verdict is stil the same: this mistake smacks of unprofessionalism.
Let's break it down, shall we?
P-a-s-t is a noun, adjective or adverb. In the above example, "past" describes "the time for games". "Past" is synonymous with "over", meaning that the sentence could read "the time for games is over" and still make sense.
P-a-s-s-e-d, on the other hand, is the past (see? adjective!) tense of the verb "to pass". "The time for games is passed" has a tense problem, since "is" is present tense of the verb "to be", and "passed" is past tense. This is a sentence that can't make up its mind. It should be written, "The time for games has passed".
Since "passed" and "past" are phonetically identical, it's possible that someone transcribed the speech incorrectly, but this error shouldn't have made its way onto the front page of the newspaper. Sure, it's possible that this mistake originated somewhere in the Obama camp, but if that's the case, the Star Tribune editors should have made it clear that this wasn't the paper's mistake by including the [sic] bracket. The fact that [sic] appears nowhere on the page indicates one of three things: a) this was the Star Tribune's mistake and the editors ran out of espresso, or b) this mistake originated elsewhere and the editors didn't catch it, or c) the editors didn't know that they could use a [sic] bracket to exonerate them from this foul-up. Whether the answer is a, b or c, the end verdict is stil the same: this mistake smacks of unprofessionalism.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Free Bacon
I don't know where to start with this one:
"College is all about finding your niche. Some students "find" themselves in books, while others discover themselves in bars. This guide to college fun isn't about books. Whether you're a punk or just like to get drunk, the following nightlife picks should help you get in where you fit in. (Tell Mom and Dad to calm down--not all of them have to do with drinking.)"
This rhyme studded paragraph is the intro to the article, "Get in where you fit in", which is on E3 of today's Variety section. It lists the best places, according to Tom Horgen, for college students to get trashed in the Twin Cities. I have nothing against drinking, mind you, but I do take issue with cliche tropes like "college is all about finding your niche". College is a place to get an education, and I deeply resented being kept awake at night by kids who were blasting Britney Spears and "finding their niche".
Secondly, why does Horgen put quotes around "find" and not around "discover"? Is he saying that students allegedly learn about themselves through their studies because he wouldn't know from experience, or did he leave the quotes off of "discover" because that would read too much like "Joey 'discovered' himself for the first time when he found his brother's Playboy magazines"? I suppose there is no hidden meaning behind this inconsistency--just the lazy editing that is becoming the hallmark of this paper.
Lastly, why, oh why the rhyming? The rhyming is far worse than any superfluous alliteration, especially when it's just plain bad rhyming. You know what else rhymes with "drunk"? How about, "stunk," "skunk" and "bunk"? Let this be a lesson, kiddies: rhyming is not a substitute for quality writing. Unless, of course, you're writing ad copy for a third rate mattress retailer.
The article does contain some valuable information. For instance, I didn't know that Wednesday was free bacon night at the Triple Rock and I appreciate that Horgen included this tidbit. I also appreciate that he didn't try to find a rhyme for "bacon".
"College is all about finding your niche. Some students "find" themselves in books, while others discover themselves in bars. This guide to college fun isn't about books. Whether you're a punk or just like to get drunk, the following nightlife picks should help you get in where you fit in. (Tell Mom and Dad to calm down--not all of them have to do with drinking.)"
This rhyme studded paragraph is the intro to the article, "Get in where you fit in", which is on E3 of today's Variety section. It lists the best places, according to Tom Horgen, for college students to get trashed in the Twin Cities. I have nothing against drinking, mind you, but I do take issue with cliche tropes like "college is all about finding your niche". College is a place to get an education, and I deeply resented being kept awake at night by kids who were blasting Britney Spears and "finding their niche".
Secondly, why does Horgen put quotes around "find" and not around "discover"? Is he saying that students allegedly learn about themselves through their studies because he wouldn't know from experience, or did he leave the quotes off of "discover" because that would read too much like "Joey 'discovered' himself for the first time when he found his brother's Playboy magazines"? I suppose there is no hidden meaning behind this inconsistency--just the lazy editing that is becoming the hallmark of this paper.
Lastly, why, oh why the rhyming? The rhyming is far worse than any superfluous alliteration, especially when it's just plain bad rhyming. You know what else rhymes with "drunk"? How about, "stunk," "skunk" and "bunk"? Let this be a lesson, kiddies: rhyming is not a substitute for quality writing. Unless, of course, you're writing ad copy for a third rate mattress retailer.
The article does contain some valuable information. For instance, I didn't know that Wednesday was free bacon night at the Triple Rock and I appreciate that Horgen included this tidbit. I also appreciate that he didn't try to find a rhyme for "bacon".
Alliteration Station
There's a lot of alliterating in today's paper, most notably, Jim Foti's A section warning that Obama's visit will complete a "triad of traffic trouble". Try saying that ten times fast. I know, I'll make up a little Star Tribune tongue twister. Ready?
The troglodytic triplets traveled on Metro Transit to transcend the triad of traffic trouble.
Translation: take the bus, because with Obama's visit on top of the Gopher and Twins games, traffic is going to be a mess. That's all they had to say, really. Moving on...
Generally speaking, I'm a fan of alliteration, and I find James Lileks' alliteration to be quite artful. In today's edition of his column, he writes about the SweeTango, a hybrid of Honeycrisp and Zestra apples which Lileks describes as the "apex of apple art". He goes on to say that an appled called Horace "brought up images of equine effluvia". I find these examples of alliteration to be much nicer than "triad of traffic trouble" but I guess it's just a matter of taste.
James Lilieks' column is a definite bright spot in the Strib for me, and I think it's a shame that his column is routinely buried in the Metro section when it really deserves to be more cartoon-adjacent. In fact, I wish James Lileks could write the entire paper--I prefer his purposeful zaniness to the accidental variety that pervades the pages of the paper. (Hey, look at that...I can alliterate too, bitches!)
The troglodytic triplets traveled on Metro Transit to transcend the triad of traffic trouble.
Translation: take the bus, because with Obama's visit on top of the Gopher and Twins games, traffic is going to be a mess. That's all they had to say, really. Moving on...
Generally speaking, I'm a fan of alliteration, and I find James Lileks' alliteration to be quite artful. In today's edition of his column, he writes about the SweeTango, a hybrid of Honeycrisp and Zestra apples which Lileks describes as the "apex of apple art". He goes on to say that an appled called Horace "brought up images of equine effluvia". I find these examples of alliteration to be much nicer than "triad of traffic trouble" but I guess it's just a matter of taste.
James Lilieks' column is a definite bright spot in the Strib for me, and I think it's a shame that his column is routinely buried in the Metro section when it really deserves to be more cartoon-adjacent. In fact, I wish James Lileks could write the entire paper--I prefer his purposeful zaniness to the accidental variety that pervades the pages of the paper. (Hey, look at that...I can alliterate too, bitches!)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Presto, Change-o, You're a Verb!
Lest I should ever worry that I will find a dearth of silliness in the Star Tribune, I will remind myself to turn to the Sports section. On page C5 of today’s paper I found a glorious little nugget of folly nestled into a story written by La Velle E. Neal, “Halladay’s Twins hex halted by Pavano”.
He writes: “Pavano doesn’t miss bats like Halladay can; he is going to have company on the bases. But Pavano can Houdini his way out of jams, like in the fifth inning when a run was in and Travis Snider was on third with one out.”
I understand the image Mr. Neal is trying to conjure up here, but I just have to point out that Houdini is not a verb. Houdini is a noun. Houdini is a noun because Houdini is the name of a person, and a noun is a person, place, or thing. A verb, on the other hand, is an action. A person, such as Harry Houdini, is not, in and of himself, an action. He performs actions.
The above quote could have been written like this: “Pavano can, like the great magician Harry Houdini, extricate himself from tight spaces.”
I will admit that one of the unique and charming characteristics of the English language is that it allows nouns to be turned into verbs:
“They cornered him.”
“She stonewalled.”
“I’ll brain you!”
However, in this case, turning Houdini into a verb (Presto, change-o, you’re a verb!) just seems like lazy writing to me. It sounds like a frat boy saying, “Dude, that chick tried to Facebook me, but I totally Houdinied my way out of it.”
I'm surprised the story didn't end like this: "And then, after Joe Nathan earned his 38th save in the ninth inning, he turned to Pavano and asked, 'Pavano...where's my car?'"
He writes: “Pavano doesn’t miss bats like Halladay can; he is going to have company on the bases. But Pavano can Houdini his way out of jams, like in the fifth inning when a run was in and Travis Snider was on third with one out.”
I understand the image Mr. Neal is trying to conjure up here, but I just have to point out that Houdini is not a verb. Houdini is a noun. Houdini is a noun because Houdini is the name of a person, and a noun is a person, place, or thing. A verb, on the other hand, is an action. A person, such as Harry Houdini, is not, in and of himself, an action. He performs actions.
The above quote could have been written like this: “Pavano can, like the great magician Harry Houdini, extricate himself from tight spaces.”
I will admit that one of the unique and charming characteristics of the English language is that it allows nouns to be turned into verbs:
“They cornered him.”
“She stonewalled.”
“I’ll brain you!”
However, in this case, turning Houdini into a verb (Presto, change-o, you’re a verb!) just seems like lazy writing to me. It sounds like a frat boy saying, “Dude, that chick tried to Facebook me, but I totally Houdinied my way out of it.”
I'm surprised the story didn't end like this: "And then, after Joe Nathan earned his 38th save in the ninth inning, he turned to Pavano and asked, 'Pavano...where's my car?'"
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Beatle Blunder
On September 8th, Chris Riemenschneider published an article in the Variety section about the release of remastered Beatles albums. He writes that these new CDs sound much better than The Beatles albums did when they were originally released on CDs. I was intrigued until I reached the final paragraph of the article:
"As it is, one can't help but wonder if most fans...will buy these discs and wind up condensing them onto their iPods or laptops. That's the equivalent of ordering a fine sirloin steak burnt. If you think that'll be you, in other words, maybe save your money for the next great wave of Beatles merchandise. Coming soon."
Coming soon? Really? When? I ask because most iTunes users have been waiting a very long time for Beatles songs to become available on iTunes. In fact, just today, Apple held a conference in which the company revealed new iPod models, but said nothing about whether The Beatles catalog would finally become downloadable via iTunes. This news was posted just a few minutes ago by Daniel Kreps at Rolling Stone, who writes: "[Beatle] fans will still have to pick up the new remasters the old fashioned way: At 7/11s and Restoration Hardware stores".
I bet Riemenschneider's face is a bit red today. A quick search on Google would have revealed that Beatles songs aren't available on iTunes, as would a quick perusal of the iTunes store. I suspect that Riemenschneider failed to figure this out because he has never used an iPod, nor iTunes. However, that's not an excuse. He's a journalist, and should have done his research.
I suppose he also disapproves of anyone who would condescend to listen to Sousa marches on anything but a Victrola.
"As it is, one can't help but wonder if most fans...will buy these discs and wind up condensing them onto their iPods or laptops. That's the equivalent of ordering a fine sirloin steak burnt. If you think that'll be you, in other words, maybe save your money for the next great wave of Beatles merchandise. Coming soon."
Coming soon? Really? When? I ask because most iTunes users have been waiting a very long time for Beatles songs to become available on iTunes. In fact, just today, Apple held a conference in which the company revealed new iPod models, but said nothing about whether The Beatles catalog would finally become downloadable via iTunes. This news was posted just a few minutes ago by Daniel Kreps at Rolling Stone, who writes: "[Beatle] fans will still have to pick up the new remasters the old fashioned way: At 7/11s and Restoration Hardware stores".
I bet Riemenschneider's face is a bit red today. A quick search on Google would have revealed that Beatles songs aren't available on iTunes, as would a quick perusal of the iTunes store. I suspect that Riemenschneider failed to figure this out because he has never used an iPod, nor iTunes. However, that's not an excuse. He's a journalist, and should have done his research.
I suppose he also disapproves of anyone who would condescend to listen to Sousa marches on anything but a Victrola.
Get a clue, Katherine!
I sent this in as a letter to the editor. They didn't publish my letter, but they did publish a letter from another reader who schooled Katherine on the necessity of date-rape lectures on college campuses. I took issue with another part of her article:
Katherine Kersten’s August 30, 2009 article, titled “A Counter to the Empty Lure of Promiscuity” is a complete joke. She and Cassy Hough, founder of the Elizabeth Ascombe Society both bemoan the so-called hook-up culture on college campuses. They both fail to see that they are incredibly out of touch and could both use a good chiropractor who could help with the strain on their necks that must come from craning to see the rosiness of the Fifties.
I started college in 2002, one year before Hough. Sure, there were a lot of kids who were hooking up. There were also a lot of kids who weren’t. It was a choice we made for ourselves. It’s sad, really, when someone is so insecure about the choices she makes that she has to create a society around it and give interviews to pearl-clutching newspaper columnists.
Perhaps the reason for Hough’s disappointment is the fact that finding a husband at college is a laughable goal. Kersten claims that “Eighty-three percent of college women say that marriage is an important life goal for them and two-thirds would like to find a spouse at college, according to a survey done several years ago.” Several years ago, as in 1950? These data are meaningless. Here’s some real data: the average age for a man getting married in 2003 was 27.1 according the US Census. That explains why Hough had a hard time finding a man with his sights set on marriage while she was in college.
If you want to get married at age 20, that’s your choice to make. But college is not a place to find a mate. It’s a place to study and earn a degree. If what you really want out of college is an engagement ring, skip college altogether, create a Match.com profile, and give your spot at college to someone who wants to learn.
Katherine Kersten’s August 30, 2009 article, titled “A Counter to the Empty Lure of Promiscuity” is a complete joke. She and Cassy Hough, founder of the Elizabeth Ascombe Society both bemoan the so-called hook-up culture on college campuses. They both fail to see that they are incredibly out of touch and could both use a good chiropractor who could help with the strain on their necks that must come from craning to see the rosiness of the Fifties.
I started college in 2002, one year before Hough. Sure, there were a lot of kids who were hooking up. There were also a lot of kids who weren’t. It was a choice we made for ourselves. It’s sad, really, when someone is so insecure about the choices she makes that she has to create a society around it and give interviews to pearl-clutching newspaper columnists.
Perhaps the reason for Hough’s disappointment is the fact that finding a husband at college is a laughable goal. Kersten claims that “Eighty-three percent of college women say that marriage is an important life goal for them and two-thirds would like to find a spouse at college, according to a survey done several years ago.” Several years ago, as in 1950? These data are meaningless. Here’s some real data: the average age for a man getting married in 2003 was 27.1 according the US Census. That explains why Hough had a hard time finding a man with his sights set on marriage while she was in college.
If you want to get married at age 20, that’s your choice to make. But college is not a place to find a mate. It’s a place to study and earn a degree. If what you really want out of college is an engagement ring, skip college altogether, create a Match.com profile, and give your spot at college to someone who wants to learn.
Mistakes, Malaprops and Misspellings.
When I was growing up, I always defended the Star Tribune. I'd hear people say that the St. Paul Pioneer Press was better and I, being born and raised in Minneapolis, would counter that the Minneapolis Star Tribune was just as good.
Well, I can't say that any more, can I? Newspapers all over the country are failing as people turn to the internet and blogs for their news, so in keeping with the times, the Strib has been forced to downsize. Sadly, they seemed to have sacked anyone who ever did any proofreading, which leaves its pages riddled with ridiculous errors: one example I vividly recall was an article about the Supreme Court, in which there was a sentence that read "the Court has tickled many weighty issues..." The writer meant tackled, obviously, (well, I would hope so, anyway) and the paper went to press with this silly mistake, unnoticed by (perhaps nonexistant?) proofreaders. As amused as I am by the image of Justices Scalia and Thomas engaging in a tickle fight, I think that a newspaper that wants to maintain its credibility--not to mention readership--needs to hold itself to higher standards.
But, hey, if they did that, I wouldn't be able to make fun of them, right? Here is where I'll post my commentaries on the various mistakes, malaprops and misspellings that I find the in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Here's hoping the Strib never ceases to be a source of hilarious material.
Well, I can't say that any more, can I? Newspapers all over the country are failing as people turn to the internet and blogs for their news, so in keeping with the times, the Strib has been forced to downsize. Sadly, they seemed to have sacked anyone who ever did any proofreading, which leaves its pages riddled with ridiculous errors: one example I vividly recall was an article about the Supreme Court, in which there was a sentence that read "the Court has tickled many weighty issues..." The writer meant tackled, obviously, (well, I would hope so, anyway) and the paper went to press with this silly mistake, unnoticed by (perhaps nonexistant?) proofreaders. As amused as I am by the image of Justices Scalia and Thomas engaging in a tickle fight, I think that a newspaper that wants to maintain its credibility--not to mention readership--needs to hold itself to higher standards.
But, hey, if they did that, I wouldn't be able to make fun of them, right? Here is where I'll post my commentaries on the various mistakes, malaprops and misspellings that I find the in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Here's hoping the Strib never ceases to be a source of hilarious material.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)