The Southpaw

Huckabee’s Night

2007-11-29T20:20:00.000-05:00

If you want to see why Mike Huckabee is a credible bet to win the Republican Presidential nomination and possibly become the next president of the United States, watch last night’s Republican debate.

As I watched it early on it became clear he was winning and he never lost ground the entire debate. He is a very smooth, very calming, very charismatic speaker. He probably has the best “style” of anyone running, Republican or Democrat. Plenty of the candidates are good speakers, such as Giuliani, Edwards and Obama, to name a few, but none of them seem as impressive as Huckabee was last night. I read the reactions of a couple of Republican websites this morning and the consensus was, even among those who disliked his positions, that Hucakbee won the debate.

I also thought Huckabee’s answers to the question were very good, at least from what I imagine a middle-road Conservative viewpoint. However, it appears that many hard-line Conservatives don’t like Huckabee because of 1) his record on taxes and 2) his position on immigration. For number two, this issue was raised in last night’s debate and I thought Huckabee’s position was very reasonable, as Governor of Arkansas Huckabee voted for a program that allowed college scholarships to the children of illegal aliens if they were outstanding students (must have an A average or something), had no criminal convictions, were free of drugs and alcohol and were in the process of becoming legal citizens. His rationale was that he did not want to punish children for their parents’ crimes and that he wanted to work on a program that would encourage the legalization of educated immigrants. However, and admittedly I don’t know if there’s further cause for this claim, a lot of Republicans believe that demonstrates Huckabee is “soft on immigration.” He also gets hammered because although he voted to cut taxes over 90 times as Governor of Arkansas, he voted to raise taxes 21 times. Thus, he is a not fiscally conservative enough.

Many Conservatives seem to view him as not conservative enough for them, primarily because of these two issues. However, even those who dislike Hucakbee seem more and more comfortable, and confident, with the idea of a Hucakbee/Mike Steele ticket. Mike Steele, for those who may not remember, is the African-American former Lieutenant-General of Maryland, who lost a 2006 bid for a Senate seat. I’m not quite sure why he’s Hucakbee’s dream running mate, but I’ve seen this permeation mentioned a few times, so there must be some reasoning behind it.

Granted, Hucakbee could be the Howard Dean of 2008 (and Howard Dean became the Howard Dean of 2004 with significant help from CNN), but he’s looking more and more impressive to me. If you don’t believe me, watch some of last night’s debate and see for yourself.

England Miss Euro 2008

2007-11-21T20:49:00.000-05:00

England lost to Croatia this evening 3-2 in a very exciting soccer game and will now miss the European Championships for the first time since 1984. This sucks. I cheer for England right behind Canada in most things and in soccer, unlike Canada, they actually have a chance to do something at major competitions. This especially sucks as it would have been a lot of fun to be in England during the Euro Championships and to have seen the atmosphere.

Now, if you want analysis on the match or team, there is no shortage of places to find it online. The short of it is that McClaren will be fired and, in short, England badly missed Terry, Rooney and Owen; they had no formulated plan as a team; Lampard and Gerrard just cannot play together and they sorely lack a world-class goalkeeper (Carson has potential, but he’s not an international starter right now).

What you’re not going to read a lot of online (or at least I’m hardly hearing any of in the post-match reports and analysis) is credit to Croatia, which they absolutely deserve. Croatia’s in my list of second favourite soccer teams and has been since the days of Davor Suker. They’re right there behind Nigeria, who is my all-time #2 favourite (behind #1a Canada and #1b England), along with a couple of other nations. And, after watching them play today, I’m cheering for them at Euro. They’re a very good team, with excellent ball control, a very dangerous offence and they’re not weak defensively either. It takes a very good team to go into Wembley and score 3 goals against England. It takes a very motivated team to go into Wembley in an absolutely meaningless game and score 3 goals against England. I have to give Croatia a lot of credit for taking the game seriously and playing like it was a regular competition, especially when it was tied 2-2 in the last 20 minutes. Croatia is a very good team and they deserve a ton of credit for beating England tonight, no matter how uninspired England was.

And with that I’ll leave the last word to Croatia’s coach:

"I read in your papers that no Croatian player would start on your team," Croatia coach Slaven Bilic said to the English reporters. "I mean, seriously, wake up."

Debate Time Clock

2007-11-18T12:16:00.000-05:00

Here's a handy tool from Chris Dodd's website that keeps track of how much time each candidate had to speak at Thursday's Democratic debate.

Notice how the most awesome candidate got just over five and a half minutes, while Obama got over 18 and Hillary got just under 16. Richardson got more than you'd expect, but I suspect that was because this debate was in Nevada, which is next to his home state. I doubt he does that well usually. Edwards got a bit less time than I expected, but I would suspect he's usually at #3, just a bit behind Obama and Clinton.

If you didn't watch the debate, I'll let you know that Kucinich did pretty well in the time he was given and had perhaps the line of the debate when Wolf asked him about the Patriot Act and mentioned that he was the only candidate who voted against it and Kucinich replied, "That's because I read it." Biden did the best of any candidate, but he's also not a contender at this point.

Also, I’ll briefly mention how CNN’s post-debate master narrative seemed to have been decided before the debate (even if their general impression – which is that HRC righted herself as the comfortable frontrunner – may not be incorrect) due to the composition of their post-debate panel and their minimization of any second-tier candidates; their gauging audience reactions as valid representations of national feeling when over 50% of Nevadan Dems support Clinton and their refusal to tackle the couple of issues Hillary was weak on.

Gay News Update

2007-11-10T18:51:00.000-05:00

First, here’s a story that managed to slip under the radar, relatively speaking. Cambodia’s Prime Minister has disowned his daughter for being gay.

Cambodia's prime minister said Tuesday he was severing ties with his adopted daughter, who is a lesbian, but appealed to people not to discriminate against gay people.

"My adopted daughter now has a wife. I'm quite disappointed," Hun Sen said.

Sen disowned his daughter, the only one of his six children who is not his biological offspring because of her homosexuality. He has filed a civil suit to stop her from claiming any part of his inheritance and she has been completely removed from his life. However, Sen, in the speech in which her announced that his daughter was no longer a member of his people, also appealed to Cambodians and other parents of gays specifically not to discriminate against homosexuals.

Priceless. That’s quite the example to set. Please don’t discriminate against your gay children, but I’m just going sever ties emotionally and financially with my gay child.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands has promised to pressure developing countries to legalize homosexuality, as in half of the 36 countries it gives regular aid to homosexuality is illegal with punishments ranging from prison sentences to death.

A government survey showed homosexuality is illegal in 18 out of the 36 countries the Netherlands gives regular aid to, Development Minister Bert Koenders said in a statement, with punishment ranging from prison sentences to the death penalty.

"The Netherlands will promote as much equal treatment of homosexuals as possible. We will not avoid awkward discussions about this," he said in a letter to parliament.

Koenders has asked Dutch ambassadors in developing countries to push for gay rights unless local human rights organizations object on grounds it would be counter-productive.

Meanwhile, a fuss is developing in North Carolina, where Senate candidate Jim Neal, who was expected to run unopposed for the Democratic candidacy has suddenly found himself with two candidates running against him, less than two weeks after he revealed he’s gay.

As the Raleigh-Durham Independent Weekly reports:

However, the way the Democratic Party establishment has dissed the 51-year-old Chapel Hill investment banker's candidacy since he announced his intentions to run four weeks ago has made him into a cause for many progressives and gay-rights activists.

…

Spaulding points specifically to the national Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and its chair, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who for unknown reasons wouldn't return Neal's phone calls.

"The cause," Neal said, "is that I'm not Washington's choice. I'm not Chuck Schumer's choice."

Neal, in the past a top fundraiser for Democrats like John Kerry, had expected to support Congressman Brad Miller of Raleigh for the seat now held by Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole. But when Miller bowed out of the race in July, and no other Democrat stepped forward, Neal decided he would. Within a few days of Neal's announcement, two other prospects courted by Schumer, state Sen. Kay Hagan of Greensboro and state Rep. Grier Martin of Raleigh, declined the race as well, seemingly leaving it to Neal.

But then, answering a question, Neal revealed that, "yes, indeed," he is gay. Two weeks later, Hagan said she'd changed her mind and would run for Dole's seat. Many top Democrats had urged her to reconsider, Hagan said, including ex-Gov. Jim Hunt, who was working closely with Schumer.

Hagan is not the only one who has come out of the woodwork to challenge Neal. Now, I’m not opposed to a primary in the Senate race. In fact, it’s a good thing for democracy and it’s also beneficial to force the candidates to debate the issues with each other and hopefully, the best candidate to unseat Elizabeth Dole, who is a weak Senator and is vulnerable, will emerge.

The fact there will be a primary isn’t the problem. The fact that after Neal, who was running unopposed, revealed his homosexuality he was apparently blackballed by Schumer and found himself with competitors is a problem. Neal is a new candidate, never having run for elected office before, but he has an impressive resume, as he’s an articulate investment banker with a long-standing commitment to the Democratic Party and has been a top fundraiser for them before. He has been out of the closet for nearly two decades and has an ex-wife and two children, 22 and 20.

The fact Hagan suddenly “reevaluated” her priorities within two weeks of Neal confirming to voters that yes, he was gay as some of them may have heard, seems suspicious. Dole’s seat is one that is winnable for the party and it’s very possible that concerns over whether a gay man could win in North Carolina factored into the DSCC putting pressure on Hagan, a previously-elected official, to run against Neal. That’s the way it seems to me, as something doesn’t smell right in North Carolina. If the DSCC, Schumer and any other party officials pressured Hagan and other candidates to run against Neal solely because he is gay, shame on them. You can’t be the party that favours gay rights and courts the gay vote if you put up roadblocks in front of gays trying to run for office.

Also, a recent study by sociologist Eric Anderson has been creating some interesting headlines, such as this one, “UK Researcher: One Third of US High School Football Players Have Had Sex With Men.”

It’s nowhere near that simplistic, but the findings are still interesting. Anderson interviewed 47 high school football players who went on to be college cheerleaders after failing to make their university football teams. Nineteen admitted to having same-sex contact, that ranged from kissing to oral sex to sexual intercourse and included instances of male-male-women threesomes and male-male sex.

Dr. Anderson claimed that his study shows a declining stigma surrounding homosexuality, leading to greater honesty from the men he polled.

Wrote Anderson in the study, which is titled Being Masculine Is Not About Whom You Sleep With: Heterosexual Athletes Contesting Masculinity and the One-Time Rule of Homosexuality, "The evidence supports my assertion that homophobia is on the rapid decline among male team sport athletes in North America at all levels of play."

Anderson, who now teaches at the University of Bath, is notably for being the first openly gay high school athletics coach in the United States. He argues that men no longer fear that they will lose their heterosexual identity if they engaged in sexual encounters with men once or on a few occasions. He basically argues the one-drop rule no longer applies. In many people’s mind, if a male has sex with a man once then he’s gay. One same-sex encounter could mark you as a closeted fag for years, even if you had a stable heterosexual relationship. However, Anderson argues sporadic same-sex encounters are beginning to be seen the same way many cultures view prison sex, in that it “doesn’t count” in one’s societally-constructed sexual identity.

This standard of behaviour applied far less stringently to women, who could flirt with other women, kiss them and even engage in female-female sex without losing their heterosexual identity. If you were 25 and met a female who said she fooled around with a few girls at college you’d likely dismiss it as college experimentation. If you met a man who had fooled around with men you’d be a lot more prone to thinking he’s a messed-up closet case (and to be fair there are probably quite a few men who are messed-up closet cases).

While I don’t think the same standard applies yet to both sexes, I do agree with Anderson in that we are likely seeing some shift in behaviour that has made same-sex encounters more acceptable for men. It is still taboo in many crowds and I don’t doubt that within every group there are still likely to be a number of guys who would recoil if somebody admitted a same-sex incident. But there are likely a number who would not automatically mark the person as a guy and that’s progress.

Lastly, some great gay humour from The Onion.

Why I Love Keith Olbermann

2007-11-08T20:01:00.000-05:00

This commentary on waterboarding, introducing me to the case of Daniel Levin, is a perfect example of why I love Keith Olbermann.

And he’s a member of SABR, as well.

(P.S. I do think Olbermann’s slightly too dismissive of the possibility of torture yielding accurate information, but he’s entirely right in that there is no guarantee that it will and torture instead will very likely yield whatever “information” the prisoner believes his interrogators want to hear.

The further problem with torture is it that not only is it morally reprehensible, but it’s impossible to have a true ticking bomb scenario in real life. I could see a strong argument for the necessity of torture in that instance, but there is never going to be an incident where you have a prisoner who can reveal time-sensitive information that will save thousands or millions or lives and which can’t be gathered by any other method and which you know will be entirely accurate when he reveals it.

All of those criteria would likely have to be met for me to consider agreeing that torture might be ethical, and I probably would agree it would be in that specific scenario, but it will never happen. Olbermann is perhaps slightly over the top in his attacks on Bush, but not by much at all.)

Conspiracy Theorist Idiots and David Cronenberg’s New Gem

2007-11-06T09:18:00.000-05:00

I’ve decided to stop talking about the speeches I keep going to (well, actually the pace has slowed down since the slight novelty wore off) because I’m either boring my readers or making them jealous, neither of which is my intent. However, I’ll just close by mentioning that I saw Richard Dearlove, who was the Head of MI6 from 1999-2004 speak at LSE last Wednesday.

Now, I’m no fan of everything that secret service agencies do and I highly doubt that everything they do is above ground. For example, Sir Dearlove refused to answer a question about whether MI6 planted fake news stories at times, which is exactly how I expected him to answer that person’s question, but that attitude leads you to conclude that the agency is, at least occasionally, not above bending rules and norms for the pursuit of certain goals. At times perhaps the ends justify the means, but I’m not a fan of giving sweeping powers to these agencies.

Regardless, the question and answer session for the speech was an embarrassment. The audience was filled with a number of people who were, in essence, 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They kept quiet during his speech on the relationship between the media and MI6, but as soon as the Q&A session opened up, they began to monopolize the questions. You knew things were bad when two of the first three questions were about the “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” campaign and about rogue Mossad agents in Pennsylvania. Things went downhill from there as the protesters soon resorted to heckling Sir Dearlove and there were at least another 5 or so similar questions, which don’t count more “legitimate” questions, such as the planting of fake news stories or his refusal to comment on active operations.

I have a bit of conspiracy blood in me. I don’t know if I believe there was a “conspiracy” to cover up events in the case of the Robert F. Kennedy shooting, but I also don’t believe the accepted version of events, either. I believe there was a second gun present and that the investigation has never properly been solved, although I don’t go so far as to believe there was Cuban involvement or anything. Nevertheless, I don’t have the fucking time of day for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I don’t have anything else to say other than the idea that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush White House is ludicrous. Others implied the 7/7 Bombers were MI6 agents, another theory that is nothing but an insult to common sense. To have this speech interrupted by this fringe element and the subsequent refusal to remove the conspiracy theorists, especially once they began verbally heckling Sir Dearlove’s replies to other questions, was embarrassing. I later read in the student paper that he stormed out of the reception afterwards after being continuously harassed by extremists there. I don’t blame him at all.

On the weekend I saw Eastern Promises, which is a film I highly recommend. I’m not quite sure how I’d compare it to A History of Violence, but it has several good performances, including fantastic ones by Vincent Cassel and especially Viggo Mortensen. Mortensen should get an Oscar nomination in my books. The film is about a midwife, played by Naomi Watts, who tries to find the family of a dead prostitute who died during childbirth in her ward and who finds herself mixed up in the Russian mob. Watts is good in her role, but her performance gets lost next to those of the Russian mobsters. Cronenberg’s a great director and he makes the film get under your skin as you watch not the mob as an entity, but rather the individuals who operate within it, with both their cruelty and kindness and several other internal contradictions. The much-talked about knife fight scene lives up to its hype and the film stays with you after you watch it.

After the film I went to read a couple of reviews and Ebert’s and AO Scott of the New York Times were two that I really agreed with. Perhaps foolishly I decided to browse the comments section of the New York Times review, where I had to wade through 1-star reviews that said it was disgusting to watch “Viggo have sex with a minor” and that complained about the gratuitous violence and the clichéd nature of the film. Those comments if nothing else, reminded me of how hard it is to find an intelligent discussion forum on the internet as, sooner or later, almost everything gets overrun with idiots. Luckily, there’s a few baseball sites which are still very good forums and where you can not only debate the Edgar Renteria trade and the free agency prospects of Alex Rodriguez, but also rank the Saturday Night Live Weekend Update anchors (if your list doesn’t begin with Norm MacDonald and Dennis Miller it’s wrong).

709

2007-11-05T15:29:00.000-05:00

I am not unique. This is bullshit.

Pigs and Bums

2007-11-01T09:19:00.000-05:00

I submit two interesting and potentially amusing anecdotes for your pleasure.

1) A couple of nights ago in one of the dorm rooms two of my floormates, both American and drunk, and I were having a conversation. One of them had a pack of Wine Gums that he had bought and at one point started complaining how English Wine Gums aren’t as good as Gummy Bears or Gummy Worms or any similarly gummy-flavoured American candy. That led to a comparison of English vs. American candy and a discussion of our favourite candies.

So, naturally, I mentioned one of my all-time favourites, the Martingrove staple, Juiced-Up Power Pigs. Which, of course, no had ever heard of. I tried to explain it to them and they had no idea what I was talking about. Another lost cause I assumed, and went on my way.

The very next day I was shopping in Marks & Spencer’s and I went to the checkout line with some juice. I’ve shopped in this store before, but this was the longest queue I’ve had to wait in. As I was shuffling along past the shelf full of candies and other impulse-buy items, I saw some candies in plastic packaging. As I passed Licorice All-Sorts, various Gummy treats and some mints, what should I see?

Percy Pigs.

Which upon closer examination, are EXACTLY the same as Juiced-Up Power Pigs down the reddish ears that offset the rest of the pig’s pink head. I didn’t have enough cash to purchase both the Pigs and the juice and I didn’t want to put the Pigs on credit card, so I had to wait to buy them. I had a seminar presentation today, so I wasn’t able to get back to the store since, but Wednesday afternoon I returned to Marks and Spencer’s, purchased the pigs and tasted what will hopefully be the first of many, Juiced-Up Power Pigs.

It was delicious.

2) So, I was walking home on Sunday night and I took a cut down a side street. As I was walking along the street, a homeless dude approached me. Well, he might not have been a bum as he didn’t appear obviously homeless and he fed me a yarn about his car, but I’m going to assume he was a homeless person of some kind. So, anyway he asked for 1.80 pounds, as his car had been clamped and he needed a bus to get home to get to his other car, yada yada yada.

I decided I’d give him some money, but I didn’t want to give him two pounds, so I gave him the only other change I had, which was my fifty pence piece. He was quasi-grateful and I continued on my way.

Suddenly, I heard him calling after me. I turned around and he was gesturing towards me. I wasn’t quite sure what to do, but I tend to be trusting of those I meet randomly on the street, so I turned around and went back to him. He held out his hand and said, “Look. These are the old 50p pieces. They don’t accept them anymore.” I asked him if he was sure about this and he said he was and gave the coin back to me and walked away.

So there you go, a bum rejected my attempt to give him money. I haven’t been that humiliated since I brought a picnic basket and blanket to Covent Garden.

P.S. I didn’t actually do that, but I ran into someone who thought the area was a literal garden and I thought it was worth sharing.

3) Does anyone know where I can find torrents for this season’s original Law & Order and not SVU or CI? As much as I enjoy Chris Merloni and Mariska Hargitay (and Richard Belzer, Ice-T and BD Wong), I need some Sam Waterston and pure, classic, Law & Order cases.

Stupid Music

2007-10-27T13:14:00.000-05:00

Today my friend got a text that Wilco had cancelled their upcoming show in London on November 5, which we had bought tickets to. We’ll get a refund, but it’s still shitty news. Sky Blue Sky was my least favourite Wilco album since A.M. (opinion subject to change after relistening to those two, but I am sure it wasn’t as good as anything between Being There and A Ghost Is Born). Now, the show was expensive, but I had already come to grips with the cost because it was a general admission show and I have only seen Wilco in a non-seated venue once and that was back in 2003. I was getting ready to rock it up close, although it would have been hard to top my third-row standing spot from that magical night in 2003. Anyhow, since I had already counted the funds as spent, it’s a huge disappointment to see the show cancelled.

Also, I’ve already referenced London’s great music scene, but the problem is everybody else knows about the great scene, too. Bands that already have performed or that are performing that I’ve not been able to see because they sold out include The Decemberists, Arcade Fire (3 shows), Okkervil River (2 shows) and the Delays. Which all sucks.

Finally, Genarlow Wilson Freed

2007-10-26T20:14:00.000-05:00

Finally, the Georgia Supreme Court has corrected a grave miscarriage of justice and freed Genarlow Wilson. Wilson spent two years in jail and was sentenced to ten for having consensual oral sex with a fifteen-year-old girl when he was 17. Wilson, an honour student and football standout, was sentenced to ten years in jail despite the fact the girl repeatedly insisted the oral sex was consensual, because she was below the legal age of consent. In a bizarre pecularity, if Wilson and the girl had engaged in sexual intercourse, it would have been treated as a misdemeanor and not a felony, but oral sex was left out of the statute. Instead, Wilson was sentenced under a felony law after he refused a plea bargain offer that would have sentenced him to five years in jail with the possibility of parole, because Wilson believed he was right and because a plea bargain would have required him to register as a sex offender and would have prohibited him from living at home again, as he had an eight-year-old sister.

The Georgia Legislature changed the law after publicity began to generate around Wilson's case, but they refused to apply it retroactively and specified that fact in the bill. Finally, Georgia has corrected this miscarriage of justice and hopefully Wilson will be able to resume a relatively normal life. There have been several good summaries of the case in the media, but here are two brief NY Times editorials on the case, both demanding Wilson's freedom. Here is the Times on the Georgia Supreme Court freeing Wilson.

Update of London Activities

2007-10-26T18:36:00.000-05:00

The past few days have seen me attend another couple of speeches. Last Wednesday I attended a talk by Tarja Halonen, President of Finland since 2000, on the welfare state during globalization. The talk wasn’t particularly interesting, but I didn’t have high hopes. Talks by extremely high-ranking government officials are, more often than not I think, filled with generalities and platitudes, simply because what he or she says is vetted by so many people. I hoped this may be an exception, but it wasn’t. However, that wasn’t really why I went. I went so I could say I’ve seen Halonen talk and say that I’ve seen an active head of state give a lecture, which is both true. I’ve seen former Canadian PMs give speeches, but I believe this is the first world leader I’ve ever seen in person and yes, she does look a bit like Conan O’Brian.

The next day Paul Collier, an economist at Oxford was giving a speech on development and although I originally intended to go, I wavered on the issue because I was tired and he wasn’t a “name” like Halonen. However, then I looked up the reviews his book The Bottom Billion got on Amazon and decided to go. It was well worth it and content-wise was the best public lecture I’ve been to while at LSE. Collier’s an alright speaker – he’s nothing special, but he won’t put you to sleep either. The content on the other hand was very interesting, as Collier argues that development efforts have had a very beneficial effect on about three-quarters of the world’s population, but has left the bottom billion even worse off than they were thirty years ago. Collier gave us a preview of his book as he rushed through some of the reasons why this is the case and what some of his policy prescriptions to solve this problem are. It was very interesting stuff and I saw one of my professors leave the talk with a copy of his book under his arm, obviously bought at the little stand set outside the lecture theatre. The book is something I’ve put on my “to read” list, but I may hope it comes out in paperback and saves me buying the hardcover.

On Saturday I watched the Rugby World Cup final at a local bar. It was a pretty cool experience, even if England played rather poorly and there wasn’t a try scored the entire match. Well, actually England scored a try, but the referee didn’t allow it based on video review. I don’t know what angle they had in the review booth, because from every angle shown on TV it looked like the player touched the ball down over the line before his foot went out of bounds. Nevertheless, that was the only time England looked close to scoring a try and South Africa deserved to win the match. One thing I don’t understand is why England rugby has adopted “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” as it’s unofficial theme song. The patrons in the bar burst spontaneously into song at several points throughout the match and I was assured this was happening wherever people were watching the game. I’m not sure why English rugby is associated with a slave song with the message that no matter how badly things go on Earth, we can always look forward to Heaven. Weird.

On Sunday I did something that I and only I would do (of the people you know). Sunday was Game 7 of the ALCS (i.e. the deciding game in the semi-finals of the baseball playoffs), so I was determined to watch it. Luckily, a couple of guys on my floor are Americans and are baseball fans and we gathered in one room to watch it on a laptop at 1 AM. By 2 AM, one of the other guys had left for bed and the guy whose room it was clearly wanted to go to sleep, so I took my cue and left. Rather than return to my own room with my sporadic internet connection, I went to our computer lab in the basement with its 20th century computers and proceeded to watch the game until 4:30 in the morning online, in the dingy basement, by myself. It was well worth it, even if the dreaded Red Sox won. The game was exciting up through the seventh inning when Joel Skinner made the biggest blunder by a basecoach I think I have ever seen in my life. His decision was so bad that the runner stopped, looked back at the play and immediately did a double-take towards the coach, incredulous at the decision. I’ve never seen a runner look back towards the coach so immediately and with such disbelief on his face before. The Indians lost the game badly and likely would have lost anyway, but if Cleveland had scored a run or more there (or if the umpire hadn’t missed a call in the fifth inning that cost Cleveland at least one run) the complexion of the game would have been changed.

Commuting Sucks

2007-10-24T17:18:00.000-05:00

Here’s an interesting article from The New Yorker on the rise of commuter culture. It’s mostly filled with human interest stories, but what’s fascinating is the lengths some people with go to commute to what seem to be fairly average jobs. I can understand a lengthy commute for a dream job or one with great advancement opportunities, but to commute six and a half hours a day for a job as a legal secretary when you’re in your 50’s is something I can’t fathom.

Americans have an average daily commute of fifty-one minutes, which isn’t that bad. However, one in six Americans commutes more than an hour and a half per day and there are 3.5 million “extreme commuters,” who travel more than ninety minutes a day, a number which has doubled since 1990. As I said, this would obviously change with a dream employment opportunity, but I couldn’t imagine commuting more than an hour per day regularly. I could put up with that commute (or not make it at all) for a shorter work week, but to do that every day seems like a waste. I guess the problem is that people are given employment opportunities which may not be their dream jobs, but seem so superior to other options that they’d rather be safe and take (or stay with) the job than try to find a relatively similar opportunity closer to home.

The article suggests that this may not necessarily be the right choice, as two Swiss economists at the University of Zurich have concluded that you’d need to make 40% in salary and perks in order to be as happy with a one hour daily commute as a worker with a minimal or no commute.

Anyhow, with the knowledge than an extreme commute may await me in the future, I better make the most of my ten-to-fifteen minute walk to campus. I live in a shittier residence, but it’s one of the three residences that are within a fifteen minute walk of campus. I haven’t been inside all of the other residences, but I’m pretty sure I’m happier here than I would be with a somewhat larger room and kitchen and a thirty minute walk during the cold English winters.

It’s pretty irrelevant anyway, as I’m holding out hope for the instantaneous teleporter to be invented in the next decade. Or a transmogrifier, just because that’d be pretty awesome.

The Life and Death of Rod Beck

2007-10-16T16:25:00.000-05:00

Here’s a rare article from ESPN.com worth reading, on former relief pitcher Rod Beck, who died earlier this year of a drug overdose at 38. Beck was a beloved relief pitcher, mainly for the San Francisco Giants, who was in the early 90’s for his wild image, which he cultivated with a long mullet and Fu Manchu moustache. Beck was nearly universally loved by fans, teammates and opponents and was always touted as one of the good guys in the sport. For example, he was actively involved in an AIDS charity in the early 1990’s, which was the era when the disease was still, at least in the public’s eyes, solely a disease that affected gay men.

In a development that perhaps personified Beck, while playing in the minor leagues in 2003 for the Iowa Cubs, Beck lived out of a trailer that he parked right beside the ballpark. After ballgames he would go back to his trailer and there was an open invitation for fans to come by and drink beers with him into the evening. Nobody was refused and Beck genuinely interacted with the fans on a day-to-day basis, which is almost unheard of in professional sports, especially by a 3-time All-Star. Here's an article, also by ESPN.com, on Beck's life in the minors, written in 2003. It's another good read and, if nothing else, at least you can take a very small amount of comfort in the fact Beck enjoyed himself so much at the time. In a time when professional athletes are very removed from any real interaction with the public, Beck was a shining exception and, if the articles have any basis in truth, one of the most genuine guys in professional sport.

Unfortunately, Beck also developed a drug habit, which cost him his family and his life. Despite two interventions by his family and close friends and visits from ex-teammates, Beck couldn’t shake his cocaine habit. His wife, still in love with him, left him and he became a shadow of the devoted father he had previously been to his two daughters. The story of Beck’s life and death is one of the best human interest stories I’ve read in a while, particularly from a mainstream sports media site often devoted to reducing everything to 30-second highlight packages.

Two Weeks in London, Pt. II

2007-10-16T09:08:00.000-05:00

It has been a few days since I updated you about my first few days in London, so now I’ll finish with what’s happened over the second half of those two weeks, which have actually become three weeks because of internet issues and my own laziness. After recounting the first few days in extreme detail, I’ll now just hit upon the interesting events and spare you all the narrative of days where I woke up late and did next to nothing.

Saturday (Sept 29): I went to the British Museum with Katharine. What’s great about the British Museum, and I believe British museums in general, is that entry is free. So there is no pressure to see every exhibit in the one day and it allows you to see the Museum at a good pace. We spent maybe two and a half hours at the British Museum and saw perhaps two wings of the first floor and part of an exhibit on the second floor. The Museum has a great collection and we only saw an exhibit on cultural representations of life and death and most of their stuff from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. There’s some fantastic stuff there, but we didn’t even touch anything else from Africa or anything from Asia or old Europe. We did manage to see the Rosetta Stone, but the temporary exhibit on the Terracotta Warriors is sold out for the next six weeks or so, so we’ll have to return at some point later and pay the exhibit fee to see them. They’re at the Museum until the spring, so I have lots of time to find a convenient date. I’m sure I’ll be back to the Museum at least a couple more times while I’m here.

Tuesday (Oct 2): This was the welcome day at the LSE. Yes, it’s THE LSE and not just LSE. I think Howard Davies will send a team after you if you leave the “the” out. Anyway, this was a pretty routine hour and a half introduction to grad school at the LSE. We were told repeatedly to be proud of our accomplishments; about how international the school is; about the strong reputation of the school both academically and in an extra-curricular sense; about how we should make the most of our time at the LSE, in London and in Europe by joining teams, societies, going places, traveling, etc; and also, that we would have a formidable workload and would have to spend a great deal of time on our studies. With those somewhat contradictory messages we were sent on our way.

In the evening I returned to campus to watch Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, debate a geography professor from the LSE over global warming. Lomborg gained a cult following after the publication of his first book, in which he argues that global warming is real, but vastly overhyped; that market solutions are possible for many of the problems and that other problems are much more important. I’ve not read the book and his argument is obviously far more nuanced, but he’s basically very skeptical of much of the “common wisdom” of the environmentalist movement. He’s become so famous he was quoted as one of two detractors of Al Gore in many major media releases following Gore being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and he is very controversial, as many in the hardcore environmental movement despise him.

Speaking of Gore, it was interesting to watch the right-wing go apeshit over the fact he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Some people speak of Bush Derangement Syndrome, where leftists will blame every and all evil on President Bush and I think we'll see a similar reaction from the right should Hillary Clinton win the Presidency, but there's a good case to be made that a section of the far right has a case of Gore Derangement Syndrome. The Wall Street Journal, devoted an editorial to a list of people who deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more and refused to even mention Gore's name, while The National Review Online suggested Gore share the prize with Osama bin Laden, who "has implicitly endorsed Gore's stance." But don't forget, when one anonymous poster out of hundreds uploads a random video to MoveOn.org comparing Bush to Hitler, it's the subject of week-long debate in the mainstream media.

Lomborg “won” the debate over Dr. Simon Dietz, but he was also given about double the amount of time to speak since he was obviously the main attraction. He wasn’t incredibly convincing and much of his talk covered the bare essentials of his argument that I’m somewhat already familiar with, but it was still interesting to listen to. Dr. Dietz attacked Lomborg on two fronts, as he accused him of manipulating data, which seems to be a common criticism of Lomborg, and also argued the worst-case scenarios of environmental disaster are so severe that we can’t afford to play Lomborg’s game of looking at the average effects according to various modeling scenarios. He wasn’t a great speaker and given only half the time of Lomborg, he wasn’t able to construct more than a bare-bones argument against Lomborg’s case.

The Q&A session was far more interesting, as all but one of the six questioners were critical of Lomborg. He was accused on misrepresenting data on polar bears to downplay the effects of environmental degradation on animal extinction. Another questioner asked him a very technical question about the modeling scenarios he used, to which he basically had to respond that he didn’t know. He was asked another question about data and modeling, which I don’t really remember, to which Lomborg mentioned two scientists whose methods he had quoted, to which the questioner shouted, “How do you respond to the fact that both scientists have disavowed your work?” The Q&A session demonstrated to sort of anger people have towards Lomborg and the message he conveys. I don’t know enough about the topic to really comment on it, but that lecture reinforced the general impression I have of Lomborg, which is that I agree with some, but not all, of what he’s saying and that he seems to have some factual problems with his argument, which has made it very easy for the anti-Lomborg crowd to paint him as a sloppy or even disingenuous intellectual.

Thursday (Oct 4): A ton of great bands come to London, obviously. If any band does Europe, they’ll do a show in London. If any band does England, they’ll do a show or two in London. Unfortunately, there are so many people in London that a bunch of them are bound to have good taste in music. The Decemberists played London on October 2nd and it was sold out. The Arcade Fire play three gigs in London in November and they are all sold out. And so on.

However, one band that London hasn’t caught onto yet is the New Pornographers, so I was able to go to see them live at Koko on that Thursday night. One interesting thing about London concerts, or at least it was true with this concert, was that they’ll place a schedule on the front door to let ticket-holders know exactly when each band will take the stage. Anyhow, a guy from my floor and I went and we arrived early, to be sure we would be able to buy tickets at the door. We stood through two mediocre openers – one was a guy with a guitar playing slowcore, for which I definitely wasn’t in the mood, and the other was a non-descript rock band that was okay to listen to for half an hour but immediately forgettable – before the New Pornographers took the stage.

Playing without Neko Case, as per usual when touring, and with Dan Bejar’s songs taking a backseat, it was very much the AC Newman show. Karhryn Calder, who assumed a more prominent part on Challengers than she had on any previous New Pornographers record sung Neko’s parts as usual, and although you can’t tell she’s not Neko, she sounds similar. If I had closed my eyes when listening to “Challengers”, I doubt I would have been able to tell the difference.

Anyhow, the New Pornographers played a great set. Although Challengers has really grown on me as an album, it is missing the bouncy energy or some of their earlier releases and contains a few of their more forgettable tunes. When touring in support of a new album some bands will play that album in its entirety and will mix in maybe four of their well-known songs and call it a day. Not the New Pornographers. They played seven songs from Challengers, six of their best tracks of Twin Cinema, as well as three each of Mass Romantic and Electric Version. There was not a single throwaway track the entire night. They played as many of their old hits as they could, from “My Slow Descent into Alcoholism” to “Testament to Youth in Verse” to “Sing Me Spanish Techno.” I have no idea if this is typical of the New Pornographers, but if I had been in charge I probably would have made one or two substitutions on the tracks from “Challengers” and otherwise left it exactly as it was. Overall, a very good show.

Friday (Oct 5): I did the tourist thing at Trafalgar Square and Picadilly Circus. Not too much to report other than I walked around them, took a bunch of pictures, soaked in the environment and appreciate a day without rain. I then returned via Charing Cross Road, which has a ton of bookstores, both new and used, along the street. I spent a while browsing them and intend to return, but the fact I was able to restrain myself from making any purchases was a good thing considering next weekend. I also walked around Leicester Square, which is one of the happening places for teens and young adults in London. There are four or five theatres in the square, along with several nice restaurants, a couple of clubs and what looks to be a casino. I'm not sure why, but similar stores in London seemed to be grouped together. There's a ton of bookstores on Charing Cross Rd., lots of theatres throughout Leicester Square; most of the cell phone stores are located on the same block on Oxford Street and so on. It makes it handy to compare prices, if you know what you're looking for.

Monday (Oct 8): Classes started this week, which I'm sure caused all of you suffering through the Canadian school year to exclaim "Finally." During the first week of classes students are encouraged to shop around and attend lectures for as many courses as they like. Seminars don't being until week 2 or 3 and few classes are capped, so while the system seems to lead to some headaches for some administrators and professors, it's quite handy from the student's point-of-view. I have one mandatory course and two electives, along with my Master's paper, and I attended about six or seven different lectures this week, before settling on my two courses, The mandatory course is an international political theory course, which promises to be loads of fun.

Tuesday (Oct 9): Today I saw Lord David Owen give a speech about hubris in world leaders, with particular reference to Tony Blair and George Bush. Lord Owen was the British Foreign Secretary from 1977 to 1979, the founder of the Social Democrat Party in England and he played a large role in the peace negotiations during the Bosnian War (he is the Owen of the Vance-Owen peace plans). I'd have preferred to hear him talk about the former Yugoslavia, but you can't win them all.

Thursday (Oct 11): Another day, another talk. As there's no homework right now - correction, no homework I'm choosing to do - I figure there's no better way to spend my time than listening to intellectuals give mildly interesting talks. Today it was Paul Kennedy, professor of history at Yale University and a visiting scholar at the LSE, talking about UN reform. Kennedy recently wrote The Parliament of Man, but is probably best known for his seminal work, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. Kennedy is a historian, so he took a historian's approach to the topic and spoke about why the UN is structured the way it is and why that in itself makes change, particularly to the structure of the Security Council, nearly impossible. Given that Kennedy has done consulting work for the UN I was hoping he might tackle various reform plans that have been put forward, but he basically said that any reform is going to be nearly impossible. As is sometimes the case with these talks, the anecdotes, which often surface during answers to audience questions, were some of the most interesting points of the speech. Particularly humourous was Kennedy's tale of being trailed through Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Virginia by the Pakistani and Mexican Ambassadors to the UN.

Saturday (Oct 13): Today Mike Coe (Ryan’s housemate in Kingston and a good friend of mine at Queen’s) came to visit from Cambridge. He only came for the day as he had to get back to Cambridge for some rowing on Sunday morning, but we spent basically the whole day walking around London and catching up. We just went around a lot of the touristy sites, but it was more about just experiencing London and catching up than doing anything in particular. It was quite a good day and he’s already got some great stories from Cambridge. I hope to get the chance to visit him up there before too long.

Sunday (Oct 14): Today I went to a used book fair that was held in a hotel about twenty minutes up the road. It was actually quite a good fair, with a lot of stores that carried specialty books, out-of-print books and first editions. There were about forty vendors there, at least, all with stands of dozens of books and brochures about their actual stores. The crowd was fairly old; I was easily one of the youngest people browsing the books and I wouldn’t be surprised if, for the good hour I spent there, I was the youngest person in the room. Several of the vendors were in their mid-twenties, but about three-quarters of the customers, not surprisingly, must have been over fifty.

There were countless interesting books there. There were tons of first editions of everything from Winnie the Pooh to Ernest Hemingway to Dashiell Hammett. Many of the books were distinctly British, but you could tell there were some really hard-to-find items and I heard two different customers talking to vendors and saying, “Well, I need to go to a cash machine, but I’ll be back.” There was also a lot of autographed books for sale, including a signed first edition of P.D. James’s Children of Men (which I mention, because I considered buying it). Also, never before have I seen so many leather-bound books for sale. About a quarter of the stands must have stocked predominantly leather-bound books from thirty or forty years ago. I didn’t have that much cash on hand when I went, but I did manage to spend it all, buying an Ian McEwan, Ray Bradbury’s Farenheit 451, two other fiction books, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and Brian Urquhart’s biography on Dag Hammarskjold. Except for the Urquhart, which is a hardcover and harder to find, I got the other 5 books for just over 6 pounds, which made it a fine day. I was even able to tolerate the fact that my internet has continued to suck for the last two weeks, with no signs of getting better.

Two Weeks in London, Part I

2007-10-10T16:51:00.000-05:00

I did originally write this last Friday, but one of the downsides of my move to London has been that I’ve had to deal with a rather sporadically working internet connection in my room, because of a faulty port or something. Hopefully it will be fixed soon and while London’s been great in many ways, this has been a royal pain in the ass.

So, as many of you (the four of you, that is) know, I moved to London, England two weeks ago for my one-year Master’s degree. Seeing as I’m sure everyone naturally will ask me dozens of questions about England and so forth, I’ve decided I will intermittently update this blog with my stories. I prefer to write about other things that aren’t me, but if I don’t do this I’ll spend half my evenings retyping the same stories for several different people. This way I can save myself time and readers then can pepper me with more individual and specific questions later.

With this entry, I’ll detail what I did during my first week in England. I flew out of Canada on Friday, September 21st and landed early in the morning on Saturday. I met my Dad at the airport. One of the reasons I chose to leave on Friday and not some time in the following week was that it allowed me to meet my Dad in London. He was in Frankfurt on business all week and instead of flying home he just flew into London on Friday night and met me there. After that we departed on the tube for my residence, which was a hassle as we were carrying three suitcases and two reasonably large bags between us and I am somewhat injured. Unfortunately, I wasn’t allowed to check into my room until 2 pm, so we had to store our bags and then find something to amuse ourselves for 5 hours.

We wandered over to campus and spend about half an hour and saw the whole campus (more on that in another post) and then we wandered the streets a bit and had a long lunch at the pub, which was nice after airplane food and a morning stroll. Not surprisingly, between 12:00 and 12:15 the pub went from being deserted to having about 35 people in it, all drinking beer early on a Saturday afternoon. We got back to the residence hall and got my stuff up to the room, but by this point jetlag was beginning to hit, as I hadn’t slept on the plane. I was exhausted and in no mood to unpack. I was fine when on my feet, but once I was in the same room as a bed, I had to sit down and then I was toast. After we (read: my Dad, because I was too damn tired) unpacked some of my clothes that needed to be hung up, like my suit jacket and good pants, we decided that we should leave the rest of the unpacking for another day.

So, we threw overnight stuff into a bag and took off for the train station and took a train to Norwich, where my dad is from. We arrived there around 6 and my Aunt and Uncle greeted us at the train station. My Dad’s sister is one of the nicest women I know; she’s absolutely wonderful and her husband of about four years is great, as well. She must have put our family up for four day to a week about fifteen times in the last twenty-odd years, always without complaint and with a giant smile on her face. She always remembered all of our favourite English foods and was absolutely fantastic towards us kids. You never got the sense she was even remotely bothered by our presence, which is saying something, as I’m sure there were a few times me and my siblings acted like twerps. Anyhow, I really like them. We had a nice stew with them on Saturday evening and my Aunt, Uncle and Dad spent the whole evening talking.

Sunday was a lot of fun, too. In the early afternoon my Uncle arrived with his three sons (they’re something like 17, 14 and 13 or 18, 15 and 14 or something). In the middle of the afternoon my Dad’s other brother arrived, along with his wife, although their 19-year-old son stayed home. My Aunt’s 33-year-old daughter also came by in the middle of the afternoon, as did my Aunt’s neighbours and their three children. It was nice to do a big family meal like that, even if I spent half of the time with the kids, especially because it’s something we never get to do in Canada. I think my Dad enjoyed it a lot too, as it’s probably been 18 months or so since he’s seen any of the family. Later in the evening, after both of my Uncles had left my Aunt’s 30-year-old son arrived, which completed the evening. The entire family was really supportive and gave me cell phone numbers, e-mail addresses and my Aunt extended an open invitation for me to come over any time I wanted, for as long as I wanted. It’s quite comforting to know you have that safety net there and I do intend to spend another weekend in Norwich at some point.

We arrived back in London midday on the Monday and spent the next day and a half unpacking, buying some essentials for my room and doing a bit of exploring around London. My Dad never spent any real time in London when he lived in England and we’ve only stayed there once, for about three days, during our repeated visits to England, so even though he’s roughly familiar with the geography of the city, a lot of it is relatively new to him, as well. We went to see St. Paul’s Cathedral on Tuesday and I assume my Dad has seen it before, but if he has it was likely 30 or 35 years ago or something, as we didn’t stop there during our one trip to London in 2004 or so. We weren’t able to go inside because of some special service and then during the walk back to my residence it started to rain, hard, and we got caught in it. Typical England for you.

We tried to go see the Arsenal vs. Newcastle football match on Tuesday night, but it was sold out and instead we went to see Spamalot, which is the means this year I’ve seen musicals on Broadway and in London’s West End, despite not seeing a musical in the previous five years or so. Spamalot’s lead was an actor from All Creatures Great and Small who my Dad was familiar with and who he had no idea did theatre, but the rest of the cast was no-names who had done other theatre shows in London. Spamalot was well done; you have to like Monty Python humour to enjoy it, but if you do it’ll give you a lot of laughs. There are a couple groan moments and a few jokes that fall flat, but most of it is consistently funny and it certainly keeps you entertained for two hours. It’s based roughly on Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but blends in a number of parodies of Broadway theatre. The story is very loosely held together, but you’re laughing hard enough that by the time it registers, you’ve already disregarded it. It’s nothing incredible you’ll remember in a decade, but it’s a good night at the theatre.

After my Dad left Wednesday morning, things started to get weird. Really weird. I knew one person coming to LSE, a friend of mine from Queen’s named Katharine. So on Wednesday she arrived and had to room temporarily in my residence until the weekend, so she came and found me (so much for the front desk protecting my privacy) and I helped me her move into her temporary room and then I took her for a tour of the campus. After I was made to feel useful by showing her around the campus we met up with her friend, Katee, who is also doing her Master’s at LSE and who also a Queen’s graduate from Hamilton. I knew Katee to have seen her around a couple of times, but we never really talked. So then Katharine and I showed Katee around campus and then we went to go buy cell phones. Although the people on my floor are great, it’s a nice feeling to have someone around who you know from before and have some common basis with.

After peppering the salesman with fifty questions, including the same question about accepting international calls fifteen times, we all bought the exact same phone, because we’re cool that way. Katee knew someone else coming to LSE from Queen’s, so we met up with her in the evening, and she is also from Hamilton. Then we joined a few guys from my floor, another temporary resident in our building and a guy he knew for dinner, The temporary resident and the other random guy were – wait for it – both Queen’s graduates and one was from Hamilton. So yes, you read that right. My first evening in London was spent with nine other students, of whom five were Queen’s graduates, of whom four were from Hamilton. I never thought I’d feel like a minority because I wasn’t from Hamilton.

What’s also strange is that of these Queen’s people, one was a Politics student and one was a Politics/History student and I knew the girl to have seen her around, but had never spoke to her, and I had no recollection the guy existed at all, despite the fact both were in my program for four years at Queen’s.

In addition to all of those people, I’ve met two other Queen’s people here in the last week, meaning there are at least eight of us from K-Town here, including me. One of the guys I met ths last week is this cool guy from the Boston area. I met him in the caf first year when one of us said something about baseball to the other and we had like a five-minute conversation. Since then we’ll randomly cross each other about twice a year at Queen’s and we’d stop, exchange greetings, talk about baseball for a minute or two and keep going. So, one night last week I’m walking home with a guy from my floor in Covent Garden and I hear “Hey you” and I turn and it’s that guy and we reminisce. I’m not sure we even know each other’s name, but it’s still pretty cool. It’s also cool because I was the you in a “Hey you,” which almost never happens.

Thursday and Friday were pretty slow days. I spent most of one day sleeping, because that week I moved over it was really cold and I came down with a chill. The other day I just did some shopping for a few more necessities for my room. Both evenings I went out drinking with some guys from my floor and some of the Queen’s kids. The guys from my floor are a good group, one guy is from Chicago and doing IR, another’s from Holland and doing Human Rights, a third is from Southern Illinois and doing Philosophy and Public Policy and a fourth is from LA and doing Urban Planning. The latter two share my “flat”, along with a guy from Greece who hadn’t moved it at this point. Basically, the “flats” are just three individual rooms off the main hallway, which looks like any shitty residence hallway built in the 70’s, and then every fourth door is a key-operated one that leads to a mini-hallway, off of which are a tiny shower, a tiny bathroom, a tiny kitchen and the fourth bedroom. It’s not terrible, but it’s far worse than the arrangement I had in first year at Queen’s – where I also got pretty lucky, so maybe this is payback – but the location is good and the price seems reasonable, so I can’t complain too much. I just hate sharing a bathroom and having a tiny shower. At least the water pressure is good.

So that’s the play-by-play of my first week in London. I’ll try to come up with some more interesting stories for you later, but really the amount of Queen’s people here is something strange. I’ve come to the conclusion I have seven stalkers.

Washington State’s 2nd Coolest Man

2007-09-07T16:46:00.001-05:00

This guy rocks.

Bias or Self-Centered

2007-08-31T12:01:00.000-05:00

This story reports on a recent study in Harvard’s Du Bois Review that concludes, “White Americans suffer from a glaring ignorance about what it means to live as a black American.” However, I’m not so sure about the conclusions.

One question dealt with reparations and the article reports:

The researchers asked participants to imagine that their great, great grandfather, a wealthy shipping magnate, had been kidnapped about 150 years ago. The kidnappers demanded and received a large ransom that bankrupted the shipping magnate. That ransom was used to start a successful company that still survives today and is worth $100 million. Participants were asked whether they would be willing to be a part of a large suit against the present-day company that could net them each about $5,000.

In this scenario, 61 percent agreed to have their names listed on the lawsuit. The researchers noted that this is about the percentage of blacks today who support reparations for slave descendants.

“When white Americans find it within themselves to say ‘I must be compensated for a past injustice done to me’ but the same logic evaporates when the injustice concerns black Americans, they are staring straight at bias,” Banaji said.

I’m not so sure about this. I’m sure some people underestimate the effect of slavery on Black Americans, but I think the results can also largely be explained by the fact people are selfish. You’re offering them a hypothetical $5,000 as a result of a past injustice (which also directly led to the formation of a multi-million dollar company – while slavery led to similar wealth for Whites at the expense of Blacks, the direct connections are never so clear), so it makes sense most of them will take it. Now, you’re concluding they’re hypocritical when they oppose paying money to others for something that their ancestors did?

Most people view reparations as a direct tax or lump-sum payment to Blacks from Whites or at least from tax money, most of which will have come from whites. Not as a lawsuit against one specific company which was conclusively formed from the profits of an incident highly comparable to slavery. I don’t see how you can conclude Whites are hypocritical based on this. How many Blacks support reparations for Native Americans? This survey result is pretty easily explainable through natural human selfishness, which transcends races.

Survey Says…

2007-08-21T11:21:00.000-05:00

Here’s a fun little survey that measures how you feel about 25 of the most important issues in the upcoming American political election and how you prioritize them and then matches it up with political candidates. It’s obviously not an exact science, but it seems like it does a pretty decent job for a simple toy, as it allows you to disregard issues you don’t care about or feel are unimportant to the election and also assigns significant weight to your “key” issues. I wouldn’t encourage that this take the place of reading about the candidates’ positions and deciding who best matches your thoughts before voting (or stating repeatedly who you would vote for in the case of Canadians), but it can certainly help you contextualize your vote, think differently about certain candidates or even narrow down on the few issues that seem to separate the politicians with whom you have the most agreement.

So now the question I’m sure you’re all dying to know the answer to. Which candidate should I vote for according to this poll?

Actually, it’s the same candidate that over 57% of the over 128,862 respondents should vote for. For those who know my politics, even roughly, it’s probably no surprise that the candidate I matched up the best with was Dennis Kucinich.

“Wait a minute. I thought you said that over 57% of the respondents matched up the best with you winner,” is what you’re probably thinking right now. And yes, that’s true.

As the poll’s results page says:

You would probably be interested to know that Kucinich has been the first choice of 74840 people (out of 129444). That wasn't my intention or expectation when making this site, but it is certainly interesting.

At the last time a graph was generated - when Kucinich had 69,700 first-place finishes - the second place finisher, Mike Gravel, had 8,771 first-place results. In fact, Kucinich has more than twice as many first-place finishes as the next 6 candidates do (Gravel, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Clinton, Hunter, Giuliani).

Even if you use a top 3 results system (3 points for 1st place, 2 for 2nd place and 1 for 3rd place) Kucinich still wins comfortably with 256,214 points, compared to Gravel’s 154,467. Barak Obama comes in 3rd with 59,024, which isn’t even a quarter of Kucinich’s total. Clinton trails Obama and then after her come the first two Republicans: Paul and Romney.

I can come out with reasons why an internet poll would be disproportionately liberal and favour Democratic candidates, but I can’t think of any reason it would swing so heavily in Kucinich’s favour. Perhaps it was linked on several pro-Kucinich message boards, but that’s not where I found it. Perhaps he pays staff to do nothing but fill out the survey, change their IP addresses and then fill it out again, but as a “fringe” candidate I imagine he’s short-staffed and can’t afford to do that.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the media’s characterization of Kucinich as a “fringe” candidate is a self-fulfilling prophecy. He’s not got the name-recognition of Clinton or the sudden rise to fame of Obama, but there’s no reason why he should be less of a public figure than Dodd, Richardson or Biden. The media defines him as a “fringe” candidate from the beginning because he’s not a “name” and because they define his views as “non-mainstream,” and this is all exacerbated by his physical appearance. As I’ve said before and this survey has hinted, perhaps his views are much closer to the mainstream than people either realize or care to admit. I’m not denying his viewpoint on NAFTA or the Department of Peace isn’t unique among Democratic candidates and I’m aware this poll excludes economic matters, but on many of the other issues which Americans define as being most important, such as what to do about Iraq, healthcare, abortion rights, same-sex marriage and immigration, his views seem to coincide with the majority of Democratic voters. Kucinich’s electability and how he’d fare vs. various Republicans are separate matters, but there seems to be little reason that he shouldn’t be right alongside Clinton, Obama and Edwards, at least based on his policy positions.

The Israel Factor

2007-08-17T11:09:00.000-05:00

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has been running a feature called the Israel Factor for about a year where it ranks the various US presidential candidates according to how friendly they are towards Israel. Every month a panel of eight experts from across the political spectrum answers a few questions and then ranks each of the candidates out of 10. My issue with this exercise isn't that Israelis are assuming that Americans care about how Israelis feel about American politics. Given the relationship between the two countries it is only natural that Israel has a vested interest in the American election. Furthermore, the feature has additional relevance for the 100,000 American voters living in Israel. While I would hope they base their votes on a number of issues, I'm sure the vast majority base it almost entirely on the candidates’ policies towards Israel. This is only natural given the environment in which they live.

My issue is that "friendly towards Israel" is basically narrowly defined as being in favour of Israel's unambiguous and unconditional right to military action. Despite explanations for how they balance their panel and questions it is clear that the poll is basically a referendum on who unilaterally supports Israel's right to defend itself from perceived threats and who wants to limit it or place conditions on it. One only needs to read through the surveys, or even just look at the final rankings, to see how that plays out. This narrow definition of "friendly towards Israel" is what I take issue with. That’s one way to define the term, but others might consider committing more effort and resources to diplomatic talks between key actors in the Middle East; limiting Israeli defence tactics in an effort to avoid further angering Palestinian factions; further engaging the political wing on Hamas due to its popular support among the electorate; trying to improve the socioeconomic standing of Arabs in Israel or any number of different scenarios that one feels might eventually lead to peace in the Middle East as being policies that are “friendly towards Israel.”

Those who are Israel's strongest supporters, among some of the more notable names, include Rudy Giuliani (the clearly favoured candidate), Mike Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson. Those faring less well, but still with strong support for Israel, include Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Barak Obama and, the winner of the big second place finish in the otherwise meaningless Iowa Republican straw poll, Mike Huckabee.

My only question, not asked in jest, is where's Dennis Kucinich and where would he rank?

Quick Hits, Pt. II

2007-08-15T22:08:00.000-05:00

I have a couple of full-length posts planned, but haven’t found the time to write them. Hopefully I will soon before they lose their relevance.

• An Australian sheep farmer fell for a new variation of the internet Nigerian banking scam and it doesn’t reflect well on him.

Des Gregor, 56, has arrived back in Adelaide after being held hostage in the African nation of Mali for 12 days.
…
Mr Gregor, a sheep farmer, set off to Mali on what he hoped would be an exotic adventure, during which he would not only meet his African bride but pocket a huge dowry in gold.

The target of his affections was a woman purportedly called Natacha, a Liberian refugee in her twenties whom he had met and fallen in love with over the internet.

Seriously. Not only did he expect to meet a woman in her twenties who would agree to marry him (which I guess isn’t that unrealistic in the age of mail order brides), but the kicker is that he was supposed to collect an $86,000 dowry on top of that. What a jackpot. A presumably attractive wife 30 years younger than him and $86,000 for the chore of marrying her. Some people can be incredibly naïve, but you think something about the scenario would have raised red flags in his head or caused him to implement some precautions.

This immediately strikes me as one of those Catch-22 crimes. The plan is flawed in that anyone dumb enough to fall for the setup is unlikely to have the necessary money to pay the ransom. The man is a farmer (not a profession known for its wealth, although they often live better than you may think), who is old enough that his parents are likely dead and who is clearly not married and thus has no source of income beyond his own. The ideal target, as in the one most likely to fall for the plot, is the non-ideal victim, as he has nothing to lose by going to the authorities. Gullible and naive? Yes. Rich and desperate to avoid embarassment? No.

• There’s apparently been a spate of idiocy across Oceania.

A couple in New Zealand is planning to call their newborn son Superman after officials rejected their original choice of 4Real.

Pat and Sheena Wheaton have been frustrated by rules in New Zealand banning names that begin with a number.

Mum and Dad decided to call their son 4Real after seeing an ultrasound image of him. It was then they realised that their baby was "for real".

I’m not a huge fan of the unique names craze, but it doesn’t bug me that much unless the names are ridiculous. This is one of those cases. Seriously, what the fuck are they thinking? If there’s ever been a bigger sign that a couple is unfit to be the guardians of their child within the first couple of days of his life, I’d like to read about it.

Also, here’s an article from the Wall Street Journal on how naming one’s child is seen by many as a way to “brand” the child and make him or her unique, which in my view isn’t always a good thing.

"Names have become a matter of fashion and taste," says Harvard sociologist Stanley Lieberson.

Not everyone is happy about this development. Albert Mehrabian, a professor emeritus of psychology at UCLA and author of "The Baby Name Report Card," has conducted surveys of how people react to different names. He found that more common names elicited positive reactions, while unusual names typically brought negative responses. To him, giving children names that stand out may ultimately be no different than sending them to school with their hair dyed blue. "Yes, you can have someone stand out by being bizarre, but that doesn't mean it's going to be good," he says.

...
Karen Markovics, 36, who works for the planning department in Orange County, N.C., spent months reading baby books and scouring Web sites before settling on Nicole Josephine. But now, four years later, Mrs. Markovics says she wishes she'd chosen something less trendy -- and has even considered legally changing her daughter's name to Josephine Marie. "I'm having namer's remorse," she says.

That amused me. In article that told of babies named Nevaeh (heaven spelled backwards, for those who don’t know the story), Evander, Jackson, Sheridan, Beckett and Zayden (none of which are among the terrible choices I’ve heard of here or there), apparently Nicole is too radical. Nicole is too trendy, despite the fact it’s been among the top 50 names in the US constantly for the last three decades.

Unfortunately, I think this paragraph summarizes far too many people’s approach to naming a baby:

Lisa and Jon Stone of Lynnwood, Wash., turned to a name consultant because they didn't want their son to be "one of five Ashtons in the class," says Mrs. Stone, 36, a graphic designer. For Mr. Stone, 37, a production director for a nonprofit arts organization, the challenge was to find a "cool" name that would help his son stand out. "An unusual name gets people's attention when you're searching for a job or you're one in a field of many," he says.

Or you’re the idiot called “4Real” who never gets taken seriously at any moment in his life.

• I got another good literal laugh out loud moment at lunchtime at work thanks to a baseball message board I lurk at once or twice a day. The posters were discussing an article discussing whether it made more sense for the Oakland A's to sign Barry Bonds or stay with Jack Cust. Most posters, and myself, agree that Bonds is the better player, but the difference between him and Cust won't be worth the difference in their salaries. However, we are also in agreement that it is not an either/or scenario and that the A's could sign both of them, playing one in LF and one at DH.

Anyhow, someone was pointing out advantages to Bonds and said that he's an attendance draw, as sold out crowds have been following him around for the entire summer. He concluded his post by asking, "Have sold out crowds been following Jack Cust around since May?"

Poster #2: No, but the A's are third in road attendance in the American League behind the Yankees and Red Sox.

Poster #3: I never knew the A's were so popular.

Poster #4: Fonzie certainly seemed to like them.

Absolutely golden.

Quick Hits

2007-07-27T00:30:00.000-05:00

Here’s some random material from the past couple of days on the internet.

• Bush hits new low of 25% in approval ratings. Yet Republicans still are at least 50-50 to win the next election. Go figure.

• Has there ever been a worse rookie card of a Hall of Famer than this one? I’m sure he wishes kids weren’t clamouring for years to collect cards showing pictures of his ass. Topps owes him an apology gift basket or something.

• Of course, Topps has owed John Block a gift basket for about 35 years.

• Boise State star running back Ian Johnson, an African-American, is facing death threats, as is his fiancée Chrissy Popadics, who is white, because of their relationship. Johnson is everything that is right about American collegiate athletics (and there’s a lot wrong): an inner-city kid who earned a scholarship to university through hard work and athletic accomplishment. One of a rare number of collegiate athletes on pace to complete his degree (compare that to Heisman winner Matt Leinart taking one class, ballroom dancing, in his final year), Johnson works a summer job to provide for his family and says all the right things about school, family and a possible future in the NFL. But some dickheads can’t stand the thought that he is in love with a white woman. Assholes.

• Oh yeah, and if you haven’t seen Johnson’s post-Fiesta Bowl interview on ESPN, go watch it now. Never mind that the Fiesta Bowl was the best football I’ve ever seen in my life. The post-game interview contains one of the biggest moments of interview douchebaggery that I’ve ever seen. Fucking Chris Myers.

Mike Coolbaugh, 1972-2007

2007-07-24T15:07:00.000-05:00

On Sunday night, in an event which some speculate will lead to some major changes for baseball, but will most likely lead to a couple of minor modifications and then perhaps be forgotten more quickly than it should, Mike Coolbaugh, 35, was killed by a batted ball. Coolbaugh, a former big leaguer for the Milwaukee Brewers and St Louis Cardinals, was coaching first base for the Double-A affiliate of the Colorado Rockies, the Tulsa Drillers, when backup catcher Tino Sanchez rocketed a foul ball down the first base line. Coolbaugh was unable to get out of the way of the ball in time and it struck him in the head. He was tended to on the field by the medical staff from both teams and the in-stadium doctor, but he never regained consciousness and died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

Coolbaugh was drafted in 1990 in the 16th round by the Toronto Blue Jays. He played his first two years of professional baseball in St. Catherines, then the Jays low-A affiliate. He played for the Jays for 5 years and then bounced around through other teams systems, putting together a couple of very fine seasons in 1997 and 2000. In 2001 Coolbaugh signed with Milwaukee and played for their Triple-A affiliate in Indianapolis. After 1,215 games in the minors (my count has about 1,152, but I’ll defer to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) on July 15, 2001, Coolbaugh was finally promoted to the big leagues after demonstrating a level of perseverance most draftees never show. Coolbaugh played in 39 games for the Brewers in 2001 and 5 more for the Cardinals in 2002, but that was the only taste of major league action he ever got. Coolbaugh played minor league baseball through the end of 2006, which included two more very good seasons in 2004 and 2005, totaling 1,632 minor league games and 5,860 minor league at-bats. He retired at the end of 2006 and only joined Tulsa as a hitting and first base coach on July 3, after the previous coach resigned mid-season.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has a couple of nice articles on Coolbaugh, which make it clear how much he simply enjoyed playing baseball and how happy he was when he finally got his chance in the majors. From the first article:

Geoff Jenkins and Ben Sheets, the only two players on the Milwaukee Brewers' current roster who played for the team in 2001, remembered how excited Mike Coolbaugh was to get to the major leagues that July after spending 12 years in the minor leagues.

"There was a lot of perseverance in him," recalled Jenkins. "I remember how proud we were for him that he finally made it."
…

Coolbaugh was so excited about finally getting his chance to play in the majors for the Brewers that he reported to the ballpark at 7 a.m. for a day game on July 16. He played 39 games with Milwaukee that season, batting .200 with two homers and seven RBI.

The article also touches on something else that’s apparent about Coolbaugh, which is how devoted he was to his family and his two, soon-to-be three, young children, who are now left without a father.

Coolbaugh played only five more games in the majors in 2002 for St. Louis. He returned to the minors and continued playing until retiring after the 2006 season. He had recently taken the job as coach for Tulsa at the urging of his sons, Joseph, 5, and Jacob, 3.

Coolbaugh also is survived by wife Amanda, expecting their third child in October.

"We were going to be done with it, but his kids wanted to see him (coach)," Amanda Coolbaugh said. "You couldn't have asked for a better father. He just paid attention to the boys, put them in clubs and sports . . . volunteered time on their teams."

And here’s an excerpt from a Journal-Sentinel article from the day Coolbaugh was promoted to the majors. h

It was barely 8 o'clock Sunday morning when Mike Coolbaugh tried on his Milwaukee Brewers uniform for the first time.

When you've been waiting 12 years to make it to the big leagues, it's never too early to suit up.

"I wasn't sure what time to be here so I got here about 7 a.m.," Coolbaugh said. "The security guy drove me around in a golf cart and gave me a tour of the place. I had a good time."

One hardly could blame Coolbaugh for trying to soak it all in during his first day as a major-league baseball player. The 29-year-old infielder never actually gave up on his dream of making it, but after a dozen years go by it's only natural to have doubts.

"A lot of guys would have quit and gone on to something else," Brewers manager Davey Lopes said. "This is a guy who really battled."

Coolbaugh was preparing for batting practice when Indianapolis manager Wendell Kim walked up and told him to pack his stuff and head for Milwaukee. "I couldn't breath for, like, five minutes," he said. "I asked, 'Are you serious?' I couldn't believe it."

The only frustration Coolbaugh experienced on his big day was trying to contact his parents, who were visiting relatives in upstate New York. They didn't have their cell phones activated, so the excited Coolbaugh was forced to leave messages.

"My parents still don't know," he said. "But my wife (Amanda) was visiting her sister in Chicago, so she's coming here."

Coolbaugh isn't exactly sure where he ranks among those who have played the most games in the minors before getting that first big-league assignment.

"I'm sure I'm in the top 10," he said confidently.

And from MLB.com:

"What a hard worker," said Brewers hitting coach Jim Skaalen, who was Milwaukee's roving hitting coach in 2001 and got to know Coolbaugh. Skaalen managed Coolbaugh's brother, Scott, in the Rangers' Minor League system.

"I always admired Mike's work ethic and that he was always a consistently upbeat guy," Skaalen said. "He was labeled one of those 'Four-A' players but he was never bitter about it. Some of those up and down players have a lot of bitterness, but it was nothing but positive energy every day from him. It brought a tear to my eye when I saw the news this morning."

Coolbaugh's death is also relatively unique in couple of aspects. Not because three young children are left fatherless, because unfortunately that happens dozens of times a day across North America. It is unique because it's the first death on a major league baseball field in decades. And it's also an example of how the deaths of people in certain occupations affect their friends and coworkers far differently than others. Although Coolbaugh was a new coach for the Drillers, he still fits this example due to his 16-year minor league career, and Josh Hancock, the St. Louis Cardinals pitcher who died earlier this year in a drunk driving accident, is another good illustration of how the deaths of professional athletes differ from those in many other jobs. Not all jobs, but it's certainly very different from going to work in a cubicle in an office environment, no matter how much you may socialize on coffee breaks or while lining up to use the only photocopier not malfunctioning.

I think it's difficult for the layperson to appreciate the camaraderie in professional sports, which is perhaps strongest of all in baseball because of the length of the season and the number of games. When soldiers speak of losing a member of their platoon, they often say how the deceased was like "a brother" to them and how the army is a "family." For a long time I didn't really get what they were saying, until I realized the strength of the bond that is formed between men who spend 6-12 months of the year together, fighting an enemy in a foreign country. I can't really appreciate what that bond feels like, but now I understand why they called the army their family and their fellow soldiers their brothers.

Professional sports are a lot like that, I think. Not to the same degree as the army at all, as the bond there is strengthened by trusting your life to your fellow soldiers doing their jobs and following their orders, but it's inevitable that spending long amounts of time together with a limited group of individuals is going to make many of them very close to one another. Baseball players show up for spring training in mid-February and play through the end of September. Through the end of October if there team is in the playoffs. That's 8, sometimes 9, months a year where players get maybe 3 days off a month (more in February and March, but young players who are fighting to make the roster don't get many days off and veterans who don't play as many games still have to show up for workouts and training almost every day). The other 27-28 days they spend about 8-10 hours at the ballpark, often showing up at about 2 pm for an evening game and leaving around 11. And what do they do? They workout together. Pitchers jog with pitchers. Outfielders field fly balls with outfielders. Infielders practice double plays with other infielders. Catchers scout opposing hitters together. They hit batting practice in groups of 4-5, which they keep for the entire year. They lift weights together, jog together, and stretch together. They sit around in the clubhouse while the other team hits BP together.

During the game, starting pitchers not starting that evening sit together on the bench, charting opposing hitters and shooting the shit. Bench players sit together. The 6 or 7 guys in the bullpen sit in the bullpen every game. Baseball's not end-to-end action like some sports and there's a lot of time for bench players to discuss anything under the sun. After the game, if the team is on the road, players often go out, to eat or drink or do something else. Again, these are group activities. If it's 11:15 on a Wednesday night in Baltimore and you need something to eat after a game, are you going to do it by yourself or grab 3 buddies? During homestands, if the player has a wife and children, they will often come to stay with them during the summer months, particularly when the kids are off school. However, young and single players spend even more time together, as they often share a large condo or a house and spend the majority of off-time together, as well.

This account may not hold true for every MLB athlete (and athlete in general), because I'm sure there are some who are not very social and others who prefer other things to going out most evenings, but I think this account is fairly true for most MLBers and one can't deny that during a full week of games MLB players probably spend about 70 hours together with the same 30 or so guys at the ballpark and an additional maybe 10 to 35 hours with a small group of them during off-time from March through the end of September. This is more than hockey players, basketball players or football players. It's not quite analogous, but imagine taking an 8 month road trip with 30 other guys. Some you might not like very much and others you may be indifferent towards, but you're bound to become very close a number of them. Sure there'll be times when you grow sick of even your best buddies, but over the length of the season there will be some incredibly strong friendships that grow out of that. This strong bond is why deaths of active professional athletes devastate not only their family, but their friends and their entire team.

And, here’s a nice article on four ex-Expos who came back to Ottawa for a charity softball game and gave some Expos fans a lifetime highlight.

McCain Loses More Staff

2007-07-12T12:57:00.000-05:00

If Senator McCain's campaign wasn't struggling before with the loss of two key strategists, the departure of two of his most important Iowa staff members surely confirms it is.

Two veteran Republican strategists are abandoning John McCain's campaign in Iowa, dealing another blow to his struggling presidential bid.

Ed Failor Jr., said Thursday that he and Karen Slifka plan to notify McCain by letter. Both are GOP operatives with deep ties in Iowa, which holds the first-in-the-nation caucuses, and national politics.

"As much as I like Senator McCain, it's not a team I'm willing to stay involved with any longer," Failor said.

The race to be the Republican nominee is now a three-way battle between
Giuliani, Thompson and Romney.

Waiting for Wendy

2007-07-10T12:09:00.000-05:00

Just when you thought they were all done, we have another sex scandal from the Republican Party.

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, whose telephone number was disclosed by the so-called "D.C. Madam" accused of running a prostitution ring, says he is sorry for a "serious sin" and that he has already made peace with his wife.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter said Monday in a printed statement. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

Of course, Bill Clinton committed an unpardonable sin that caused impeachment hearings and endless media scrutiny. And let’s not even get started on how the Republicans try to police and restrict the lives of gays.

But in Vitter’s case everything’s okay, because God’s granted him forgiveness and we should respect his wishes to keep the matter private. I can only hope the Republicans respect the wishes of the next Democrat involved in a similar story. I also hope God’s similarly quick to grant forgiveness to others who “sin,” but I’m not holding my breath.

Later the story goes on to provide us with some titillating background information:

Vitter and his wife, Wendy, live in Metairie, La., with their four children. In 2000, Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News Service she could not be as forgiving as Livingston's wife or Hillary Clinton.

"I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary," she said. "If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

Well, I’m just going to grab a bag of popcorn and sit back and wait for the ensuing story on CNN. This should be fun.

Also, if you haven’t heard, McCain’s top two aides Campaign Manager Terry Nelson and Chief Strategist John Weaver resigned today, dealing his stalled campaign what is almost certainly its deathblow.

Chatty Cathy No More

2007-07-07T21:29:00.000-05:00

It has long been conventional cultural wisdom that women talk more than men. Men clam up, while women natter endlessly. And I certainly know a few females who seem to find any sort of prolonged silence uncomfortable. Although, I know a couple of guys like that, as well. Often frustrating.

A recent study by the University of Arizona revealed that this wisdom appears to be another cultural myth with little grounding in reality.

Sure, maybe guys talk more about cars and sports and the new iPhone, and women talk about their feelings, but at the end of the day, each sex uses an average 16,000 words a day, say researchers who studied the conversational habits of 396 men and women for six years.

"I was a little surprised there wasn't any gender influence, because this stereotype of women talking more is such a powerful, popular idea," said Richard Slatcher, a doctoral candidate in psychology at the University of Texas and one of the authors of the study. "But we were able to directly test the notion, and it's totally unfounded."

…..

The new study used audio clips from university students who agreed to be recorded for several days sometime between 1998 and 2004. The recording equipment amounted to mini-recorders and lapel microphones designed for studies that require listening to natural language use. The devices would turn on automatically for 30 seconds every 12.5 minutes, and the subjects could not control -- and did not know -- when the equipment was turned on or off.

Researchers then transcribed the snippets of conversation, counted the words used and extrapolated from that number to get an idea of how many words each person used in a day.

There are some potential drawbacks to the study, namely that because it used only university students, it might not apply perfectly to men and women of all age groups and education levels. But Mehl said if there were important biological differences between men and women's verbosity, they would have registered at least somewhat in the study.

As it was, women spoke on average about 546 more words each day than men, but that number was found to be not statistically significant.

Based on the study results, some stereotypes about conversational habits seemed to hold true, Mehl said. Researchers didn't actually count the types of words people used, but he said men tended to talk more about sports and technology and women about their feelings.

The study’s use of solely college students could potentially lead to different results than one using members of the general population would, but it does seem like a strong gender difference would have resulted in a bigger discrepancy between the sexes. And the study’s methodology does improve upon the previous attempts to measure conversation tendencies.

Now, the BBC is a great source for online news. However, a follow-up article on this study demonstrates the worst of the British media and the BBC’s efforts. The BBC decided to consult some females to find out what the missing 546 words might be and it includes words like body image, empowering, feminism, airbrushing and Afghanistan.

I’m happy to see the results of a study end misleading gender-based assumptions about behaviour. Breaking down gender norms and craeating relative fluidity between both genders and behaviour is something I fully support, although I recognize that society will likely continue to have differences between the behaviour of the two genders and some difference is perhaps a good thing in itself. What’s not so good is how the BBC works to reconstruct those gender norms in an article related to that very study. Men can’t be feminists? Men don’t have body image issues? Men don’t talk about Afghanistan?

And what about uniquely male vocabulary? How does the BBC address that? Or is cockblocking a phenomenon that both sexes now speak about?