Why Rasheed fits perfectly in Detroit
So the Pistons visted the White House today because they are the NBA champions and that's what NBA champions do. But on Sunday, some enterprising reporter decided to ask Rasheed Wallace what he wanted to talk about with President.
This was Wallace's answer: "I don't have (expletive) to say to him. I didn't vote for him. It's just something we have to do."
So I like Rasheed Wallace.
2 Comment(s):
They can talk about your Mom!
Sorry, I sensed a severe lack of "your Mom" jokes on this site and decided to jump in. I hope it went over well.
As Michael Wilbon noted on PTI last night, Conservative athletes had refused to visit the Clinton Whitehouse. About time someone on the left did the same.
Who won? Winter of our discontent Edition
It must be the pre-Valentine's Day lull in Weddings as there were only four pictures to choose from. The best part of this week's style section was instead the article about parental blogging, proving that self-absorbed 30-somethings seek validation by
blogging about their children's poop. Coming in 2014 look out for Free-Floating Heredity.
30 January 2005
Gay Couples with Clear Winner: 1 of 1
Straight Couples with Clear Winner: 3 of 3
Men: 2
Women: 1
Ties: 0
Disputed Results: 0
Year to Date
Gay Couples with Clear Winner: 3 of 3
Straight Couples with Clear Winner: 22 of 29
Men: 19
Women: 4
Ties: 3
Disputed Results: 4
0 Comment(s):
From the sports desk
The next sports media professional I hear complain about reporting the Terrell Owens injury story is cordially invited over for heaping helping of Shut the Fuck Up.
No one cares how repetitive you think the story is. Reporting it is your job. No one forced you into sports media (and you want to leave, could you kindly do so and make easier for me to move up in the business). There are lots of other stories to report surrounding the Super Bowl, but T.O. is accessible and a big star and that means this is an easy story to do. But because everyone in national media is now more personality than reporter, the viewing or reading public gets to learn how cool the press is rather than who they should bet on. That is, of course, all people really care about. And it's not the media's job to complain about what the public cares about. It's our job to report the story.
Then there's this baseball gem from Columbia graduate Ronald Blum:
By RONALD BLUM
AP Sports Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Sammy Sosa is close to taking his home run hop all the way to Baltimore.
The Chicago Cubs are just a few steps away from trading the unhappy slugger to the Orioles, several high-ranking baseball officials told The Associated Press.
Medical tests and approval from commissioner Bud Selig and the players' association remain unresolved, the officials said Friday night, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The Cubs would pay a substantial part of Sosa's $17 million salary this season, the executives said. In exchange, Chicago would receive second baseman Jerry Hairston Jr. and at least two prospects.
I think O's owner Peter Angelos is a Democrat. And even if he's not, he is a labor lawyer and was the only owner not to field a scab team in 1995, so I like him. Since his team is destined to finish in third place in the AL East, I think he's bringing Sosa to Baltimore in order to taunt the President from close range. George W. Bush, when he owned the Texas Rangers, traded Sosa away. Frankly this may be the best argument against Bush's Social Security plan yet. I mean how can we trust any future projections this guy makes, he's the shmuck who traded Sammy Sosa.
0 Comment(s):
Parental Links
Barnes & Noble Book Clubs named
Mary Gordon's new novel,
Pearl, its pick of the week. Bravo to Prof. Gordon.
In totally un-parental news, there's this new blog called
BrooklynDodger run by this anonymous guy called BrooklynDodger. We have no idea who he is and he could never be anyone's father.
3 Comment(s):
No Mary Gordon book tour stop in Detroit, or even in Ann Arbor. We are culturally deprived and disrespected by the book publishing and selling establishment.
Regarding gender of BrooklynDodger, the Dodger has attempted neutrality.
Regarding gender of BrooklynDodger, I am sure any reader attempting to guess the Dodger's identity would assume that someone who chose a baseball team that ceased to exist 47 years ago for a namesake is female.
Jest has its Risks
Um, yeah. We're not really going to change the
name of the blog. I just thought you might have as much fun playing with acronyms as we did. Apparently, we still amuse ourselves more than anyone else--a lesson that probably should have kicked in with the
Scott 100 List. Sorry to have gotten everyone's knickers in a knot.
1 Comment(s):
Note to conservative columnists: Just make them buy you dinner
Apparently the Bush administration doesn't hate journalists after all. No, they are hot to give money to them as long as they write friendly articles. First there was the craven cynicism of paying black conservative Armstrong Williams $240K to support the No Child Left Behind Act. Now there is this, some columnist I've never heard of
receiving $21K to promote bills that defend marriage.
As a working journalist, I eat about 150 free or reimbursed meals every year. The free ones are usually paid for by the college athletic departments and professional sports teams that I cover for my newspaper. Some people would suggest that this is a conflict of interest. I strongly disagree. See, reporting is tiring work, and the first thing that goes in a lethargic reporter is the will to resist cynicism. Food in the press box is really a check on that, something that ensures fair coverage by bringing a journalist's body chemistry back into proportion. Games, and the pregame media availablility, usually occur around dinner time. Food is an equalizer.
But, with dinner, the terms are clear. It's usually a meal that is not nearly as delicious as one I could get at home.
Money is a different story, especially when the government's the one giving it out. The No Child Left Behind case is especially egregious, given the volume of unfunded mandates in the law itself. It is a well-documented fact that many people will do almost anything for money, including sell their credibility. I mean, that corporate PR exists proves this. When a columnist sells his or her opinion, that person is selling the only thing of value they have, an honest and informed viewpoint. When I am paid for a column, I am selling my viewpoint to my newspaper. When a columnist is paid to express an opinion, he or she is selling someone else's viewpoint at the expense of honest inquiry. That's the only thing a journalist has to offer. It is unforgivable.
0 Comment(s):
Free-Floating Identity Crisis
When Mike first established this blog, he bestowed upon it the name Free-Floating Hostility because it was a term that had often made him smile, and because he couldn't really use it as the title of his newspaper column. I had little hand in choosing its name as I didn't forsee much involvement in the project; of course I found being the zeitgeist more agreeable than expected, but by then the name was pretty well entrenched. As we put the word out about the blog, we began hearing knowing references to George Carlin, but we couldn't really figure out why. Recently I discovered his 1996 album, I forget what it's called, the end of which is a 19-plus minute rant on 24 cutting-edge topics such as backwards baseball caps and bottled water, entitled...Free-Floating Hostility. Now, we can't really be sure Carlin coined the phrase, and it does seem to have entered general usage to the point where maybe we can be forgiven for not having known its origins, but the whole thing did smack of plagiarism. More importantly, if people were going to think we were referring to Carlin's standup, we'd better know what we were unintentionally endorsing. I downloaded the track. We listened. 20 minutes and about three chuckles later we grimaced at each other and agreed we needed a shower. We had a serious case on our hands of Blog Name Buyer's Remorse (the fact that blogger is a free service is beside the point, because we purchased it in Lockean fashion with our labor).
FFH was presented with something of an existential dilemma. It now seemed obvious to us that we should have at least googled the phrase before naming our blog after it, but it was too late. Why hadn't we chosen a name from Chris Rock's standup? We agreed that
What do you Want, a Cookie? would have been inappropriate, but paused wistfully over the potential suggested by
What's in the Tea? or
Whatever Happened to Crazy? Changing names is not unheard of. Garth Brook's unfortunate choice of a name for his children's charity,
The Touch 'Em All Foundation, forced him to rename it Teammates for Kids. Mia Farrow changed all her kids' names to make them more Irish, and look how well they turned out. And after all, I had changed my own name less than a year ago, and it really wasn't that bad. But we had to admit that we had branded the title. A Google search of "Free-Floating Hostility" yields us 12th, and "Free-Floating Hostility+blog" puts us at 3rd (thanks mostly to Jeff's generous linking). There was no turning back now.
So we got to thinking about damage control. Our first step was the addition of the disclaimer of Carlinism to our template. Then we thought, hey, most people refer to us as FFH these days anyway. Maybe they don't even remember what it stands for. Maybe if we kept the acronym and changed the name, no one would miss it. That yielded some intriguing possibilities for new blog names:
Far From Hobbs
Factotums For Hire
Fountain of Foul Humor
Fallacious Fictitious Hagiography
Flim Flam Hermeneutics
Pfennigs from Heaven (this would have carried the day were it not for the undeniable p)
Furious Falsetto Howling
Fling Foofaraw Here
Frank's Febrile Hallucinations (BrooklynDodger is welcome to that one if he wants it for one of his blogs)
Fresh Fish! Hallibut!
Frances Farmer Hadherrevengeonseattle
Fecund Fay-Hurvitz
Fleet-Footed Hoplites
Favorite Font? Helvetica.
So far, nothing has suggested itself that is worthy of changing our young blog's identity. But we would like to open this up to our readership. If you have suggestions, we're all ears. For those of you who still haven't figured this out, that means hit the "comments" link below, then hit "post a comment," then actually post one. You can do it. Only three words are required.
2 Comment(s):
Unless you are changing the name to "We Speaks So Well," (Chris Rock again) I think you should stick with what you got.
Alternatively, you can also do (since Mike is in the Media) "Look out it is Mike Mirer... Run!"
BrooklynDodger finds a use for "deracinate" twice in the same week. [If the Dodger is using the word correctly.] Assuming "free-floating hostility" was coined by George Carlin, and if association with George Carlin would be unfortunate, for most readers the term is sufficiently deracinated that the connection to Carlin is occult.
Speaking of deracination and unconscious plagiarism...The Dodger was once quoted [? in the Washington Post] as suggesting that a certain public official had adopted an attitude of "Get Over It" in relation to critics. The phrase got the Dodger, over others, recognized, not the substance of the comment. And got the Dodger quoted again in another publication. Wondering what the resonance was, BrooklynDodger googled the phrase and found myself in bed with Kirsten Dunst, Avril Lavigne, [actually not unattractive] and the Eagles among 1,460,000 hits.
What's the point of this? Maybe it signifies nothing. But has FFH considered the effort of transporting over everything to another blog title?
Adventures in Solipsism
Some astute readers will have noticed the traffic counter at the bottom of the page. We put it up to satisfy our own curiosity about how many people were actually reading the blog. We're shocked enough that anyone reads it at all, but we figured it was mostly the regular posters, about 75% of whom are actually Frank. Apparently we have a wider readership than we'd realized, though, given this weekend's early results. And in a piece of brilliant coincidence/fatalism, Jeff was visitor number 34.
2 Comment(s):
And I was, too. But just this once I'm willing to concede that it was just a brilliant coincidence.
Damn son, I want a counter now. I'll race you to one million.
Who won? Who Puts their Divorce in the Paper? Edition
In the Times' occasional series of catching up with couples featured in the "Vows" column, Sunday we learned about two people who got married in 1996 and split up on Christmas Eve of 2000. On the scale of cries for attention this ranks just below appearing on "Fear Factor" and agreeing to be interviewed by "The Daily Show." Also someone named Hairy Tongue (written phonetically) got married. He happens to be the ex-boyfriend of a hot family friend of Anna's. He was this week's tie, if he had bagged Nola, the aforementioned family friend, he would most definitely have won.
23 January 2005
Gay Couples with Clear Winner: 0 of 0
Straight Couples with Clear Winner: 4 of 6
Men: 4
Women: 1
Ties: 1
Disputed Results: 1
Year to Date
Gay Couples with Clear Winner: 2 of 2
Straight Couples with Clear Winner: 19 of 26
Men: 17
Women: 3
Ties: 3
Disputed Results: 4
1 Comment(s):
A Rare Victory for Self-Restraint
Over Mike's strenuous objections, I deleted the opening line of my report on my latest Columbia interviewee. I decided it was unprofessional to write, "I would call [Sade] a nihilist, only she lacks sufficient curiosity to look up the definition of nihilism."
0 Comment(s):
My Trip to the DMV
Most of you know that I as yet do not drive. I got a permit when I was 18, allowed it to lapse, failed the written test for a new permit when I was 22, passed on my second try, then allowed that to lapse, got a new one at 23 in New York, and failed to do anything with it before going back to California. Last fall I returned to the DMV to face my demons, only to discover that the birth certificate which I had used to get a) all previous permits b) my passport and c) married, was not an original but a copy. I was not only mad that I couldn't have a new permit to let lapse, I was nauseated at the ease with which one can apparently get a false ID from a real government agency. After some tangles with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene I was able to obtain a proper birth certificate, and armed with the latter I headed back to the DMV this week ignoring the nagging suspicion that these events were all hints from God to stay away from cars.
The staff of the Davis DMV are fairly depressing people. The boss, at 6'5" with a JerriCurl, towers over his staff of middle-aged women who have given up on life, freely dispensing reproach to his underlings and would-be drivers. For some reason, this man terrifies Michael and causes him to avoid the DMV at all costs, which is why it took so long to register the car. When my number came up I obediently went to the counter of a woman I will call Tootie. Tootie was relatively friendly, as DMV staffers go, and took a reassuringly long time to examine all my official documents. I was starting to feel better about national security when she turned to her neighbor, whom I will call Merle, and said, "Hey, Merle, look at this. New York City birth certificates say you shouldn't accept them unless you can see the security features listed on the back." Merle turned to her coldly and said, "They all have that, Tootie. You know they all have that, right?"
There was one last hitch in that the DMV does not take credit cards and because I do not drive I had to walk over the freeway to Safeway in order to find an ATM before I could take my test, but I made it in time. Fortunately it had taken so long for Tootie to get to me that I had ample time to study the California Driver's Handbook and therefore passed the written test with only two mistakes (you're in a truck's blindspot if you can't see yourself in the driver's mirrors? That's supposed to be useful information??? More like the correct answer should be stay the fuck away from trucks.). So, I have my fourth permit, and am determined not to turn 25 without a driver's license. I drove to work yesterday and it wasn't that bad. Cross your fingers for me, and for everyone else on the road.
1 Comment(s):
Mazel Tov! Driving is awesome, especially outside of New York. It is one of the major things I miss about living in a big city. (I do not paying for parking or car insurance at all though.)
One for the Schmaltzers
Many of you have inquired about our wedding photos and why we haven't posted them. The answer is that I am a giant loser and haven't done it yet. I haven't forgotten, it's just they're all on Mike's computer. I will get around to this problem eventually. In the meantime, in honor of our first anniversary, here's the tear-jerker (very popular with the romantics and our progenitors). Jesse says we look like we were laughing at an inside joke the whole night.
0 Comment(s):
What we're up against
Running the treadmill at the gym last week, I started to formulate a biblical argument for preserving Social Security. It was based on the idea in the Torah that Israelites were supposed to leave parts of their fields ungleaned, making sure that the "the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow," had something to eat. Since God is the de facto head of state in the Torah, the message is that governments are meant to provide for the poor. I told Anna about my revelation on the treadmill and she was far less excited, reminding me that:
1. I don't believe in divine will as a good reason for any political decision, 2. I'm not actually trying to argue that Republicans are evil, and
3. I decided against becoming a rabbi when I had the opportunity.
She is right on all of those counts. Therefore the argument did not make it onto the blog and is now just being posted as a lead-in. Writing in
34, Jeff posted the link to the two stories from the Times Magazine detailing the so-called
"conservative new deal." I was sucked in by this passage right at the top
(GOP activist Grover Norquist's) particular genius is for persuading one organization to reach beyond its own agenda to help out another -- for getting, say, the cultural traditionalists at the Eagle Forum to join the business libertarians at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in opposing fuel-economy standards for automobiles by convincing the traditionalists that, as Norquist once explained to me, ''it's backdoor family planning. You can't have nine kids in the little teeny cars. And what are you going to do when you go on a family vacation?''
That says to me that President Bush's right-wing agenda is seen by many as a wholistic ideology. Suddenly, after talking to this Norquist guy, cultural traditionalists can be talked into supporting SUV's over, say, clean air and water for family vacations into the woods.
I mention this because, over the next 18 months, we will see a sustained, well-coordinated, and passionate assault on the social safety net. I will give the President and his peeps the benefit of the doubt and say they are driven by ideology rather than malice. It seems as though it is going to come from all corners, with no specious arguments left untapped.
I fear the underlying consequence will be to turn our country into 1786 France with better technology. That's why I was tempted to think biblically, to try and speak to the plurality of people who identify themselves as Evangelical Christians. It would, of course, be disingenuous of me to pull this out in the course of an argument.
I'm trying to gather ammuntion to counter people should I get into arguments about this. I'm not silly enough to believe that I can change anyone's mind, especially the mind of a person prone to arguing about Social Security. This is about gathering material, creating my own talking points. It's just hard for me to come up with pithy things to say about social security or the tax code because like most Americans, I don't truly understand them.
I know that I believe in the social safety net, the proposition that everyone is responsible for everyone else. But in this, a case of all-out campaign against something I believe in, it seems like I need to be able to argue from every viewpoint. I do, however, promise to leave biblical arguments to the experts.
6 Comment(s):
Two nights ago on the Daily Show, the writer of "G-d's Politics" was on and he dropped a wonderful stat about how many lines in the New Testament are about poverty. Something like 300 lines about it. There is at least one about paying taxes even. "Give unto Ceasar..." Nothing about privitized accounts (or evolution, homosexuality, blowing people up, or the death penalty).
The argicultural laws Mike mentioned are explained in two ways. 1)While human ownership (private property) is a good thing (because it encourages innovation and work) it is not an absolute thing. Rather ownership is a relative claim. G-d owns everything relative to you, so he can regulate the nature of your ownership, taking away parts of your crop for the poor, the Temple (rain tax man), and the environment (ever 7 years the field needs to be left alone). He makes you give some of your stuff away just to remind you it is his more than it is yours. 2)There is a pretty clear indicator of a basic responsibility to social justice and your fellow Israelite. Part of what you have must go to the poor. This is just part of what being an Israelite was about.
However, most of this is Old Testament Law and most Evangelicals ignore that to get to the first 7 days of the Torah and the last 24 hours of Sodom and Gamorrah. (Remind me to send that rhyme to Akil.) However, if there is one Old Testament text Christains definitely love, it is Isaiah because of it can be read to prophesize Jesus' coming. (A tangent. Why was Isaih Thomas' nickname "Zeke?" It would make sense if he was named after a different prophet, Ezekiel, but not Isaiah. That never made sense to me.) Anyway, of all the Bibilical texts, Isaiah is the most committed to social justice. Basically he says, serving G-d without social justice is not going to cut it.
1:17 "cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppress, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow."
and
10:1 "woe them that decree unrighteous decrees, and to the writers that prescribe oppression. To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!"
The rest is a whole lot of the prophet making clear that no matter how many sacrafices you bring and prayers you make, G-d is not buying it until there is social justice. As he says at 1:14, "Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates: they are a trouble to me; I am weary of enduring them. And when you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even when you make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood."
So the question is, why not frame this debate in moral terms and appeal to evangellicals. Why not suggest, while Republicans are not evil (and I do not think they are) that the decision to phase out Social Security instead of fix it is an immoral decision? It is moral to have a system that helps the elderly and disabled if they need it. It is immoral to ignore such people.
Anyway, that is all the religion I can offer today. The shrewd Clintonian and perhaps proper answer is that Privatized Accounts on top of a fixed and secure Social Security system is the way to go. Democrats just need to articulate it more clearly.
For more info:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2112357/fr
http://thirtyfour.blogdns.com/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/2004/12/08#Indefensible1
The simplest answer to private accounts was posted to BrooklynDodger's at home protoblog at brooklyndodger.blogspot.com
Argument 1 for private accounts is that investing in the stock market rather than US Treasury bonds will give better interest and ultimately a higher monthly benefit. That gain in return could be accomplished by opening the investments that the Social Security Trust Fund can make. Administrative costs would likely eat up any increased return from a good investing strategy.
Argument 2 for private accounts is that the government might default on those bonds. Certainly the Bush deficits increase the chance of default, but should that happen the entire economy would crash anyway.
There are a bunch of other deform ideas such as increasing the retirement age and changing the indexing of benefits, both of which are simply benefit cuts. Legitimately, if people live longer, they need more retirement money, and something has to be done to take this into account. But that's irrelevant to "it's your money."
At the risk of sounding outdated, I reaffirm that an argument for the behavior of a political party or a political body such as congress should never be based on theology or interpretation of holy texts. It isn't that I don't find the passages Dave and Mike have pointed to fascinating; I do, and as to how they should guide our acts as three inheritors of the Judeo-Christian tradition they are highly relevant. But I fundamentally (har) object to the conflation of that argument with the moral imperatives of a secular or ecumenical office including the President's or that of any member of congress. I'm not being original here, but I abhor the practice of basing political morals on texts and traditions not shared by all Americans. Otherwise what was the point of the constitution? At that time nearly all Americans were Christians, but Americans still saw fit to spell out common precepts and to accept them as theirs to love, hate, honor and change. Unless one of us believes that, say, Hindus, don't vote, then even framing the argument in the context of the Torah is just a capitulation to the religious right. It is their goal to move religiosity (and not too many flavors of it) to the center of politics and every time we answer that challenge with religious theory instead of facts and law, then we have implicitly adopted their plan. Even on a blog I think that is incredibly important. That was why I originally objected to Mike's proposal to post a biblical argument against privatzing social security. By the way I have no idea why he brought up his abandoned plans for the rabbinacy, I sure didn't. I thought that it was pretty hot when he wanted to be a Rabbi.
Well, my post was motivated by two factors. 1)Mike's engagement with the Old Testament, which I did not want to leave without some interaction. 2)As you said yourself, chicks dig the Torah. Perhaps this caused some confusion about my intentions or feelings on these issues.
I think there are several distinctions at work in this general debate. First, whether morality (secular or otherwise) should be considered by the Modern State? Second, if it is supposed to consider morality, how does it derive its moral notions. Third, how much of a role religion can play in this process of derivation.
I think a State should consider morality in making its decisions. Secondly, I believe this morality should be derived from the shared values of its citizenship. Thirdly, I believe religion has no role in the formal process of law making and policy setting, but does have a role in translation, motivation, and politics.
So while Congress should not say, "Social Security should exist because of the Torah," it may say "Social Security should exist because we as Americans have a moral imperative to take care of the elderly and the vulnerable." For Joe Lieberman, that may translate as one thing. For Ted Kennedy another.
However, with the current make up of our country, this translation element cannot be ignored in practical matters. Their our various constiuencies that react to particular language. I think it is important to use that language to engage those people. Consider what it has done in the past....http://www.afscme.org/about/kingspch.htm
Just as an addition to my last post...when I mentioned Liebermen and Kennedy, I just meant two different moral traditions. My intention was to mention more. So the moral imperative that I was talking about was NOT exclusively religious. Rather, it could be translated into Marx, Ghandi, Secular Humanism, or Kant. I only wanted to point out the role of Religion in articulating moral imperatives and there strength in grounding them. Other world views do this too and should.
I agree wholeheartedly that religion informs the morality behind political issues and that that is neither good nor bad but simply inherent to a religious person's conscience. And the distinction you (Dave) make between formal lawmaking and motivation is apt. I concede that the two are separable.
My objection to the set of ideologies that I am lumping together simplistically as religious conservatism is not that it justifies its political positions with religious dogma but that extends that to an imperative to the rest of us. My faith in pluralism is stronger than my faith in any one of the religions that contribute to my moral character and I feel the need to be vigilant against adopting the same normative theology of our imagined opponents.
Mike's post was titled "What we're up Against," and argued that the Torah teaches us to provide for the poor. What bothered me about that and about your first comment is the implication that religious conservatives don't believe in providing for the poor. I'm sure you'd agree that's absurd. It came off to me as an exercise in proving that our political antagonists are hypocrites rather than an opening a dialogue. Part of this is also coming from larger issues than just the post and my own defensiveness about my murky religious identity.
I guess I went too far in my earlier comment. What I would like to say is that the overlap of religious morality and political morality has to be compartmentalized more neatly than I felt it has been on this blog posting. Demonstrating how the Torah passage in question relates to the privatization of social security sits fine with me because it assumes a common value of compassion and responsibility. I'm fine with saying "We, your political opponents, coming from different cultures traditions from yours, feel that your tradition is reconciled to our political position thus, therefore please join us."
I believe in moral imperatives, but I don't believe they can be determined by other people or other groups. When we impose our interpretation of any text on our opponents, as I felt you and Mike were attempting to do, then there's not enough difference, for my conscience, between us and "what we're up against."
Who Won? Who the Hell Gets Married in January? Edition
I returned from the scenic Central Coast of California to find that the men dominated this weekend's wedding section. It was a great disappointment to learn that someone named Elizabeth Victory had changed her name to Elizabeth Anderson.
16 January 2005
Gay Couples with Clear Winner: 1 of 1
Straight Couples with Clear Winner: 9 of 10
Men: 8
Women 1
Ties: 1
Disputed Results: 0
Year to Date
Gay Couples with Clear Winner: 2 of 2
Straight Couples with Clear Winner: 15 of 20
Men: 13
Women: 2
Ties: 2
Disputed Results: 3
4 Comment(s):
A staff member in H&S who is early in a PhD program at U of M suggests the following methodology for this exercise to eliminate bias. For example, if one rater thought all [or most] men were more attractive than all [or most] women, then women would always [or mostly] be winners and the exercise would prove nothing about the success or failure of any individual man or woman in competition.
Each rater should rate each partner numerically on a parametric scale specific to each gender: men from 1 to 10, women from 1 to 10 [or whatever, it's unlikely that more than a 5 point scale is real; there are studies in psychophysical measurements whicha apply here]. Other rater should be blinded. Results should then be compared. BrooklynDodger assumes that the lower ranking partner is the winner. Median and mean scores should be calculated for each rater for each gender to measure bias; eventually, ratings should be normalized.
Frank has definitely lost sight of the point of this game.
Was BrooklynDodger deliberately outed by the last post?
Well, Anonymous, if BrooklynDodger was anonymous before it was news to me. Though our readership might contain many such fonts of occupational health stats and sport chauvinism as my father-in-law, I think everyone who knows who Frank is also knows who BrooklynDodger is.
I am Half-Assed, and so is this Post
Some of you were good enough to remember Mike's and my anniversary, only Mike is still away so we're celebrating it later, probably by playing WW?. I almost went to bed without blogging tonight, but I was kept awake by certain injuries sustained during cycling class (hint: Jimmy's old roommate was named after the injured region) so I'm giving you my post-mortem of the Golden Globes. Bear in mind that I missed whatever happened after 10:30 that night because the old biddy in me lost out to the old fart and I went to sleep (no cycling yesterday).
Best Moments (for schadenfreude) in no particular order:
- Star Jones Reynolds pointed out that William H. Macy and his wife Felicity Huffman were both nominated, referring to them as double nominees. "Better a double nominee than a double amputee, I always say," Macy bantered.
- Clive Owen picked his nose while accepting his Golden Globe.
- Not to be outdone, Ian McShane kept up the British reputation for hygiene by picking his nose while accepting his Golden Globe. Paging Dr. Mormonstein.
- Geoffrey Rush thanked his hair and makeup people, presumably for making him look like Peter Sellers, only his current hair was so awful that the audience thought he was joking and laughed.
- Clint Eastwood accepting: "I'd like to thank the Hollywood Foreign Press for all the work you do, especially that tsunami thing--that was great."
Cutest Couple:
Samuel L. Jackson and LaTonya Richardson, followed by Huffman and Macy. then Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi.
Best Dressed Women:
- Ashley Judd
- Sandra Oh
- Nicole Kidman
- Uma Thurman
- Natalie Portman
Runners-up: Meryl Streep, Teri Hatcher, Cate Blanchett, Kerry Washington, Amanda Anka
Best-Dressed Men:
- Robert Redford
- Samuel L. Jackson
- Sean Hayes
- Michael Chiklis
- Usher
Runners-up: Clint Eastwood, Patrick Wilson, Will Ferrell, that little guy who directed
The Sea Inside
Worst-Dressed Women:
- Diane Kruger
- Eva Longoria
- Anjelica Huston
- Emmy Rossum (it's rare that an outfit manages to be both ugly and boring)
- Halle Berry
Runners-up: Mischa Barton, Melina Kanekawhatever, Debra Messing, Minnie Driver
Worst-Dressed Men:
- Prince
- Laurence Fishburne
- Wayne Newton
- Geoffrey Rush
- Prince
Runners-up: David Carradine
Some of you will have noticed that most of those links are missing. That is because I am tired. Perhaps I will address this problem at work tomorrow. Thank you.
0 Comment(s):