Category Archives: Culture Nights

The Love Bug?

Posted on by
7

I knew there were such things as gay bars, but I didn’t know there were gay cars until I read an article that today’s Strib reprinted from the New York Times. Apparently certain cars are “known” to be vehicles of choice for gays: Subaru Outbacks for lesbians, for example, and Mazda Miatas and Volkswagon Bugs (among others) for the guys. Let me tell you, it certainly made me rethink the Disney movie classic “The Love Bug”! Do you think all along Herbie always had a thing for Dean Jones and not Michele Lee? Could the number “53” be some kind of code, maybe kind of like driving with just your left fog lamp on?

It just never occurred to me that a type of car could be “gay”, though there’s no doubt that we have long bought and marketed vehicles because of the kind of image they project, from “muscle” cars to minivans. Certainly there’s a kind of manly brawniness with some trucks and SUVs — perhaps someone is just overcompensating? Frankly, I would have been mystified that a certain look or certain features could be construed as gay — though I must admit that the new Dodge Nitro does look rather “butch.” I mean, what would you look for in a “gay” car: a liftback? Four-on-the-floor? A car that pulls to the left? A pick-up? And just what does the “PT” stand for in a PT Cruiser?

Let’s not even think about what a leather interior suggests! (Well, okay: Grand Marquis de Sade?)

Is this true for other lifestyles as well? Do certain vehicles have certain connotations? I suppose minivans are universally recognized and mocked for being the vehicles of choice for soccer moms, and there’s something about a Corvette that screams “mid-life crisis”, but if you see someone driving a Golf, would they necessarily have to be a golfer? Do all Prius’s come with a Wellstone! sticker as standard equipment? Do all bloggers have “Star Fleet Academy” lettering on the back window?

Is there such a thing as a “Christian” car? I know Dodge used to make a certain mid-sized car that I once thought might be kind of funny to own, if only so I could say, “Ok, kids — let’s get in the Spirit and drive to church!”

And please, somebody tell me: what were you thinking when you bought a Ford Probe?

Whatever a spider man can

Posted on by
Reply

Davin Arul has a great piece today about Spiderman – the superhero most like us and, perhaps, the one we’d most like to be like, doing battle both against evil-doers and our own personal weaknesses. Arul looks at the decisions that make a superhero:

You can’t quit now: Every fibre of your being hurts: from the pain of those broken ribs, to the strain of holding up that collapsing ceiling while flood waters swirl about your waist, rising with each second.

You want to just give in, submit to the blackness that’s hovering at the edge of your vision. But Aunt May will die, because she’ll never receive the medicine that’s in your belt if you give up. And so you resolve not to.

No odds are impossible: The Sinister Six, a collection of your worst enemies, have beaten you down and they’re now set to carry out their diabolical plans. Thousands could die if they aren’t stopped. You’re the only hero present, so it’s all up to you. Individually, they’re tough to handle – let alone all at once.

So you put that genius intellect of yours to work. You prioritise your targets, you formulate a strategy, you determine which enemy’s strength you can turn against him. And then you get to work.

If about to crack … just crack wise: The enemy you face is implacable, and has every desire to do you harm. Reasoning with him hasn’t helped, and you feel little tendrils of panic tickle the back of your brain. So … you let loose a stream of banter and wisecracks, and it keeps your mind off the seriousness of the situation.

Your foe scoffs at first, but then the banter gets under his skin. He starts to get careless, while your resolve grows and you can sense that you’ve won. Levity over gravity, my man.

You think you’ve got problems: Sure, the rent is overdue, Aunt May’s medical bills are piling up, and that tightwad boss of yours is threatening to cut your photo rates. But that family you saved from a fire last week has to live in a community hall for the next six months.

And that elderly guy you grabbed just before a bus hit him – your keen senses picked up the rattle in his breathing that told you he was really sick. But he was genuinely happy to be alive.

Think you’ve got problems, hero? They don’t add up to a hill of beans next to some other folks’ troubles. And if they can cope – then maybe you can, too.

Do the right thing: Even if it means admitting an earlier “thing” was wrong…

…When “moral” and “legal” decided on one of their frequent trial separations, you chose the former, determined to correct your mistakes and honour the sacrifices of your comrades.

With great power: And now we stand at your beginning. Something has changed inside you. Where you were once weak and reticent, you’re suddenly brimming with vigour and confidence.

You’re standing on a ledge, considering your future. It really isn’t that far to the next rooftop, but it seems like a mile away. Just one step back and you’ll be on familiar ground again, on firm footing, and life will go on as it always has.

One step forward, one leap of faith, and everything changes forever. Your life will never be the same, and neither will the lives of those dear to you. Yes, change can be disruptive, but it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

You hesitate because you are, after all, only human. You’re standing on a ledge, considering your future.

And just like that, you go for it.

Great stuff. Of course, that all just applies to superheroes and comic books, right? Go read the whole thing.

Father of the Year Moment

Posted on by
1

Even though we were born on the same day in the same year, I don’t have much interest in Alec Baldwin or his views. Hence I enjoyed a mild schadenfreude last Friday when I saw headlines about him leaving an angry voicemail for his 11-year-old daughter. It was kind of funny for him to find himself the target of all the Tsk-Tsking for a change.

I didn’t have time to read the articles, though, so it wasn’t until I was driving home and listening to Jason Lewis that I heard the recording of the conversation as well as the background that explained that Baldwin was upset because his daughter, who doesn’t live with him, had developed the habit of not answering her phone for the pre-appointed phone calls that are part of his visitation rights and his efforts to parent from across the country. Given that understanding, I was more sympathetic to him as I listened to the tape and heard him venting the frustration, hurt and humiliation he was experiencing because of his daughter’s behavior and thought that it didn’t reflect well on her that she’d act that way and then even turn over the recording to the media.

“That’s a child,” I thought, “with issues.” Not the least of which is being called a “selfish pig” by your father. I couldn’t help but think about tape and the relationship after I got out of the car and it suddenly occurred to me that Baldwin’s outburst, while initiated by his daughter, was all about how she had made him feel, what he had to put up, what efforts he had made and what he wasn’t going to put with. In short, it was all about HIM, and I thought that selfishness perhaps runs in the family.

Not that my children haven’t been the catalysts for some of my own tirades and that my own rants are known for their flawless reason and selfless eloquence, but it occurred to me that the things that have most upset me (and let me emphasize that there have been very few of these occasions) are times when they were inconsiderate of others or short-sighted in their actions. My concerns then were not in the offense that they may have done to me or to others (even if inadvertent) but in terms of the quality of their character and the potentially negative consequences they could experience as they grew up if their offense wasn’t recognized and dealt with. Part and parcel of that has been to inculcate in them a second-nature awareness of how their words and actions affect others and how empathy is better than sympathy.

Last week the Fundamentals in Film class that I teach to teenage boys watched To Kill a Mockingbird, and our discussion during and after the movie was about courage, commitment to do what is right and the part that prejudice and preconceptions plays even today in events such as the Duke lacrosse case or even the shootings at Virginia Tech. Perhaps the greatest lesson, however, is Atticus’ belief that you can’t really know a person until you’ve walked around in his skin for a little bit; i.e., put yourself in that person’s shoes and go for a little walk. Sociopaths like the Virginia Tech shooter (I won’t even use his name, given his desire for notoriety) are completely wrapped up in themselves and their feelings and have not a whit’s worth of concern or empathy for their victims and their families. Mass murder takes it to the extreme, but our own lack of awareness can also be devastating to others and (to be selfish) a source of great regret for ourselves later.

Empathy doesn’t automatically excuse or justify another’s actions, especially if they are heinous, but it can help us to understand them and to ponder our own shortcomings in a beneficial, not abusive, way. I empathize with Alec Baldwin, but I hope this experience and lesson (painful as it may be) ultimately has a positive effect on him and his daughter.

More from the Greatest Generation

Posted on by
Reply

Miss America 1944, Venus Ramey, used her .38 pistol to shoot out the tires of a would-be thief trying to steal equipment from her Kentucky farm last week — even though she had to steady herself in her walker while doing so.

“I didn’t even think twice. I just went and did it,” she said. “If they’d even dared come close to me, they’d be 6 feet under by now.”

Ramey was the first red-head to win the Miss America title and sold war bonds during World War II, and even had her image painted on the side of a B-17.

I think it might be interesting if Sen. Harry Reid were to explain himself to Ms. Ramey.

Taxiing at the airport

Posted on by
1

Now even a half-dressed Paris Hilton, carrying a bottle of Grey Goose and a chihuahua while eating a ham sandwich will be able to get a cab at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.

In a rare display of Minnesota resolve the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) voted unanimously to take a hard line in imposing stricter sanctions on cab drivers who refuse to accept fares from passengers carrying alcohol. While the policy calls for penalties for any driver refusing a fare unless the would-be passenger is drunk or disorderly, it was enacted in response to some Muslim cabbies refusing, on the basis of their religious beliefs, to transport passengers carrying alcohol. A first offense calls for a 30-day license suspension and a second requires a two-year suspension (the previous penalty was that the driver had to go back to the end of the cab-line, which might be as much as a two-hour wait for another fare).

While this policy was written primarily in response to refusals to transport passengers carrying booze —more than 4800 “refusals of service” in the last five years — there have also been incidences of Muslim cabdrivers refusing passengers with service dogs (service pigs would be right out). I think it’s likely the MAC was also concerned that if it permitted refusals-of-service based on alcohol and dogs that it might next be dealing with religious refusals to transport unescorted women, Jewish passengers and arbitragers dealing in pork-belly futures. Therefore the line was drawn, and it’s a hard one.

It’s not clear to me whether the MAC has the authority to keep a cabbie from plying his trade anywhere other than at the airport. There is also the usual talk about this decision being challenged to the Minnesota Supreme Court on the basis of the MAC, being a government organization, is required to make “reasonable accomodation” for religious beliefs. I’m not a lawyer, but I think they have to take it to court first before a case can go to the Supreme Court. Also, the MAC is a customer, not an employer, of the cabbies; don’t know if that makes a difference.

If it goes to court it might make for an interesting ruling that could affect policies such as other governmental organizations (e.g., cities) being able to set terms for prospective vendors on the paying a “livable” wage or having a certain percentage of minority employees and/or owners in order to receive contracts.

As I’ve written before, I have a certain admiration for people sticking to their religious principles on the job, especially if they are prepared to pay the “market price” for their choices. Ultimately if a cabdriver perceives permitting alcohol inside his cab to be on par with, say, selling booze then it might be time to prayerfully consider another career.

Dying easy

Posted on by
3

When I walk outside to get the newspaper in the morning I never think to check first for skulking lions or packs of wolves. I drive to work with my seatbelt fastened and six airbags surrounding me and don’t bother to keep an eye out for bandits. I go to work in a building that’s never had a cave-in or been attacked by a whale and doesn’t even keep a tally board of how many accident-free days in a row have gone by. I come home to a delicious dinner that I didn’t have to risk life and limb in acquiring (and we haven’t bought any hydrogenated foods in years). If one of my children develops a cough I don’t worry that it’s the plague. My government hasn’t threatened to drag me away in the middle of the night for years.

Yep, our lives are pretty easy and danger free these days — or so I thought. I mentioned to my wife the other day that I had a case of bottled water in the trunk of my car if she needed any. She said I should be careful not to let the bottles get too warm because she heard they’ll release a toxic gas into the water. A few weeks ago I was eating with a group of folks and the discussion was about how cooking food in a microwave alters the molecules and destroys its nutritional value. This is supposedly especially true for vegetables, which I generally avoid anyway, but it makes me wonder what would happen if I microwaved a Twinkie. It seems to me as if the only way to go is up in that case, nutrition-wise.

Now when I was growing up I often heard that if you sat too close to that new-fangled color television set it would make you sterile (today they say that about laptops). I sat close to the TV anyway and it doesn’t seem to have had any effect. Of course, as a kid, I also drank out of the garden hose all the time — something else they now say you’re not supposed to do. The TV didn’t stop me from having children, and the laptop came along too late to impact our family planning (bringing one home all the time, however, does seem to have an affect on my sex life).

It’s hard to tell just what to take seriously anymore. I suppose anything that makes our life easier has just naturally got to have some insidious, toxic trade off (if only Eve had paid attention to the warning label on that apple!). I did some on-line research on the always reliable internet and there might be something to the microwaving thing (here, here and here, — oh, and don’t use one of these to dry your pet after a bath) and to the toxic water bottles, though there appears to be more concern about reusing bottles than the amount of PET that might leach into your premium H20. Still, it’s got to be safer than drinking tap water, right? Maybe not, unless of course you’re trying to avoid the harmful effects of fluoridation.
It’s enough to make you want to get your water direct from a clear mountain stream, as long as you don’t think to much about what all those fish and ducks have been doing in it.

I don’t know, I suppose the next thing they’re going to tell us is that watching television makes you fat.

This just in …

Posted on by
Reply

There was so much in the news this week to comment on and so little time to do it. Let me see if I can sum up:

People were shocked when a Shock Jock called Anna Nicole Smith “an empty-headed ‘ho’,” but not as shocked as they were when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson couldn’t find a microphone or a camera in order to apologize for maligning the Duke lacrosse players, who were conclusively proven to not have been the fathers of little Danielynn.

So, did anything important happen in the world that I might have missed?

Philistine terrorist attacks offensive painting

Posted on by
2

Milwaukee museum visitor attacks $300,000 painting

The painting was Vannini’s “Triumph of David”, depicting the young shepherd holding up the severed head of Goliath. The attacker’s nationality wasn’t disclosed, but I’m guessing there are still some prickly Philistines around who’ll take umbrage at such physical representations.

Then again, it is Milwaukee. He might have just been drunk.

“Fat Bastard” was Scottish, wasn’t he?

Posted on by
2

On the heels of the first anniversary of the Scottish smoking ban, it may not be long before the next ghillie drops. An article in The Scotsman today bemoans the cost of the “obesity epidemic,” including a 16 percent increase in the prescribing of anti-obesity drugs to citizens. The cost of the obesity pills to treat this “epidemic” (watch out, it’s contagious) represents an annual additional cost to the Scottish taxpayer of £500 (about $1,000).

It won’t be long now (if it hasn’t already occurred) that the nannies will be calling for bans on fatty foods as a matter of health and national interest.

This is a problem on two levels in Scotland: one, the nanny-state mentality that holds sway and makes such bans not only conceivable but likely; and two, the fact that healthcare in Scotland is nationalized in the first place, which simultaneously puts the government in charge of extracting the costs from all citizens while also being in position to ration what care is provided and deciding who is “worthy.” And is it any surprise that obesity is increasing when the government stands ready to pass out anti-obesity pills? The pills might be effective but they’re no match for the principle that you get more of whatever you subsidize.

This is also an issue that also points out the challenges ahead for Minnesota as we are on the verge of enacting our own state-wide smoking ban (in public places, for now) and where our current legislature can’t wait for the opportunity to pass single-payer healthcare provisions. (By the way, the population of Scotland is about the same as Minnesota’s; according to 2005 estimates there are 5.09 million people in Scotland and 5.13 million in Minnesota).

The article didn’t expressly call for a ban on selling unhealthy foods, but it’s the next logical step from a system that has, ironically, force-fed its citizens with a never-ending platter of entitlements as if they were so many veal calfs or geese being prepared for foie gras , limiting their movement (freedoms) til they were in a dullard’s stupor unable to resist and fit only to be harvested for their taxes.

Snippets from the article include:

… Spending on anti-obesity drugs rocketed to more than £4 million in Scotland last year as GPs doled out 89,000 prescriptions.

…Spending on the two main anti-obesity drugs rose from £3.55 million in 2004-5 to £4.12 million in 2005-6.

…”Being overweight is a disease, and why shouldn’t these patients get these drugs?” she said.

…The World Health Organisation has described obesity as a “worldwide epidemic”, and it is already thought to cause 9,000 premature deaths a year in the UK and costs the NHS £1 billion annually.

…A recent study by the Health and Social Care Information Centre showed that the annual cost for the two main drugs, Orlistat and Sibutramine, has hit almost £38 million in the UK, which means that £1 in every £264 spent on NHS drugs is now being used for obesity medication.

Now I am rather robust of frame myself. If it were, in fact, “raining men” as the old song sang, I’d be my own puddle. Of course, armed with the information from the article I now know that I have a disease and that I am a helpless victim of a worldwide epidemic. I’m sure I caught this disease from using a contaminated spoon while eating ice cream, or from one of those people in line next to me at McDonald’s coughing on me. If only someone would do something to help me!

That’s not to diminish the serious health issues of obesity. If I, myself, am to diminish however it should be up to me, not the government. I can eat less, exercise more and even counter-intuitive as it sounds — sleep more and lose weight. Sleeping more is something that I’ve been trying to do, since studies have shown that getting more than seven hours of sleep a night helps your body control its weight. The problem is, I always wake up after six hours (or less) regardless of when I go to bed, no matter how much I’d like to sleep longer.

Maybe someone should pass a law.

[For other accounts on this blog describing Scotland’s infatuation with running people’s lives, go here and here.]

They’re not kilts, they’re aprons

Posted on by
1

Scotland is now one year into it’s nation-wide smoking ban, something that I could see Robert the Bruce agreeing to but never William Wallace.

Personally, I’m a lifelong non-smoker. In my youth I considered the economies and relative “coolness” of smoking vs. driving and decided to use that money to put gas in my car. Furthermore, the last few years I haven’t gone to many bars, but when I did I preferred to go to ones that had no-smoking sections. Nevertheless, I enjoyed going to Keegan’s (pre-Minneapolis ban) for Trivia Night even though I knew I’d come home reeking of smoke. It was a trade-off I was willing to make for the socializing. I draw the line at socialism, however, and other people telling a private business how it ought to operate through laws rather than the marketplace. That’s not because the marketplace is any kinder or gentler than the government, but it is a lot more grounded in reality. Not that the marketplace can’t be a cruel master, but at least its focus is on finding ways to entice me to give it money voluntarily while the government is dedicated to finding ways to take more money, preferably while giving me as little say in the process as possible.

Anyway, because of a news thread I’ve been following on a business matter I occasionally come across news stories about the effects of the smoking ban in Scotland (unrelated to my original news search). An article in today’s The Publican, a UK pub-trade publication, takes a look at the results of the past year. It notes that many pubs have been hurt and are even going out of business since the ban went into effect, but that this may not be tied solely to the ban, and that other pubs have not been as affected.

One year on: the Scottish smoking ban
22 March, 2007

Licensees there have faced the new laws with varying success, Roy Beers investigates

Three-hundred-and-sixty-five days into the smoking ban, pubs north of the border are experiencing mixed fortunes.

The ban in Scotland has hit some pubs and clubs even harder than trade pessimists expected, according to the country’s biggest licensee organisation. However, on-trade multiple operators, for example Mitchells & Butlers and Belhaven (now part of Greene King), have reported only minor damage to their Scottish pubs’ drinks sales.

The Scottish Licensed Trade Association’s (SLTA) chief executive, Paul Waterson, says independent commissioned research showed overall pub turnover slumped 11 per cent last year, a more serious decline than the organisation’s own original estimate of seven per cent.

He told The Publican a combination of the ban and discount beer offers in supermarkets was driving many pubs to the wall.

He has warned publicans in England that even some of those pubs that “do everything possible” ­- for example enhance food business and provide smoking areas -­ are still certain to lose trade.

In Scotland traditional wet-led community pubs are said to have been hardest hit, along with community-based social clubs. Bingo halls have suffered a wave of closures. Scotland’s growing pub leasing sector is also said to be under particular pressure.

Making the lease unworkable

James Hickman, lessee of Scottish & Newcastle Pub Enterprises (S&NPE) McEwans Ale House, in the Newington area of Edinburgh, said last week that the ban had been “the major factor in making the lease unworkable” ­ as he prepared to wind up his business with major debts. “Besides the ban driving people away, you see people passing all the time with carryouts from cheap supermarket deals -­ they’re the students who would be our customers, but who can now drink cheaply as well as smoke freely in their flats,” he added.

S&NPE operations and sales director for Scotland, Ken McGown, said: “In addition to the impact of the smoking ban, for which we have sympathy with the lessee, there were a number of other factors which ultimately led to him deciding to move on.”

Loyal customers

“Some (S&NPE) pubs you would imagine would suffer have actually borne up due to a loyal customer base, and pubs with good food offers are reporting a positive response to the smoking ban,” said McGown.

In Fife, some community-based registered social clubs have shut, while others have seen annual takings ­ and charity donations slashed. Davie Nelson of the Coal Industry Social Work Organisation in Glenrothes, said:

“We’re losing £1,000 per week, and two other clubs have closed ­- some pubs are in trouble too. Local charities will be getting only around half the usual amounts because of the ban ­ and a local wheelchair users’ club has been forced to close for lack of money.” In addition to falling sales, licensees around the country have been dogged by complaints about noise and litter created by outdoor smokers: a North-East councillor last year tried unsuccessfully to ban smoking at outdoor tables.

…

“We were promised a massive influx of customers when smoking was banned -­ and it simply hasn’t happened.”

Read the whole thing.