Birds of a feather flock in St. Paul

Posted on by
1

Kevin Ecker of Eckernet infiltrated the St. Paul rally for illegal immigrants on Sunday and has an interesting report with photos. Apparently a group from Pheasants Forever was there to show solidarity and to advocate for the rights of countless birds who regularly thumb their noses at U.S. immigration laws and officials with only sporadic opposition from the Minute Man project and Dick Cheney.

NBC Dateline was also on the scene with people dressed as Muslim terrorists to see if they would be discriminated against, but left when their subjects went completely unnoticed by government officials and other fellow immigrants.

That’s not to say the day wasn’t without some conflict, however. A brief confrontation did occur between an on-looker and a member of the Pheasant group.

Onlooker (a large, regal looking fellow): “Bloody pheasant!”

Marcher: “Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?”

The aftermath of the rally was much neater than the typical protest, however, as several groups of marchers engaged in a spirited bidding war with St. Paul mayor and DFLer Chris Coleman for the job of cleaning up afterwards. One group actually won with a low bid of $3.75 an hour, but the deal fell through when the mayor said that they wouldn’t be allowed to smoke. The city ultimately settled with another group at $4.50 an hour plus the mayor’s invitation for them to vote as often as they liked in the next election regardless of their citizenship status.

Challenging Word of the Week: haruspex

Posted on by
1

Haruspex
(huh RUS peks, HAIR uh speks) noun

This was the title, in ancient Rome, of a lower order of priests who prophesied by examining the entrails of animals killed in sacrifice. The custom was handed down by the Etruscans. The practice is known as haruspication (hair us puh KAY shun) or haruspicy (huh RUS puh see). The verb is haruspicate (huh RUS puh kate). Haruspex is a Latin word, base on Etruscan haru, Latin hira (entrail) plus specere (to look at: spexi means “I have inspected’). The Roman Censor (a government official) Cato (234-149 B.C.) was not impressed by this type of divination. He said: “I wonder how one haruspex can keep from laughing when he sees another.” This made him very unpopular with haruspices.

My example: The modern haruspex has replaced animal entrails with complex computer models for economic forecasts. The resulting prophesies, while similarly apt to be self-fulfilling, aren’t necessarily more accurate — but they are certainly less messy. Today’s haruspices, like their earlier counterparts, have perfected the ability to take each other seriously, at least in public.

From the book, “1000 Most Challenging Words” by Norman W. Schur, ©1987 by the Ballantine Reference Library, Random House. I post a weekly “Challenging Words” definition to call more attention to this delightful book and to promote interesting word usage in the blogosphere. I challenge other bloggers to work the current word into a post sometime in the coming week. If you manage to do so, please leave a comment or a link to where I can find it. Previous words in this series can be found under the appropriate Category heading in the right-hand sidebar.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Apollo 13

Posted on by
4
“From now on we live in a world where man has walked on the moon. It wasn’t a miracle. We just decided to go.” Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) spoke those words early on in Apollo 13, setting a tone of both hubris and awesome pluck and ingenuity. This is an inspiring movie and quite unlike others in this Fundamentals in Film series in that the men in the movie weren’t in a

battle between good and evil, or facing conventional conflict against an enemy, but were struggling, literally, against time and space. All the while, however, they also had to draw deeply from their own reserves of character and resolve.

The movie starts with the landing of Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong’s walk on the moon (something my parents got me out of bed to watch on tv) and then focuses on the true story of the men of Apollo 13 and their families as they prepared for what would have been the third moonwalk and instead turned into a harrowing fight for survival after an explosion while in space knocks out most of their ship’s power, fuel and oxygen. Forced from their Odyssey capsule the three astronauts (Lovell, Fred Haise, Jack Swigert) squeeze into the still attached lunar module (LEM) designed for two men. While the astronauts take steps and make calculations to survive, an initially frantic ground crew in Houston under the direction of Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) works around the clock to find a way to bring the men home safely.

There weren’t any scary monsters in the movie to leap out and eat someone, or bad guys with fiendish plots, but the suspense and tension are constant and intensifying as you watch the astronauts and Houston deal with problem after problem. The character study in the movie comes from watching the men control their emotions and fears in order to focus on the incredibly complex and even unfair obstacles facing them, taking them on one by one and ingeniously improvising new uses for their available equipment. Another key factor in successfully returning the men to earth was the quality of leadership exhibited by Lovell and Kranz; without their examples the men under their respective commands could have quickly fallen prey to panic and fault-finding. Apollo 13 is an excellent example of leadership under great stress.

It is also an interesting contrast to see how rudimentary the technology was in many ways. The astronauts, for example, perform complex mathematical calculations with paper and pencil while engineers in Houston were still using slide rules. It kind of makes you wonder about how well today’s students or engineers could perform under stress and without battery power.

Discussion Questions:

 

    1. How did the training the astronauts and the technicians received affect the way each was able to respond? Give examples.

 

    1. Lovell had to chose between bumping his pilot, Ken Mattingly, from the flight at almost the last minute or replacing the entire crew for the mission. Why do you think he chose to tell Mattingly his decision face to face and to accept the responsibility for a decision that was forced on him? What other ways could he have handled this?

 

    1. Emotionally, hHow did Lovell and Kranz react to the crisis, and what affect do you think this had on the men around them and the outcome of the mission?

 

    1. In what ways did Lovell encourage his fellow astronauts at different times during the crisis?

Points to ponder:

 

    • How much do we rely on our technology, and how can we cope without it in an emergency?

 

    • How important was it for Gene Kranz to say, “Failure is not an option”? What affect did this have?

 

Great quotes:

“Houston, we have a problem.” (Jim Lovell)

“Failure is not an option.” (Gene Kranz)

NASA Director: “This could be the greatest disaster NASA’s ever experienced.”
Kranz: “With all due respect, sir, I believe this is going to be our finest hour.”

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I’m also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series. You can browse the entire series by clicking on the “Fundamentals in Film” category in the right sidebar of this blog.

Supersize this! (Your will-power, that is)

Posted on by
2

As Americans, we like food. We like to have it as fast as possible, and the bigger, the better. Thus, fast-food. At least, that’s what it’s called, though I’m not sure that it really qualifies in the “food” department.

Anyway, apparently 1 in 4 Americans visits a fast-food restaurant every day. French fries are the most eaten veggie in the U.S. They are linking these stats (and more!) to this one: 60% of all American’s are overweight or obese. Just some fun facts for ya’.

Morgan Spurlock, the producer/director of the documentary “Supersize Me”, asks: “Is it our(American’s) fault for lacking self-control, or are fast-food corporations to blame?”

Hmmm…Let me think about that one.

How exactly are the fast-food corporations to blame for Amercans not being able to control themselves? It’s not like secret agents from McDonald’s are walking around holding guns to 1 in 4 American heads and forcing them to eat fast-food! What would they say to threaten them, “Eat this and/or die”? Right.

I’ve heard of a couple girls that sued Micky D’s because eating their food made them get fat and sick. My question is, how much did they eat to get that way? Was someone force-feeding them, or were they just being piggies all by themselves? Wasn’t there an alternative nearby like, say, Subway?

The World Health Organization has declared obesity a global epidemic, but it seems that people are more worried about who to blame than about how to make a change for the better in their own lives.

Sure, you can point your finger at fast-food places all you want, but ultimately, you are resposible for what you put in your mouth.

And when it comes right down to it, if people started taking charge of their diets and not eating at fast-food joints, don’t you think those joints would notice and start making changes of their own? Numbers don’t lie — whether on they’re on bottom line or your bathroom scale!

Nice writers

Posted on by
Reply

Somewhere in my business career I came across a quote that goes something like, “Writers don’t like to write. Writers like to have written.” I can’t remember who said it or where I saw it, or even if I’ve got the wording absolutely correct, but I certainly understand the sentiment. Sometimes I’ve gotten more of a charge from clicking the “Finish” button and posting something here than I did when I got the idea for that post in the first place. The reason wasn’t because the post was especially profound, but just because I was “done”.

One of the reasons I started blogging, however, was to reinvigorate my writing chops. While I certainly wanted to voice my opinions on politics, faith and other matters there was fundamentally a desire to get back to the fun of stringing words together in a way that was at least stimulating to me; to recall the feeling of having a line or paragraph well up from the keys under my fingers so that I asked myself, “Where did that come from?”

I also love it when I experience that same sensation while reading someone else’s writing in the blogosphere. I like to stay current on events but as much as I love a good snark or appreciate a well-crafted, sharp-edged political commentary or a vigorous fisking of some inanity, my “aha!” moments usually come when I read someone who’s just letting the words flow simply because he or she can.

That’s what’s happened with a couple of recent visitors and commenters who have caught my attention, and I’d like to direct your attention their way as well: Plain Simple English and Plein Air Sketches. You’ll find a comely assortment of witty observations and piquant insight but most of all I think you’ll find, as I did, simply a joy and delight in applying the craft. Do check them out.

What do they think I am?

Posted on by
5

OK, call me Ned Flanders and I can appreciate the spirit in which it was intended. Others can call me EVIL INCARNATE and it won’t make me question my existence. But some things are starting to make me wonder what some people think about me.

For example, I get about 8 “Paypal” messages a day with this photo alerting me to possible security problems and giving me a handy link where I can easily reveal all my personal information with just a couple of clicks and watch my credit score fall right before my very eyes.

If I didn’t fall for this scam the first 1,843 times it hit my email, why do they think that mailings 1,844-1,850 are going to do the trick? Do they think I’m like some big, old bass under the lily pads thinking, “You know, that rubber worm is starting to look really good.” Did I somehow get my name added to some national sucker registry?

Then last week I rented a car at the St. Louis airport where the young lady offered me the option of simply leaving it to them to refill the gas tank when I brought the car back — at only $4.10 a gallon. Next I caught the agency’s shuttle to the car lot where I was greeted as soon as I stepped down onto the pavement by my own personal service associate. He helpfully had all my paperwork in hand, and informed me that for just a few dollars more a day he could easily get me into an SUV. I declined. He then walked me around the car for a pre-rental damage inspection and showed me where to sign on the form if I wanted the additional insurance.

I declined that too.

He pointed to another line where I could sign if I wanted the special insurance that would cover my own auto insurance deductible if anything happened to the car.

I again declined.

Then he asked if I was sure that I didn’t want the extra special insurance coverage that would let me simply walk away without a thought no matter what condition the car was in when I brought it back.

This time I looked around to make sure it was a shuttle van and not a turnip truck that I had just dismounted from, then checked my reflection in the car window to make sure that I somehow hadn’t morphed into Bo Duke. I declined again and this time he finally let me drive away. At the intersection there was a guy selling Rolexes from a cardboard box.

You know, that was a pretty good deal.

All movies not created sequel

Posted on by
3

Last weekend the animated sequel Ice Age 2 earned some $67 million more than another sequel that also debuted, Basic Instinct 2. Instinct director Paul Verhoeven claims that the lack of interest in the Sharon Stone vehicle is due to the puritanical, Christian attitude of the U.S. as exemplified by the current presidential administration.

Of course the paltry gross may just be because it’s a bad movie, but Verhoeven could be on to something. Consider that the much-acclaimed gay sheepherder movie “Brokeback Mountain” has grossed about $80 million in the 17 weeks its been out – roughly $10 million more than Ice Age 2 did in just its first weekend, and some $200 million behind what “The Chronicles of Narnia” has taken in during those same 17 weeks (source: Box Office Mojo). Is it merely a case of good vs. evil or silly triumphing over slutty, or is it something more? I haven’t seen either one of the movies, but let’s, er, go to the film and break it down to see which might get my $8:

  • Ice Age 2 features cute prehistoric animals that make you care about what happens to them; Basic Instinct 2 features a Tyranosaurus Sex.

  • In Ice Age 2, moviegoers wanted another chance to see Ray Romano as a woolly mammoth; In Basic Instinct 2 apparently few people want another chance to see Sharon Stone’s woolly.
    (See, Marty, I’m trying to be evil.)

  • If you go to an Ice Age 2 kid’s matinee you leave feeling dirty because of what you just sat in, as opposed to feeling dirty because of what you just sat through.

  • Ice Age 2 has animals that act almost human; Basic Instinct 2 has humans that act like animals.

  • The actors in Ice Age 2 are cuter and more animated.

Sorry, Mr. Verhoeven, my money’s on the cartoon but good luck with your film. Perhaps you’ll sell more tickets in those Islamic countries.

There goes my street cred

Posted on by
7

“I don’t care if Ned Flanders is the nicest guy in the world. He’s a jerk — end of story.”

— Homer Simpson

Marty Andrade has been offering one paragraph “Who are these people?” descriptions of the blogs on his blogroll (actually, Marty calls this feature something else, but I try not to use that kind of language here). Yesterday the spotlight turned to me:

I think John is the least evil man ever. A family man, a right honorable person who just isn’t evil. He does a good blog, he’s almost the Ned Flanders of the blogosphere. That’s all I could think of. It’s weird, whenever I read his blog (which again, is excellent) all I can think about is how completely not evil the man is. I don’t know if that’s an endorsement or not…

Hey, I can be evil! I can! Just this morning I left some stray beard hairs in the bathroom sink. Bwa-ha-ha! My wife told me to clean them up, and you know what I said? Huh? Well, I didn’t really say anything. I just went in there and cleaned them up — but I didn’t say I was sorry, either! Ha! Also, I mock our cat mercilessly. Mercilessly, I tell you, until I make him cry! And Jeff Kouba at Peace Like a River is always saying I’m evil! I’ve even waved bloody knives at the Mall Diva’s prospective suitors! And next week I’m … oops, mustn’t say too much … the world will just have to wait and see!

The Marshall Planet

Posted on by
1

I saw the excerpt below in today’s The Writer’s Almanac and it raised some questions in my mind that I thought I’d throw out for comments. But first:

It was on this day in 1948 that President Harry Truman signed the European Recovery Program (known as the Marshall Plan) into law, which allocated more than $5 billion in aid to help revitalize the economy of European countries after World War II. That amount eventually grew to more than $18 billion, which is the equivalent of about $100 billion in today’s dollars.

At the time, Europe was on the verge of economic collapse. Whole cities had been destroyed. Factories had shut down. The winter of 1947 was one of the coldest on record and many Europeans were unemployed and homeless, freezing to death.

Though the plan to help Europe became known as the Marshall Plan, it was not George Marshall who came up with it. In fact, it was a small group of lesser-known American strategists and diplomats who realized that the situation in Europe could result in communist takeover of the entire continent. So they turned to Secretary of State George Marshall, who as a well-known war hero and public figure at the time, hoping he could sell the plan to the public.

Marshall immediately bought into the idea and became its spokesperson. He announced the plan at the commencement ceremony at Harvard on June 5, 1947. He then went on a countrywide tour, promoting the plan to ordinary Americans. He later said it felt like he was running for president.

It was a hard sell. Most Americans were tired of all the sacrificing they’d done during the war, and they weren’t too excited about continuing to sacrifice for the benefit of Europeans. The Marshall Plan might never have been enacted if a communist government hadn’t taken control of Czechoslovakia in the winter of 1948.

During the quarter century after the Marshall Plan was introduced, Europe experienced its highest economic growth ever. Western Europe’s gross national product increased by 32 percent. It was one of the most generous and one of the most successful acts of American foreign policy.

What occurred to me was to picture what today’s world would be like if there had been no Marshall Plan and Europe had indeed become Communist in the late 1940s. I’m not trying to make any point with these thoughts, but just trying to imagine how different the world might be today.

  • Would the continent have had enough critical mass to have survived, ala China, despite the inefficiencies of the Communist model, or would the sytem have collapsed even more rapidly than what happened in the Soviet Union?
  • Without NATO would a nuclear war have been more likely in the past 50 years? Without an arms race, would the Soviet Union (and/or Communist Europe) still be around?
  • Would Communist Europe have been under Soviet hegemony, or would each country have maintained it’s own government and a prickly peace with the USSR?
  • Having already ceded Europe to Communism, would the U.S. have fought for Viet Nam (and what would a Communist France have meant in Indochina in the 50s and early 60s?)
  • Let’s assume Communist Europe would have failed economically in the last 50 years; would these countries be better off today as a result of failure, followed by reform, or with the slower death by socialism that appears to be the present course?
  • What would have happened to the U.S. post-war morale and economy if the countries we had fought to free had become communist and if we didn’t have access to these markets?

Again, I don’t think I’m going anywhere with this; I’m just trying to imagine a different world than the one I grew up in. What do you think?