The more I learn about Teddy Roosevelt, the more I like him. I have been watching Ken Burns' National Parks. This film has elevated TR to hero status for me. Much of the stuff about him I already knew, but it is great to see it all in one place and so well arrange. One thing that I didn't know about him (that I learned by listening to NPR) is that he saved American football.
In 1905, there were close to 20 deaths on college football field. The death were related to brawls, gang tackles and to all around unsportsmanlike behavior. TR threatened to outlaw the sport not because he wasn't a fan but because he was. The sport fits right in with his manly shtick. Ten of his fellow Rough Riders were footballers. Football was still a fringe sport, at the time, being played by Ivy League College students. It didn't become popular until major newspaper actually printed a sports pages later in the century.
In 1906, upon TR's urging, the American Football Rules Committee met and changed the rules of the game to make it more safe. The forward pass was created which is really amazing. It was just a running game. The distance to get a first down was changed from five to ten. I am not sure how this made it safer. Perhaps, ten yards made passing more viable, certainly it made it a more interesting game. The biggest safety improvement was the banning of the gang tackle.
The biggest danger to modern day footballers is probably brain damage so much so that many pros are donating their brains to Boston University's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy. Some of the brains of 40 year old football players show deterioration that one would expect of an 80 year old Alzheimer's patient. It makes me wonder what kind of rule changes are coming to the game to compensate for this.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy that the US's FCC (Federal Communications Commission) applied to radio stations that discussed politics. It was an attempt to force these discussions to be balanced, honest and equitable. This basically shut down discourse on the airwaves. It was introduced in 1949, made into actual policy in 1967 and eventually repealed completely in 1987. This explains the explosion of talk radio in my lifetime. Rush Limbaugh was the first talk radio personality to take advantage of it. I can't imagine having the country at war in Vietnam and not being able to talk about the issues on a call-in show. I don't particular care for the state of talk radio now in America but I do agree (even if I disagree with most of it) that they have a right to their opinions and to the airwaves.
The first problem with this doctrine is that it is very hard thing to enforce not only for the FCC but for the radio stations. What exactly does balanced and equitable mean? For example if you have a scientist on your show to talk about Evolution ... do you really have to have a Creationist on? Since Evolution is basically accepted as fact by most (if not all scientists) ... do you really have to have a non-scientist on and then give them equal time? If you were talking about the link between autism and immunization ... would you really have to show both sides of this issue even though there is no science to show that there is a link at all? Enforcing honesty has a similar problem because when someone has an opinion and you don't agree with it, this doesn't make them dishonest. There is no such thing as a dishonest opinion. Too much gray area prevents a small town radio station from policing themselves.
Enforcing such a policy made this very expensive (particularly with a call in show). Most small time radio stations avoided political discussions altogether. For every topic you had to have two people on and they had to have equal time. This was cost prohibitive and very unfair considering that their competition, print media, did not have to do so. That's right ... the Fairness Doctrine was unfair ... not the first government policy that was inappropriately named.
Some people want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine because of the current state of talk radio which is a lot more like hate radio than it is talk radio these days. I am not one of them but I understand their concerns. Whenever I hear someone like Rush or Michael Savage on the radio or some of the Fox personalities like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity on television, I think of Radio Rwanda. The media's role in spreading speech in the Rwandan Genocide is well known. In 1994 two radio stations and some newspapers started spreading hate speech and promoting violence against Tutsi by Hutu. The Tutsi were referred to as "cockroaches" for several years on these radio stations. Everyone ignored it until the violence started. One million dead bodies later ... we think maybe they should have been stopped.
As a liberal, I fear not only for my country and future, but for my own personal safety. I am only annoyed when they spread moronic lies, like Sarah Palin's Death Panels, but I am scared when I am being painted as unpatriotic or as an internal threat because I have a different opinion. People should be able to gather at a church or any other public place without fear of being gunned down (see Knoxville Shooting). Fear is their broadest tool and hate is what they create. The Fairness Doctrine seems like it was a bad thing but perhaps we need something that is a bit more fair in its place ... like a small dose of sanity and respect for one's neighbor.
The first problem with this doctrine is that it is very hard thing to enforce not only for the FCC but for the radio stations. What exactly does balanced and equitable mean? For example if you have a scientist on your show to talk about Evolution ... do you really have to have a Creationist on? Since Evolution is basically accepted as fact by most (if not all scientists) ... do you really have to have a non-scientist on and then give them equal time? If you were talking about the link between autism and immunization ... would you really have to show both sides of this issue even though there is no science to show that there is a link at all? Enforcing honesty has a similar problem because when someone has an opinion and you don't agree with it, this doesn't make them dishonest. There is no such thing as a dishonest opinion. Too much gray area prevents a small town radio station from policing themselves.
Enforcing such a policy made this very expensive (particularly with a call in show). Most small time radio stations avoided political discussions altogether. For every topic you had to have two people on and they had to have equal time. This was cost prohibitive and very unfair considering that their competition, print media, did not have to do so. That's right ... the Fairness Doctrine was unfair ... not the first government policy that was inappropriately named.
Some people want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine because of the current state of talk radio which is a lot more like hate radio than it is talk radio these days. I am not one of them but I understand their concerns. Whenever I hear someone like Rush or Michael Savage on the radio or some of the Fox personalities like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity on television, I think of Radio Rwanda. The media's role in spreading speech in the Rwandan Genocide is well known. In 1994 two radio stations and some newspapers started spreading hate speech and promoting violence against Tutsi by Hutu. The Tutsi were referred to as "cockroaches" for several years on these radio stations. Everyone ignored it until the violence started. One million dead bodies later ... we think maybe they should have been stopped.
As a liberal, I fear not only for my country and future, but for my own personal safety. I am only annoyed when they spread moronic lies, like Sarah Palin's Death Panels, but I am scared when I am being painted as unpatriotic or as an internal threat because I have a different opinion. People should be able to gather at a church or any other public place without fear of being gunned down (see Knoxville Shooting). Fear is their broadest tool and hate is what they create. The Fairness Doctrine seems like it was a bad thing but perhaps we need something that is a bit more fair in its place ... like a small dose of sanity and respect for one's neighbor.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Canadian Mounties
Most Americans know nothing about Canadian history. I have visited most of Canada's provinces and I may be more educated about Canada than most Americans, but I still find myself woefully ignorant about our friendly neighbors to the north. Sarah Vowell, one of my favorite non-fiction writers, says it is because Canada's history is basically boring. It lacks the cataclysm in which their troubled neighbor to the south is mired. Perhaps it is, but I must say, I admire the boredom.
One big example of US's troubled history is our treatment of the natives of this continent. 19th century events are mired with such massacres (Sand Creek, Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee) ... truly shameful events in our past. Canada's one such massacre is called the Cypress Hill Massacre. In 1873 some horses in Montana were stolen from some whiskey traders. The traders chased the thieves into Canada (into what is now known as Saskatchewan) where they they lost the thieves but came across a camp of Nakotas. They blamed the Nakotas for the theft, killed 23 of them and burned their trading posts to the ground. Please note: Canada's worst Indian massacre had only 23 dead and the killing was done by Americans.
While the American government encouraged such violence offering bounties on scalps, the Canadian government tried to avoid it. To help maintain the peace in the Northwest Territories, Canada's Prime Minister John MacDonald (their first) created the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP) aka the Mounties. While America's west was rife with corruption and violence, Canada's was controlled by a police force. While the US's Calvary waged war, Canada's maintained peace. I am sure their harsh weather has a lot to do with the peace being maintained as well.
One big example of US's troubled history is our treatment of the natives of this continent. 19th century events are mired with such massacres (Sand Creek, Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee) ... truly shameful events in our past. Canada's one such massacre is called the Cypress Hill Massacre. In 1873 some horses in Montana were stolen from some whiskey traders. The traders chased the thieves into Canada (into what is now known as Saskatchewan) where they they lost the thieves but came across a camp of Nakotas. They blamed the Nakotas for the theft, killed 23 of them and burned their trading posts to the ground. Please note: Canada's worst Indian massacre had only 23 dead and the killing was done by Americans.
While the American government encouraged such violence offering bounties on scalps, the Canadian government tried to avoid it. To help maintain the peace in the Northwest Territories, Canada's Prime Minister John MacDonald (their first) created the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP) aka the Mounties. While America's west was rife with corruption and violence, Canada's was controlled by a police force. While the US's Calvary waged war, Canada's maintained peace. I am sure their harsh weather has a lot to do with the peace being maintained as well.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Flat Earth Society
I am a skeptic. Quite some time ago, I came to the realization that most people are not. I just deal with it. I tend to want more evidence than most people. When I don't understand something or when I find it unexplainable, I try not to cling to a popular idea or a simple explanation ... I usually need more evidence. I find it okay to say that "it is unknown ... at the moment."
Lately I have heard people on podcasts, radio shows and in person refer to things that I just don't believe exist. Of course, this is not new but it does seem to be happening more these days. They talk about ghosts or Sasquatch with such strong conviction and an assumptive air about them that I am taken aback. I am not sure if this is something I should point out to them or just shut up and accept the fact that they see the world differently than I do. I feel the same way when people assume that I believe in God, but on these occasions I don't hesitate to state that I am an atheist. In an era of political correctness, don't they have tolerate me as well?
Last week I heard someone refer to the Flat Earth Society. I thought this was a joke until I thought to look it up today on the net. There are actually people who still believe that the earth is flat, specifically, a flat bottomed disc with the North Pole at the center with a large sheet of ice surrounding the continents. Their view of the planet looks a lot like the flag of the UN. These are the same people who started the conspiracy theory that the Apollo landing was a hoax. Even Christopher Columbus believed the world was round. He thought he was in Asia instead of being on the "new" continent of North America, but even he knew he traveled around the planet.
I have to say that I am a little fascinated by their on-line forum. They were founded in 1956 by an English astronomer named Samuel Shelton. When he saw the first few satellite pictures of the Earth and claimed its shape was a dome and not a sphere. The Society officially disbanded in 2001 but they still have a presence ... you got it ... on the net. I hate posting the link for fear of spreading this nonsense, but I find myself too fascinated not to (kinda like attending a freak show).
My first thought on hearing about this is group that they were just another group that were not being skeptical enough. But perhaps the opposite is going on here. Perhaps they are being so skeptical that they are not accepting something that is just too obvious. Believing in a conspiracy of this magnitude is mind blowing.
Lately I have heard people on podcasts, radio shows and in person refer to things that I just don't believe exist. Of course, this is not new but it does seem to be happening more these days. They talk about ghosts or Sasquatch with such strong conviction and an assumptive air about them that I am taken aback. I am not sure if this is something I should point out to them or just shut up and accept the fact that they see the world differently than I do. I feel the same way when people assume that I believe in God, but on these occasions I don't hesitate to state that I am an atheist. In an era of political correctness, don't they have tolerate me as well?
Last week I heard someone refer to the Flat Earth Society. I thought this was a joke until I thought to look it up today on the net. There are actually people who still believe that the earth is flat, specifically, a flat bottomed disc with the North Pole at the center with a large sheet of ice surrounding the continents. Their view of the planet looks a lot like the flag of the UN. These are the same people who started the conspiracy theory that the Apollo landing was a hoax. Even Christopher Columbus believed the world was round. He thought he was in Asia instead of being on the "new" continent of North America, but even he knew he traveled around the planet.
I have to say that I am a little fascinated by their on-line forum. They were founded in 1956 by an English astronomer named Samuel Shelton. When he saw the first few satellite pictures of the Earth and claimed its shape was a dome and not a sphere. The Society officially disbanded in 2001 but they still have a presence ... you got it ... on the net. I hate posting the link for fear of spreading this nonsense, but I find myself too fascinated not to (kinda like attending a freak show).
My first thought on hearing about this is group that they were just another group that were not being skeptical enough. But perhaps the opposite is going on here. Perhaps they are being so skeptical that they are not accepting something that is just too obvious. Believing in a conspiracy of this magnitude is mind blowing.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Vermont International Film Festival
Today I attended the Vermont International Film Festival at the Palace 9 in South Burlington. I watched two great documentaries and missed the third because I was listening to the directors speak about the second film. Finding one thing to blog about after all that I was exposed to today is difficult so I tried to stick to one thing for each film.
Afghan Star is about Afghanistan's version of American Idol where singers compete to be #1. The film follows 4 of the contestants as they compete. Some of the contestants in the Afghan version risk their lives to compete, particularly the women. What was really cool about the film was that the last three contestants in the competition were from three distinct ethnic groups (Pashtun, Tajik and Hazara). In decades past, these groups had engaged in civil war, but on the show they competed peacefully. The show not only seems to unite the citizens but has created a productive boom in their economy boosting sales in televisions, batteries and CDs.
RFK in the Land of Apartheid: A Ripple of Hope is about Robert F. Kennedy's five day trip to South Africa in 1966. We had the pleasure of having a question and answer session after the film was over by the directors Tami Gold and Larry Shore. The Junior Senator from New York visited white colleges, black colleges, the shanties in Soweto and banned activists and leaders like Chief Albert Luthuli. It was an inspiring film. I learned a lot from this film, the most interesting things I learned were about Apartheid in South Africa.
I always knew in the Apartheid system, every person had a racial designation (black, white, coloured, or Indian/Asian). Depending on a person's distinction, they were granted different rights and had to abide by different rules. It determined everything from where they could live, shop, sit and which bus you could take. Madness! What I didn't know was that children were designated by the racial distinction of their father. The film shows an interview with a woman that was considered "coloured" because of her Malaysian background when her Indian husband died she was forced to move from her home because she was coloured. She could live there when her husband was alive because of his Indian status. After he died, she had to move but the children could stay. She had to go to court to have herself reclassified.
Afghan Star is about Afghanistan's version of American Idol where singers compete to be #1. The film follows 4 of the contestants as they compete. Some of the contestants in the Afghan version risk their lives to compete, particularly the women. What was really cool about the film was that the last three contestants in the competition were from three distinct ethnic groups (Pashtun, Tajik and Hazara). In decades past, these groups had engaged in civil war, but on the show they competed peacefully. The show not only seems to unite the citizens but has created a productive boom in their economy boosting sales in televisions, batteries and CDs.
RFK in the Land of Apartheid: A Ripple of Hope is about Robert F. Kennedy's five day trip to South Africa in 1966. We had the pleasure of having a question and answer session after the film was over by the directors Tami Gold and Larry Shore. The Junior Senator from New York visited white colleges, black colleges, the shanties in Soweto and banned activists and leaders like Chief Albert Luthuli. It was an inspiring film. I learned a lot from this film, the most interesting things I learned were about Apartheid in South Africa.
I always knew in the Apartheid system, every person had a racial designation (black, white, coloured, or Indian/Asian). Depending on a person's distinction, they were granted different rights and had to abide by different rules. It determined everything from where they could live, shop, sit and which bus you could take. Madness! What I didn't know was that children were designated by the racial distinction of their father. The film shows an interview with a woman that was considered "coloured" because of her Malaysian background when her Indian husband died she was forced to move from her home because she was coloured. She could live there when her husband was alive because of his Indian status. After he died, she had to move but the children could stay. She had to go to court to have herself reclassified.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Al Gore and the Internet
I was listening to a Podcast today and I heard some right wing jerk mention, sarcastically, how Al Gore invented the internet. This is one of those things that Bush and other right wingers like to say to bring down this man. It occurred to me that I had never seen the speech where this occurred. So I looked it up on YouTube.
When you watch please note that he doesn't use the word "invented" but "created." So if you were watching President Eisenhower claim that he "created" the US Interstate Highway System ... would you assume that he was claiming to be one of the construction workers at the site or would you assume that he meant that he assisted politically or economically? I think the latter, but this didn't stop Bush from claiming otherwise during the general election. Bush wasn't really trying to appeal to the intelligence of voters, was he? Clearly, in this political environment Gore should have used a better choice of words. Maybe he should have said that he "helped" create the internet or assisted in the creation of the internet. Regardless, you still hear people throwing this into conversations when Al Gore is mentioned.
What was Gore talking about? In the early 90's I was at an IBM convention in New Orleans where he spoke. Environmentalism and technology have always been an obsession of his. I am not a techie and I was young at the time so some of what he was talking about was over my head. I'd love to hear that speech today. I was impressed with him. As a Senator, Gore created the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. This created the national research and education network (NREN) which, among other things, helps create standards for the net around the world. The World Wide Web (WWW) was born when this act was enacted. It was signed into law by President George Bush, Senior. So in 1991, the net already existed but the World Wide Web did not because there were no standards. Gore could claim that he contributed to the creation of the WWW, but not the net because it existed for two decades before this. Again, he misspoke ... something that just about anyone does the more a person talks and politicians talk a lot.
This also lead to creation of the Mosaic browser (the first I ever used at the Dedham public library) which is the first browser ever. It was later renamed Netscape. The creation of standards allowed software to be developed in a reasonably static environment. Before Mosaic, we had navigate around the net via the DOS prompt. One of the creators of Mosaic, Marc Andreesen, said that without Al Gore the internet "would not be where it is today."
The ironic thing is that this right wing jerk of a Podcaster, I mentioned earlier, owes homage to Gore. For if not for Gore, the Podcast would not exist.
When you watch please note that he doesn't use the word "invented" but "created." So if you were watching President Eisenhower claim that he "created" the US Interstate Highway System ... would you assume that he was claiming to be one of the construction workers at the site or would you assume that he meant that he assisted politically or economically? I think the latter, but this didn't stop Bush from claiming otherwise during the general election. Bush wasn't really trying to appeal to the intelligence of voters, was he? Clearly, in this political environment Gore should have used a better choice of words. Maybe he should have said that he "helped" create the internet or assisted in the creation of the internet. Regardless, you still hear people throwing this into conversations when Al Gore is mentioned.
What was Gore talking about? In the early 90's I was at an IBM convention in New Orleans where he spoke. Environmentalism and technology have always been an obsession of his. I am not a techie and I was young at the time so some of what he was talking about was over my head. I'd love to hear that speech today. I was impressed with him. As a Senator, Gore created the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. This created the national research and education network (NREN) which, among other things, helps create standards for the net around the world. The World Wide Web (WWW) was born when this act was enacted. It was signed into law by President George Bush, Senior. So in 1991, the net already existed but the World Wide Web did not because there were no standards. Gore could claim that he contributed to the creation of the WWW, but not the net because it existed for two decades before this. Again, he misspoke ... something that just about anyone does the more a person talks and politicians talk a lot.
This also lead to creation of the Mosaic browser (the first I ever used at the Dedham public library) which is the first browser ever. It was later renamed Netscape. The creation of standards allowed software to be developed in a reasonably static environment. Before Mosaic, we had navigate around the net via the DOS prompt. One of the creators of Mosaic, Marc Andreesen, said that without Al Gore the internet "would not be where it is today."
The ironic thing is that this right wing jerk of a Podcaster, I mentioned earlier, owes homage to Gore. For if not for Gore, the Podcast would not exist.
Friday, October 16, 2009
A Rant About Football
I am not a huge football fan. Since Friday Night Lights went off the air, you can safely say that I have cut my consumption of anything football related in half. Perhaps it is down to nothing since I haven't yet watched a game this year. It is not just that the NFL (the No Fun League) is made up of a bunch of felons and apologists for those felons ... it is not just that American ex-football players, aged 30 to 49, are 19 times more likely to have memory loss than the general population... it is not just that Michael Vick disgusts me ... it is mostly because I am bored with football. I see the athleticism, strategy and analogies to warfare in the game, I get it. I understand the game. Again it bores me and makes me uncomfortable watching it. I much rather watch a good tennis match, a baseball game or even walk around a golf course watching my niece play. Golf is very boring too but at least I get a walk in. Football just looks painful and watching people in pain, just is not very interesting to me. I've never enjoyed watching fights either so that's where I'm at.
I once saw a graphic of what happens to the brain when a person's body slams up against another. It looked like jello in a Tupperware bowl being thrown against the wall. I keep thinking of jello brains whenever I see a game. Not an image I want to hold onto.
I recently created a group in Facebook called "Boycott Michael Vick." This is obviously a very easy thing for me to do since I don't watch a lot of football. Not watching Philadelphia Eagles is pretty easy to do. I don't even have television reception in my home. But I do like to go out to pubs for a micro-brew and a burger and watch whatever is on. I guess I will have to schedule this around Eagles games. I am not so naive that I think boycotting this monster is going to accomplish anything other making me feel better. Also, I don't think his crime is any worse than many of the other felons in the NFL (domesticate abuse, rape, etc). I just think that if you train a bunch of beautiful creatures (in Vicks' case pit bulls) to kill each other for your entertainment, you rescind your right to be called a hero. His jail time is done but it is the NFL that I hold accountable for bringing him into people's living rooms and bars.
I bring this up today because I learned of a situation at the Philadelphia Eagles game a couple of weeks ago that pissed me off. A woman name Kori Martin entered their stadium with a t-shirt with the words "Losers fight pit bulls" on the front with Vicks' name and number scratched out. On the back were the words "you don't deserve a second chance." The officials at the stadium told her she could not wear the shirt. As a compromise, she could go to the game but only with the shirt turned inside out. This is maddening because I am a life long sports fan and I have witnessed some pretty atrocious things on t-shirta directed at players. Most of them have been worse than this. A t-shirt saying "Arod sucks and Jeter swallows" comes to mind. Once when I was a kid at Fenway (pre-Political Correctness), my dad and I listened to a drunk yell at Yastremski calling him a "dumb Pollock" for the whole game. But Phillie officials didn't allow a shirt that criticized a heinous crime like dog fighting. This is pretty outrageous to me. I'm about ready to boycott pretty much anything Phillie related at this point. Go Dodgers! It's Always Sunny in Los Angeles!
I once saw a graphic of what happens to the brain when a person's body slams up against another. It looked like jello in a Tupperware bowl being thrown against the wall. I keep thinking of jello brains whenever I see a game. Not an image I want to hold onto.
I recently created a group in Facebook called "Boycott Michael Vick." This is obviously a very easy thing for me to do since I don't watch a lot of football. Not watching Philadelphia Eagles is pretty easy to do. I don't even have television reception in my home. But I do like to go out to pubs for a micro-brew and a burger and watch whatever is on. I guess I will have to schedule this around Eagles games. I am not so naive that I think boycotting this monster is going to accomplish anything other making me feel better. Also, I don't think his crime is any worse than many of the other felons in the NFL (domesticate abuse, rape, etc). I just think that if you train a bunch of beautiful creatures (in Vicks' case pit bulls) to kill each other for your entertainment, you rescind your right to be called a hero. His jail time is done but it is the NFL that I hold accountable for bringing him into people's living rooms and bars.
I bring this up today because I learned of a situation at the Philadelphia Eagles game a couple of weeks ago that pissed me off. A woman name Kori Martin entered their stadium with a t-shirt with the words "Losers fight pit bulls" on the front with Vicks' name and number scratched out. On the back were the words "you don't deserve a second chance." The officials at the stadium told her she could not wear the shirt. As a compromise, she could go to the game but only with the shirt turned inside out. This is maddening because I am a life long sports fan and I have witnessed some pretty atrocious things on t-shirta directed at players. Most of them have been worse than this. A t-shirt saying "Arod sucks and Jeter swallows" comes to mind. Once when I was a kid at Fenway (pre-Political Correctness), my dad and I listened to a drunk yell at Yastremski calling him a "dumb Pollock" for the whole game. But Phillie officials didn't allow a shirt that criticized a heinous crime like dog fighting. This is pretty outrageous to me. I'm about ready to boycott pretty much anything Phillie related at this point. Go Dodgers! It's Always Sunny in Los Angeles!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)