Friday, December 30, 2011
There is nothing much to watch on tv this time of year, except for the millionth rerun of “It’s a Wonderful Life” (and who hasn’t seen that too many times?) so I pulled out some DVDs to watch recently. I decided to watch one of my favorite mini-series, “From the Earth to the Moon,” a dramatic retelling of the Apollo space program.
I love this series not only for the acting and the story, but for all the memories it stirs. The space program was of significant interest in my family. Many a morning I would wake up and find my parents watching television (something they never did in the morning). They were fascinated with the space program from the beginning. We always had Walter Cronkite on with those funny cartoons they used to demonstrate what was happening far over our heads. The entire program, of course happening against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, protests, hippies, and societal upheaval, was compelling. It was an extension of the cold war against Russia, something not a mere concept, but real. We had “stop, drop, and roll” drills in school and my parents were truly tense during the Cuban missile crisis.
With all of that going on, the space program was not only a source of national pride, when those words meant much more than rote language in a pledge of allegiance, but a thrilling adventure which the entire country went on. My parents’ generation fought world war II. The flag represented something much different to them than to my contemporaries. A sense of shared achievement was part of their experience. America had already conquered the world in many respects through the efforts of all Americans working together, now those same people, even many of those too young to have fought in the war were alive during it, were going to plant the American flag on the moon. Kennedy promised it.
It is impossible to appreciate now what kind of achievement it was to put men on the moon. Apollo 11 landed on July 20, 1969—42 years ago. Lindburgh flew across the ocean in 1927, 42 years before Armstrong walked on the moon. Think of how far we had come between ’27 and ’69 and compare it to what has happened since the final Apollo mission in 1972.
In 1969 many Americans had never been on an airplane (fares were exorbitant compared to now), but they watched their countrymen fly to the moon. We saw video from another planet (I know the moon is not a planet, technically, I am using some license here) in our living rooms, which, for many people had only had television for about 10-15 years. President Nixon made the longest-distance phone call in history at a time when we had to wait until Sunday nights to make a toll call because rates were cheaper. Computers were the size of buses and were programmed with a stack of punch cards. The onboard computer in the lunar module had less computing power than today’s $29.95 wristwatch.
I was actually out of the country when Neil Armstrong made his one small step, but I recall well watching intently on French television when they landed on the moon. The three Apollo 11 astronauts later had a ticker tape parade in Chicago, and I stood there with thousands of other, watching them drive by in a convertible, just a few yards away. Every subsequent journey to the moon was appointment television. I loved seeing Alan Shephard hit a golf ball, and watching that moon buggy tool around.
So it was with some sadness and dread that I read in today’s newspaper that China is planning to send astronauts (or whatever they call them) to the moon in the next six or seven years. Their space program is well underway, having already orbited the earth. They have no presidentially-mandated deadline so they will proceed deliberately, but I have no doubt that if the Chinese say they will send someone to the moon, that in the near future our flag will be joined by a red one. Of course, not only have we not been back to the moon, wasting our time circling the earth forever, building the most expensive hotel in history, we cannot even send a person into space. The space shuttle is no more, and our country has no rockets with which we can launch an astronaut to the space station. In terms of manned space flight, we have no more capacity than Suriname, Fiji, or Monaco.
I wonder what John Glenn, Neil Armstrong and the other space program veterans think of this. Our space effort has been derailed by the political process. Of course it is expensive and obviously there are a lot of problems which need federal funds. That was the case in the sixties, too. I suggest that will always be the case. Scientific advancement often has no obvious tangible benefits. And there will always be those who decry the use of funds to send people into space when those funds could buy lunches for hungry children, or medicine for ailing grandparents. But the benefits of a space program rest in the pride of a nation (although I doubt many people actually feel pride in their country anymore, they would rather demand benefits for themselves from politicians whom they mistrust), the enlightenment of humanity, and the advancement of technology. No one is occupying Cape Canaveral to demand any of those things.
Pandering to politics has removed our ability to follow-up on the greatest achievement in exploration in human history. The Chinese need not succumb to the petty demands of small-minded and loudmouthed protestors, for better and for worse. So the next footsteps on the moon will be Chinese ones. And then what?
I love this series not only for the acting and the story, but for all the memories it stirs. The space program was of significant interest in my family. Many a morning I would wake up and find my parents watching television (something they never did in the morning). They were fascinated with the space program from the beginning. We always had Walter Cronkite on with those funny cartoons they used to demonstrate what was happening far over our heads. The entire program, of course happening against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, protests, hippies, and societal upheaval, was compelling. It was an extension of the cold war against Russia, something not a mere concept, but real. We had “stop, drop, and roll” drills in school and my parents were truly tense during the Cuban missile crisis.
With all of that going on, the space program was not only a source of national pride, when those words meant much more than rote language in a pledge of allegiance, but a thrilling adventure which the entire country went on. My parents’ generation fought world war II. The flag represented something much different to them than to my contemporaries. A sense of shared achievement was part of their experience. America had already conquered the world in many respects through the efforts of all Americans working together, now those same people, even many of those too young to have fought in the war were alive during it, were going to plant the American flag on the moon. Kennedy promised it.
It is impossible to appreciate now what kind of achievement it was to put men on the moon. Apollo 11 landed on July 20, 1969—42 years ago. Lindburgh flew across the ocean in 1927, 42 years before Armstrong walked on the moon. Think of how far we had come between ’27 and ’69 and compare it to what has happened since the final Apollo mission in 1972.
In 1969 many Americans had never been on an airplane (fares were exorbitant compared to now), but they watched their countrymen fly to the moon. We saw video from another planet (I know the moon is not a planet, technically, I am using some license here) in our living rooms, which, for many people had only had television for about 10-15 years. President Nixon made the longest-distance phone call in history at a time when we had to wait until Sunday nights to make a toll call because rates were cheaper. Computers were the size of buses and were programmed with a stack of punch cards. The onboard computer in the lunar module had less computing power than today’s $29.95 wristwatch.
I was actually out of the country when Neil Armstrong made his one small step, but I recall well watching intently on French television when they landed on the moon. The three Apollo 11 astronauts later had a ticker tape parade in Chicago, and I stood there with thousands of other, watching them drive by in a convertible, just a few yards away. Every subsequent journey to the moon was appointment television. I loved seeing Alan Shephard hit a golf ball, and watching that moon buggy tool around.
So it was with some sadness and dread that I read in today’s newspaper that China is planning to send astronauts (or whatever they call them) to the moon in the next six or seven years. Their space program is well underway, having already orbited the earth. They have no presidentially-mandated deadline so they will proceed deliberately, but I have no doubt that if the Chinese say they will send someone to the moon, that in the near future our flag will be joined by a red one. Of course, not only have we not been back to the moon, wasting our time circling the earth forever, building the most expensive hotel in history, we cannot even send a person into space. The space shuttle is no more, and our country has no rockets with which we can launch an astronaut to the space station. In terms of manned space flight, we have no more capacity than Suriname, Fiji, or Monaco.
I wonder what John Glenn, Neil Armstrong and the other space program veterans think of this. Our space effort has been derailed by the political process. Of course it is expensive and obviously there are a lot of problems which need federal funds. That was the case in the sixties, too. I suggest that will always be the case. Scientific advancement often has no obvious tangible benefits. And there will always be those who decry the use of funds to send people into space when those funds could buy lunches for hungry children, or medicine for ailing grandparents. But the benefits of a space program rest in the pride of a nation (although I doubt many people actually feel pride in their country anymore, they would rather demand benefits for themselves from politicians whom they mistrust), the enlightenment of humanity, and the advancement of technology. No one is occupying Cape Canaveral to demand any of those things.
Pandering to politics has removed our ability to follow-up on the greatest achievement in exploration in human history. The Chinese need not succumb to the petty demands of small-minded and loudmouthed protestors, for better and for worse. So the next footsteps on the moon will be Chinese ones. And then what?
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
You probably heard about the terrible fire here in Stamford where a couple and their three grandchildren died on Christmas morning. The children’s mother, who owned the home, and her friend escaped the blaze only to watch the tragedy helplessly. The home was not very close to where I live. That neighborhood is right on Long Island Sound, on a peninsula which juts out from the coastline. It is a very expensive neighborhood, I believe. The home which burned was sold a year or so ago for a reported $1.7 million.
The house was still under construction apparently, undergoing extensive renovations. According to the news reports there had been no certificate of occupancy issued, and no one should have been living in the home. The fire department said they had reason to believe there were no working smoke detectors in the home because they believed the fire burned for more than an hour apparently before anyone took notice.
The homeowner, a high-powered advertising executive in New York lost her three small children and her parents; an unspeakable tragedy. However, I can’t help but revert to the thinking of my former employment. If she placed her three children in a home which was not fit for occupancy and which had no working smoke detectors, and she built a fire, and did not make sure it was completely put out, would she be guilty of Connecticut’s version of child abuse? If so, should she be prosecuted?
I was never in the crimes against children unit, but through my career I was occasionally part of these kinds of discussions. What should be the government response when a parent kills their own child unintentionally, but criminally?
The first question, of course, is did the parent break the law. Without examining the Connecticut law, which is different than Colorado’s, I could not really say. So for the sake of discussion I will apply Colorado law.
If no one should have been living in that house, in part because it had no working smoke detectors but did have a working fireplace, and the parent chose to make a fire, and then to dispose of the embers in such a way that fire results, would that, in the words of the Colorado statute, “unreasonably place the child in a situation which created a risk of injury to the child’s life or health?” I am no expert in crimes against children (and, in fact, I tried hard not to handle those cases and if you have seen me around children you know why), but I think there might be a pretty good argument the answer is “yes.”
How many circumstances does it take before the parent has failed to protect their own child? At some point, putting a child into a home without proper safeguards is child abuse. In 2011 it may not be reasonable to let these children sleep in this home, which should have been empty, without standard fire protection, when you plan to build a fire.
In this case, I assume the parent thought it was safe. Was her failure to foresee the risks done with negligence? Criminal negligence in Colorado has a technical legal definition but which can be summarized as the “fucking stupid standard.” Did the person do something which when you look at it you would say “that was fucking stupid.” In other words more than just normally stupid like forgetting where you parked your car or losing a piece of paper with your name, address, phone number, date of birth, and social security number. To be fucking stupid it has to be something where you think, “who would do that?” For example, neglecting to make sure your parachute was loaded properly or leaving your baby in the bathtub while you go on Facebook for an hour.
In this circumstance arguments can be made both ways. Let’s not forget these kids slept on the third floor. There were no fire escapes. Once they knew there was a fire they tried to get out and couldn’t make it. How could they?
Cases like these, though, never can be resolved solely on legal analysis. The question is always asked whether prosecution is appropriate or has the parent “suffered enough.” We confronted this problem many times in my career. Not always parents killing children, people sometimes hurt and kill other family members by accident. A boy kills his brother, or an adult child neglects an elderly parent. Resolving this kind of issue is pure judgment call. Which is exactly the kind of call I never liked to make. I was a technician. I had less problem sizing up the facts and making a call on whether the behavior fit the crime, than I did on the fuzzy determination of whether a crime should or should not be prosecuted.
The “suffered enough” standard was way too difficult for me to apply. First of all, I don’t know how much the defendant has suffered. People always apply their own responses as a gauge to the defendant’s reaction. Of course, anyone who loses their children and parents in one horrendous accident would suffer immensely, I would expect. But I can never really know.
More difficult to me is to decide how much is enough. I am not an arbiter of suffering. Our criminal laws set out different punishments for different behavior so that intentionally killing your child carries an extreme penalty while negligently doing so allows for a much lighter sentence. That is a reflection of punishment fitting the crime. But suffering to fit the crime is a much more difficult standard to apply. Assuming this mother has some criminal liability, would criminal prosecution achieve anything? I don’t know. I can’t know. I would have no desire to send her to prison, necessarily, but I don’t think it is outrageous to institute criminal proceedings, if her conduct (hypothetically because I don’t know the facts) violated the law. For one thing, there is another parent here who lost his children. He is suffering too, should his victimization be ignored? (Of course, we have no idea how he feels about prosecution, and certainly a prosecutor would want to consult with him.)
How about deterrence? Obviously parents are going to be deterred from this kind of behavior for fear of losing their children in a fire, but should the criminal justice system add a layer of deterrence on top? Remember, filing charges is only the first step. I would often say all these “suffer enough” considerations are appropriate for plea negotiations and sentencing, but filing is about whether the law was violated.
I have no idea how to answer these questions. I expect that unless a great deal more was wrong here that no one will be prosecuted. But these types of cases are some of a prosecutor’s most difficult to deal with. I have no doubt this poor mother (and daughter, of course, her parents died too) has suffered extensively and will continue to do so. And I am sure in hindsight she wishes she had followed the law and not allowed her family to stay in that house.
The house was still under construction apparently, undergoing extensive renovations. According to the news reports there had been no certificate of occupancy issued, and no one should have been living in the home. The fire department said they had reason to believe there were no working smoke detectors in the home because they believed the fire burned for more than an hour apparently before anyone took notice.
The homeowner, a high-powered advertising executive in New York lost her three small children and her parents; an unspeakable tragedy. However, I can’t help but revert to the thinking of my former employment. If she placed her three children in a home which was not fit for occupancy and which had no working smoke detectors, and she built a fire, and did not make sure it was completely put out, would she be guilty of Connecticut’s version of child abuse? If so, should she be prosecuted?
I was never in the crimes against children unit, but through my career I was occasionally part of these kinds of discussions. What should be the government response when a parent kills their own child unintentionally, but criminally?
The first question, of course, is did the parent break the law. Without examining the Connecticut law, which is different than Colorado’s, I could not really say. So for the sake of discussion I will apply Colorado law.
If no one should have been living in that house, in part because it had no working smoke detectors but did have a working fireplace, and the parent chose to make a fire, and then to dispose of the embers in such a way that fire results, would that, in the words of the Colorado statute, “unreasonably place the child in a situation which created a risk of injury to the child’s life or health?” I am no expert in crimes against children (and, in fact, I tried hard not to handle those cases and if you have seen me around children you know why), but I think there might be a pretty good argument the answer is “yes.”
How many circumstances does it take before the parent has failed to protect their own child? At some point, putting a child into a home without proper safeguards is child abuse. In 2011 it may not be reasonable to let these children sleep in this home, which should have been empty, without standard fire protection, when you plan to build a fire.
In this case, I assume the parent thought it was safe. Was her failure to foresee the risks done with negligence? Criminal negligence in Colorado has a technical legal definition but which can be summarized as the “fucking stupid standard.” Did the person do something which when you look at it you would say “that was fucking stupid.” In other words more than just normally stupid like forgetting where you parked your car or losing a piece of paper with your name, address, phone number, date of birth, and social security number. To be fucking stupid it has to be something where you think, “who would do that?” For example, neglecting to make sure your parachute was loaded properly or leaving your baby in the bathtub while you go on Facebook for an hour.
In this circumstance arguments can be made both ways. Let’s not forget these kids slept on the third floor. There were no fire escapes. Once they knew there was a fire they tried to get out and couldn’t make it. How could they?
Cases like these, though, never can be resolved solely on legal analysis. The question is always asked whether prosecution is appropriate or has the parent “suffered enough.” We confronted this problem many times in my career. Not always parents killing children, people sometimes hurt and kill other family members by accident. A boy kills his brother, or an adult child neglects an elderly parent. Resolving this kind of issue is pure judgment call. Which is exactly the kind of call I never liked to make. I was a technician. I had less problem sizing up the facts and making a call on whether the behavior fit the crime, than I did on the fuzzy determination of whether a crime should or should not be prosecuted.
The “suffered enough” standard was way too difficult for me to apply. First of all, I don’t know how much the defendant has suffered. People always apply their own responses as a gauge to the defendant’s reaction. Of course, anyone who loses their children and parents in one horrendous accident would suffer immensely, I would expect. But I can never really know.
More difficult to me is to decide how much is enough. I am not an arbiter of suffering. Our criminal laws set out different punishments for different behavior so that intentionally killing your child carries an extreme penalty while negligently doing so allows for a much lighter sentence. That is a reflection of punishment fitting the crime. But suffering to fit the crime is a much more difficult standard to apply. Assuming this mother has some criminal liability, would criminal prosecution achieve anything? I don’t know. I can’t know. I would have no desire to send her to prison, necessarily, but I don’t think it is outrageous to institute criminal proceedings, if her conduct (hypothetically because I don’t know the facts) violated the law. For one thing, there is another parent here who lost his children. He is suffering too, should his victimization be ignored? (Of course, we have no idea how he feels about prosecution, and certainly a prosecutor would want to consult with him.)
How about deterrence? Obviously parents are going to be deterred from this kind of behavior for fear of losing their children in a fire, but should the criminal justice system add a layer of deterrence on top? Remember, filing charges is only the first step. I would often say all these “suffer enough” considerations are appropriate for plea negotiations and sentencing, but filing is about whether the law was violated.
I have no idea how to answer these questions. I expect that unless a great deal more was wrong here that no one will be prosecuted. But these types of cases are some of a prosecutor’s most difficult to deal with. I have no doubt this poor mother (and daughter, of course, her parents died too) has suffered extensively and will continue to do so. And I am sure in hindsight she wishes she had followed the law and not allowed her family to stay in that house.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Yesterday I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art for the first time since I moved here. I always forget how incredibly big it is. As I usually do, first I stopped by the Temple of Dendur. For you “When Harry Met Sally” fans, this is the room they were in when Harry decided to talk with the funny accent. The whole idea that they took this ancient temple and moved it from Egypt to New York completely amazes me. You can still clearly see the hieroglyphics. How is that possible? Wouldn’t you think that 2000 years in the desert would have eroded them away?
Also clearly visible is the graffiti people have put on them through the years. Some guy named “Leonardo” put his name on there in 1812. Take that Banksy. The whole thing with the temple, the other Egyptian artifacts, and the incredible room with the wall of windows looking out onto Central Park makes this one of my favorite spots in New York.
Then I went upstairs to the more modern art. My primary focus was an exhibit of art from the Alfred Steiglitz collection. Steiglitz was one of America’s premier photographers. Perhaps more than anyone else, he raised photography from a mere capturing of events into an art form.
Many people remember Steiglitz as the husband of Georgia O’Keefe. They met when O’Keefe exhibited works at Steiglitz’s gallery. Steiglitz owned several galleries in New York was one of the first Americans to recognize and exhibit works by the great artists of the early 20th century like Picasso and Braque. After his death O’Keefe donated a large number of pieces from his private collection to the Met. (As a footnote, apparently the Met was offered over 80 Picassos for $2000 following a show in 1913, which the museum declined. The director decided that kind of artwork would never be popular in America. Of course, they would be worth tens of millions today.)
I got off the train at 125th street rather than taking it all the way to Grand Central because the Met is on 83rd. It is a short walk from the train station to the subway stop. 125th is the main street in Harlem, but it is pretty safe during the afternoon. However, I did have a unique experience. It is not unusual to be solicited for money in New York. People hit you up on the subway, on street corners, with signs in Times Square and with cans in Central Park. But yesterday for the first time I was solicited for money by a guy who was texting on his cell phone at the same time. I mean seriously! What he needs more money for unlimited texting? Perhaps he is impoverished because he still has 3G. Maybe his old iPhone3 need upgrading. He sounded so pathetic you would have thought he hadn’t eaten in a week. But maybe he just had an overdue cell phone bill.
Also clearly visible is the graffiti people have put on them through the years. Some guy named “Leonardo” put his name on there in 1812. Take that Banksy. The whole thing with the temple, the other Egyptian artifacts, and the incredible room with the wall of windows looking out onto Central Park makes this one of my favorite spots in New York.
Then I went upstairs to the more modern art. My primary focus was an exhibit of art from the Alfred Steiglitz collection. Steiglitz was one of America’s premier photographers. Perhaps more than anyone else, he raised photography from a mere capturing of events into an art form.
Many people remember Steiglitz as the husband of Georgia O’Keefe. They met when O’Keefe exhibited works at Steiglitz’s gallery. Steiglitz owned several galleries in New York was one of the first Americans to recognize and exhibit works by the great artists of the early 20th century like Picasso and Braque. After his death O’Keefe donated a large number of pieces from his private collection to the Met. (As a footnote, apparently the Met was offered over 80 Picassos for $2000 following a show in 1913, which the museum declined. The director decided that kind of artwork would never be popular in America. Of course, they would be worth tens of millions today.)
I got off the train at 125th street rather than taking it all the way to Grand Central because the Met is on 83rd. It is a short walk from the train station to the subway stop. 125th is the main street in Harlem, but it is pretty safe during the afternoon. However, I did have a unique experience. It is not unusual to be solicited for money in New York. People hit you up on the subway, on street corners, with signs in Times Square and with cans in Central Park. But yesterday for the first time I was solicited for money by a guy who was texting on his cell phone at the same time. I mean seriously! What he needs more money for unlimited texting? Perhaps he is impoverished because he still has 3G. Maybe his old iPhone3 need upgrading. He sounded so pathetic you would have thought he hadn’t eaten in a week. But maybe he just had an overdue cell phone bill.
Friday, December 23, 2011
France is about to pass a law making it a crime to deny that Turkey committed genocidal acts against Armenians in the early 20th century. Apparently it already is a crime in Switzerland and Slovenia. This is not unusual in Europe. Sixteen countries make it a crime to deny the Holocaust, for example.
In America, of course, that pesky First Amendment gets in the way of our passing similar laws, allowing idiots to run around denying that vaccinations are good for children, or that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Too bad. We could use some legislation preventing people from denying things.
The Cubs haven’t won a World Series in 103 years. I am sure the Chicago City Council would like to make denying the “curse of the billygoat” punishable. After all there is no way a team could have inept ownership and bad players for that long. The City Council might get carried away, however, and pass a clearly unconstitutional penalty provision requiring convicted curse deniers to watch games at Wrigley Field. That would obviously be cruel and unusual punishment.
Entire television shows on the History Channel (which based on their new programming should be renamed the “Weird Occupations and Strange People Channel”) have been devoted to debunking the denial that American actually sent men to the moon. Congress could put a stop to such nonsense if not constrained by the First Amendment.
Americans, clothed in their constitutional right to be morons, deny things like O.J. Simpson’s guilt (and don’t get me started on his trial), Jimmy Hoffa’s murder, and Shakespeare’s authorship. An entire subculture gets truly exercised trying to deny global warming and humanity’s role in creating (or at least exacerbating) it. Many of those same people deny Obama’s Hawaiian birthplace. A few good laws could shut them up.
Why stop with denial legislation? Countries should equally punish those who promote absurd ideas like the existence of Sasquatch and the qualifications of Michele Bachmann to be president. As far as I am concerned, all those people who claim to have been taken prisoner in a UFO should be charged with criminal impersonation or something similar. After all, the feds passed a law making it illegal to claim to be a military veteran. UFO POW is similar, don’t you think?
Americans are pretty gullible, after all, and might be susceptible to some of these outrageous claims. A friend of mine claims to have been a big fan of Milli Vanilli. Oops. People believed Sidd Finch could throw 160 miles per hour, that Martians landed in New Jersey, and that Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. It is surprising America has survived without such legislation as long as we have.
People in America have denied all kinds of things which might lead to the problems these other countries apparently fear will happen without their muzzling free speech. American groups deny the Holocaust, and we have neo-Nazis, but so far they have not bombed the Capitol and made their leader president. Groups still claim that separate but equal worked just fine, that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were innocent, and that the Elders of Zion were behind 9/11. All that stupidity has not caused massive unrest. The rest of us just shrug our shoulders and move on, giving no more credence to the spouting of this garbage than to the headlines in the National Enquirer (unless you believe Elvis is still alive and the father of Jennifer Aniston’s twins).
Most people think the Turks slaughtered millions of Armenians, and whether some Frenchmen, or Swiss, or Slovenians choose to say they didn’t won’t change anything. Truth seems to win out most of the time and free speech is the best way to get the truth out. I just had better be careful what I say when I go to France. They might pass a law making denial of the genius of Jerry Lewis a crime.
In America, of course, that pesky First Amendment gets in the way of our passing similar laws, allowing idiots to run around denying that vaccinations are good for children, or that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Too bad. We could use some legislation preventing people from denying things.
The Cubs haven’t won a World Series in 103 years. I am sure the Chicago City Council would like to make denying the “curse of the billygoat” punishable. After all there is no way a team could have inept ownership and bad players for that long. The City Council might get carried away, however, and pass a clearly unconstitutional penalty provision requiring convicted curse deniers to watch games at Wrigley Field. That would obviously be cruel and unusual punishment.
Entire television shows on the History Channel (which based on their new programming should be renamed the “Weird Occupations and Strange People Channel”) have been devoted to debunking the denial that American actually sent men to the moon. Congress could put a stop to such nonsense if not constrained by the First Amendment.
Americans, clothed in their constitutional right to be morons, deny things like O.J. Simpson’s guilt (and don’t get me started on his trial), Jimmy Hoffa’s murder, and Shakespeare’s authorship. An entire subculture gets truly exercised trying to deny global warming and humanity’s role in creating (or at least exacerbating) it. Many of those same people deny Obama’s Hawaiian birthplace. A few good laws could shut them up.
Why stop with denial legislation? Countries should equally punish those who promote absurd ideas like the existence of Sasquatch and the qualifications of Michele Bachmann to be president. As far as I am concerned, all those people who claim to have been taken prisoner in a UFO should be charged with criminal impersonation or something similar. After all, the feds passed a law making it illegal to claim to be a military veteran. UFO POW is similar, don’t you think?
Americans are pretty gullible, after all, and might be susceptible to some of these outrageous claims. A friend of mine claims to have been a big fan of Milli Vanilli. Oops. People believed Sidd Finch could throw 160 miles per hour, that Martians landed in New Jersey, and that Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. It is surprising America has survived without such legislation as long as we have.
People in America have denied all kinds of things which might lead to the problems these other countries apparently fear will happen without their muzzling free speech. American groups deny the Holocaust, and we have neo-Nazis, but so far they have not bombed the Capitol and made their leader president. Groups still claim that separate but equal worked just fine, that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were innocent, and that the Elders of Zion were behind 9/11. All that stupidity has not caused massive unrest. The rest of us just shrug our shoulders and move on, giving no more credence to the spouting of this garbage than to the headlines in the National Enquirer (unless you believe Elvis is still alive and the father of Jennifer Aniston’s twins).
Most people think the Turks slaughtered millions of Armenians, and whether some Frenchmen, or Swiss, or Slovenians choose to say they didn’t won’t change anything. Truth seems to win out most of the time and free speech is the best way to get the truth out. I just had better be careful what I say when I go to France. They might pass a law making denial of the genius of Jerry Lewis a crime.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
People ask me all the time how I like living here and my ordinary answer is “it’s different.” The sheer amount of people alone makes everything much different. Not only is the east more populous, but it also is smaller. So everything is congested—the streets, the sidewalks, public transportation, the stores.
Just how different things are, especially when it comes to money, was reflected in the ads in today’s New York Times. I do not recall seeing ads for things like this in the Denver Post:
• $2600 Rado watch, which is cheap compared to the TagHeuer $3800 new Link Automatic chronograph (I am not sure what exactly is automated)
• $7500 Tiffany fleu de lis key in platinum with diamonds
• $11,800 pearl necklace and earrings
• $200 a pair of crystal champagne flutes (each glass therefore significantly exceeds the amount I spend on the bottle of wine); also a $40 electric wine bottle opener (marked down from $50)
• $999 Bang and Olufsen iPod and iPhone dock (I think iPods go for about $200)
• $190 2.6 oz bottle of perfume (although Bloomingdale’s will include a free cubic zirconia stud earrings with a purchase of $75 or more) (there are lots and lots of perfume and men’s cologne ads; I guess because you don’t want to stink around all these people)
• $1245 fox fur bolero jacket (marked down from $2495)
• $118 Coach scarf, with $78 matching mittens
• $41,000 Hamilton handmade buckle bracelet with 66-carats of sapphires and 6-carats of diamonds set in 18k white gold (you would think they would not bother to list the price because if you have to ask you clearly cannot afford this; and I gotta tell you, this thing is ugly proving you can have more money than taste)
• Many ads for Coach, Van Cleef and Arpels and Rolex don’t list prices. Dom Perignon has a full page ad featuring their Vintage 2000 wine which goes for just under $200. It would taste great in those expensive glasses.
Just how different things are, especially when it comes to money, was reflected in the ads in today’s New York Times. I do not recall seeing ads for things like this in the Denver Post:
• $2600 Rado watch, which is cheap compared to the TagHeuer $3800 new Link Automatic chronograph (I am not sure what exactly is automated)
• $7500 Tiffany fleu de lis key in platinum with diamonds
• $11,800 pearl necklace and earrings
• $200 a pair of crystal champagne flutes (each glass therefore significantly exceeds the amount I spend on the bottle of wine); also a $40 electric wine bottle opener (marked down from $50)
• $999 Bang and Olufsen iPod and iPhone dock (I think iPods go for about $200)
• $190 2.6 oz bottle of perfume (although Bloomingdale’s will include a free cubic zirconia stud earrings with a purchase of $75 or more) (there are lots and lots of perfume and men’s cologne ads; I guess because you don’t want to stink around all these people)
• $1245 fox fur bolero jacket (marked down from $2495)
• $118 Coach scarf, with $78 matching mittens
• $41,000 Hamilton handmade buckle bracelet with 66-carats of sapphires and 6-carats of diamonds set in 18k white gold (you would think they would not bother to list the price because if you have to ask you clearly cannot afford this; and I gotta tell you, this thing is ugly proving you can have more money than taste)
• Many ads for Coach, Van Cleef and Arpels and Rolex don’t list prices. Dom Perignon has a full page ad featuring their Vintage 2000 wine which goes for just under $200. It would taste great in those expensive glasses.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The feuding Congress is at it again; this time failing to pass a bill which accomplishes something they all agree should be done—extending a tax cut on withholding for social security. This failure, if you listen to most pundits and all Democrats, will wreck havoc on the economy by removing money from workers’ pockets and giving it to the federal government. I have long failed to understand the premise here, and, in fact, of many tax cuts.
The underlying theory, I gather, is that giving more money to the citizens and less to the government will spur the economy and create jobs because people will use all this money to buy stuff. The government, on the other hand, would use all this money to fix and administer stuff. (Of course, if you listen to Republicans, especially those who like to party with tea, government would primarily waste this money. Again, I have never understood how cutting government funds reduces waste. If the government wastes five percent, and you cut their budget five percent, does that mean the only thing cut is waste? Government waste, I submit, is primarily a shibboleth used by people who just don’t like government. You think the private industry who would benefit by these tax cuts doesn’t waste money, too? If they would waste at least as much money then part of the reason to give them the money is eliminated.)
According to this theory, it is better to give jobs to the private sector than to the government. I admit, I know very little about economics, receiving only a C in my econ class in college, but this whole thing makes no sense to me. Not only do I believe that extending these tax cuts would fail to really stimulate the economy, I believe the money would be better spent on government functions.
The tax cuts they are talking about are “significant” according to the New York Times, an average of $1000 per taxpayer per year. A thousand dollars is, for most of us, a significant amount of money all in a lump. But this is no lump sum payment, it is given in your paycheck. That mean the average American will get $20 a week. I don’t think $20 a week will send people out to buy cars, refrigerators, or new homes. It might give some people more money to travel, but not real far. I think most people will use it to pay their bloated credit card bills, save for their kids college, or, perhaps, buy an extra happy meal or two.
Even for those who choose to spend the money, there is no guarantee they will buy things which promote job growth in America. Americans spend approximately $3 billion a month on video games. I believe most of those are made in Japan. Car parts, computers, even iPads and iPhones are made overseas. Increased sales would create more local retail jobs, but the big beneficiaries would be companies employing cheap foreign labor.
Millions of people spending a little extra does not seem like the answer to long-term job growth. No one has enough to make an impact, so all the economy can derive is increased sales of small things or minor services. However, collectively the dollars, if retained by the government, can create jobs. That is what the government does: it employs Americans in America to work jobs to benefit Americans.
Roads and bridges are in serious need of repair, the FDA lacks sufficient food inspectors, there are never enough ICE agents, the military continues to need hundreds of billions, grants for law enforcement, training at places like the National Advocacy Center, not to mention funds for the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, all require tax dollars. I would rather the taxes be withheld to create government jobs rather than given to people in an attempt to create private sector jobs at McDonalds and Playstation retailers. Would you rather give money to FEMA or Coors? (Don’t you think a lot of that tax money will be used to buy some beer?)
The Depression ended when government created massive hiring programs, first through things like the Works Progress Administration and then in World War II. Current economic theory, I guess, does not support a similar response to this recession. Since the Reagan era “government worker” has become a pejorative term. I am biased having been one of the reviled for almost 30 years (and now, collecting a government pension, which everyone hates), but I think there is a place for government. Governments can create good jobs and serve their communities. Twenty buck a week won’t change people’s lives, but a strong Center for Disease Control, an active Department of Homeland Security, and a well-funded Amtrak system can make real differences in America.
The underlying theory, I gather, is that giving more money to the citizens and less to the government will spur the economy and create jobs because people will use all this money to buy stuff. The government, on the other hand, would use all this money to fix and administer stuff. (Of course, if you listen to Republicans, especially those who like to party with tea, government would primarily waste this money. Again, I have never understood how cutting government funds reduces waste. If the government wastes five percent, and you cut their budget five percent, does that mean the only thing cut is waste? Government waste, I submit, is primarily a shibboleth used by people who just don’t like government. You think the private industry who would benefit by these tax cuts doesn’t waste money, too? If they would waste at least as much money then part of the reason to give them the money is eliminated.)
According to this theory, it is better to give jobs to the private sector than to the government. I admit, I know very little about economics, receiving only a C in my econ class in college, but this whole thing makes no sense to me. Not only do I believe that extending these tax cuts would fail to really stimulate the economy, I believe the money would be better spent on government functions.
The tax cuts they are talking about are “significant” according to the New York Times, an average of $1000 per taxpayer per year. A thousand dollars is, for most of us, a significant amount of money all in a lump. But this is no lump sum payment, it is given in your paycheck. That mean the average American will get $20 a week. I don’t think $20 a week will send people out to buy cars, refrigerators, or new homes. It might give some people more money to travel, but not real far. I think most people will use it to pay their bloated credit card bills, save for their kids college, or, perhaps, buy an extra happy meal or two.
Even for those who choose to spend the money, there is no guarantee they will buy things which promote job growth in America. Americans spend approximately $3 billion a month on video games. I believe most of those are made in Japan. Car parts, computers, even iPads and iPhones are made overseas. Increased sales would create more local retail jobs, but the big beneficiaries would be companies employing cheap foreign labor.
Millions of people spending a little extra does not seem like the answer to long-term job growth. No one has enough to make an impact, so all the economy can derive is increased sales of small things or minor services. However, collectively the dollars, if retained by the government, can create jobs. That is what the government does: it employs Americans in America to work jobs to benefit Americans.
Roads and bridges are in serious need of repair, the FDA lacks sufficient food inspectors, there are never enough ICE agents, the military continues to need hundreds of billions, grants for law enforcement, training at places like the National Advocacy Center, not to mention funds for the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, all require tax dollars. I would rather the taxes be withheld to create government jobs rather than given to people in an attempt to create private sector jobs at McDonalds and Playstation retailers. Would you rather give money to FEMA or Coors? (Don’t you think a lot of that tax money will be used to buy some beer?)
The Depression ended when government created massive hiring programs, first through things like the Works Progress Administration and then in World War II. Current economic theory, I guess, does not support a similar response to this recession. Since the Reagan era “government worker” has become a pejorative term. I am biased having been one of the reviled for almost 30 years (and now, collecting a government pension, which everyone hates), but I think there is a place for government. Governments can create good jobs and serve their communities. Twenty buck a week won’t change people’s lives, but a strong Center for Disease Control, an active Department of Homeland Security, and a well-funded Amtrak system can make real differences in America.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Sometimes commercials are so clever you really don’t grasp what they are selling. Of course, I watch a lot of tv and I see a lot of commercials, so maybe you won’t know what I am talking about. You know the commercial where everyone is singing different lyrics to “Rocket Man?” It is a funny commercial with people singing things like “cheap cologne” and “motor home.” At the end a woman clearly hears the phrase “burning out his fuse up there alone” and nods her head as if she has just solved Fermat’s Last Theorem or found the lost city of El Dorado.
I like the commercial, but I probably saw it 100 times before I realized it is selling a Volkswagen Passat. Yes, they are trying to sell a car which starts at $20,000 because of the radio. I like a good radio. Having just driven 2500 miles across the country I listened to a lot of music in the car. But I got to tell you, I don’t believe the quality of the speakers in my car radio would be a determining factor in which car I buy next. Mostly in the car I want the music loud enough to drown out the trucks, sirens, motorcycles, and helicopters. I do not have a burning need to determine whether Elton is signing about burning fuses or musty motor homes.
Is this where we are at in terms of buying cars now? Are all cars so similar and well made that the only difference between a Passat and a Camry is whether you can figure out if “Louie, Louie” really has dirty lyrics or is just a mumbled mess? I have not bought a car in a long time (and I don’t plan to, I love my car which is pretty amazing because I hate cars), so you guys have to tell me, is this one of the criteria you use now? You don’t take the car for a test drive, you just sit in the showroom and listen to the speakers?
Other commercials confuse me too. Remember, I watch a lot of sports so I see commercials for guy stuff, like beer and Viagra. There is a commercial for the latter which has an older gentleman driving his pickup pulling a horse trailer. The truck gets stuck in the mud and he uses the horses to free the truck. The commercial ends with a shot of the truck pulling into the driveway of a very large home, which is dark except for a light in an upstairs window. I assume there is a woman there waiting in Victoria’s Secret attire. But really, how does any of this relate to Viagra? Are we supposed to think taking the blue pill will make him perform like a stallion or be hung like a … well you know what I mean. Viagra has another commercial with a guy on a sailboat. I don’t recall exactly what happens but once again, no woman is on the commercial. I am pretty sure that using Viagra on a sailboat all by yourself would be considered kind of weird (but hey, who am I to comment on what floats your boat, so to speak).
By contrast, Cialis commercials show a couple who get the urge in the middle of a barbeque. I get that. The effect is somewhat negated, however, when the actors, instead of getting passionate, even in a PG way, launch into a recitation of all the side effects. I mean how much do you want to risk blindness, loss of hearing, headaches, or the worst of all, priapism (that is the more than four hours problem) to be able to get amorous at the spur of the moment? Personally, I do not want to go to the emergency room complaining of that last one. After all, ERs work on triage. On a busy night you might have to wait hours to see a doctor.
This whole prescription drug advertising thing kind of confuses me. I mean should I really tell my doctor I want a certain kind of blood pressure medicine, or that I think I have fibromyalgia? There is the commercial with the people made of pipes, and lots of commercials with older people feeling wonderful now that they have switched to some new medication which is way better than that old generic. No worry about the Medicare donut hole for these happy seniors. The evening news is almost completely paid for by the drug company commercials. So I guess car funny car commercials are a definite improvement, even if I don’t think I would buy a car which touts its radio rather than the engine as its best feature. It is comforting to know, however, that no matter what I need a prescription for, that all I have to do is turn on Brian Willams and wait, somewhere in there will be a commercial telling me which medication will solve whatever ails me. I may not know why it makes such a claim exactly, but as long as the advertising is smart, I can assume the science behind the pills will work, right?
I like the commercial, but I probably saw it 100 times before I realized it is selling a Volkswagen Passat. Yes, they are trying to sell a car which starts at $20,000 because of the radio. I like a good radio. Having just driven 2500 miles across the country I listened to a lot of music in the car. But I got to tell you, I don’t believe the quality of the speakers in my car radio would be a determining factor in which car I buy next. Mostly in the car I want the music loud enough to drown out the trucks, sirens, motorcycles, and helicopters. I do not have a burning need to determine whether Elton is signing about burning fuses or musty motor homes.
Is this where we are at in terms of buying cars now? Are all cars so similar and well made that the only difference between a Passat and a Camry is whether you can figure out if “Louie, Louie” really has dirty lyrics or is just a mumbled mess? I have not bought a car in a long time (and I don’t plan to, I love my car which is pretty amazing because I hate cars), so you guys have to tell me, is this one of the criteria you use now? You don’t take the car for a test drive, you just sit in the showroom and listen to the speakers?
Other commercials confuse me too. Remember, I watch a lot of sports so I see commercials for guy stuff, like beer and Viagra. There is a commercial for the latter which has an older gentleman driving his pickup pulling a horse trailer. The truck gets stuck in the mud and he uses the horses to free the truck. The commercial ends with a shot of the truck pulling into the driveway of a very large home, which is dark except for a light in an upstairs window. I assume there is a woman there waiting in Victoria’s Secret attire. But really, how does any of this relate to Viagra? Are we supposed to think taking the blue pill will make him perform like a stallion or be hung like a … well you know what I mean. Viagra has another commercial with a guy on a sailboat. I don’t recall exactly what happens but once again, no woman is on the commercial. I am pretty sure that using Viagra on a sailboat all by yourself would be considered kind of weird (but hey, who am I to comment on what floats your boat, so to speak).
By contrast, Cialis commercials show a couple who get the urge in the middle of a barbeque. I get that. The effect is somewhat negated, however, when the actors, instead of getting passionate, even in a PG way, launch into a recitation of all the side effects. I mean how much do you want to risk blindness, loss of hearing, headaches, or the worst of all, priapism (that is the more than four hours problem) to be able to get amorous at the spur of the moment? Personally, I do not want to go to the emergency room complaining of that last one. After all, ERs work on triage. On a busy night you might have to wait hours to see a doctor.
This whole prescription drug advertising thing kind of confuses me. I mean should I really tell my doctor I want a certain kind of blood pressure medicine, or that I think I have fibromyalgia? There is the commercial with the people made of pipes, and lots of commercials with older people feeling wonderful now that they have switched to some new medication which is way better than that old generic. No worry about the Medicare donut hole for these happy seniors. The evening news is almost completely paid for by the drug company commercials. So I guess car funny car commercials are a definite improvement, even if I don’t think I would buy a car which touts its radio rather than the engine as its best feature. It is comforting to know, however, that no matter what I need a prescription for, that all I have to do is turn on Brian Willams and wait, somewhere in there will be a commercial telling me which medication will solve whatever ails me. I may not know why it makes such a claim exactly, but as long as the advertising is smart, I can assume the science behind the pills will work, right?
Sunday, December 18, 2011
I sometimes get requests for pictures of places in my life. (Amy Payton I am talking to you.) I thought I would show you snapshots of my routine.
Friday I met Meg in SoHo for lunch and a movie. The restaurant actually had linen tablecloths, which means it was wildly overpriced but pretty good. We went to see "The Artist" which has garnered rave reviews and a bunch of Golden Globe nominations. We both thought it is wildly overrated. Basically a silent, black and white remake of "A Star is Born." Without the dog the picture would have been unwatchable, and I don't even like dogs.
This is the street to the train station in Stamford. Needless to say most of Stamford does not look like this. This street is next to a big bank. At the end is the exit to the parking lot where if I am walking across the street I am almost sure to have a near miss. People drive like jerks.
Looking back to downtown Stamford. It is clean and new.
The Metro North train car. Most of the time all the seats are taken.
The platform at Grand Central Terminal. I sit at the end of the train and sometimes it takes me five minutes just to get inside the terminal.
The is the main concourse that you always see pictures of.
You don't often see pictures of this. This is the lower level of Grand Central which is a food court. Actually there is some pretty good food here. It was packed this day. New York is really crowded this time of year.
They are having a holiday fair at Grand Central. These things are all over the city. Lots of interesting stuff exorbitantly priced.
A street in Soho. You probably think all street in New York are choked with cars all the time, but really in Soho not so much. Of course, had I taken a picture of Houston which is a main street you would have seen more of what you expect.
I didn't take a picture in the subway because I was not sure how the other riders would react.
It generally takes me a little over an hour to get to Grand Central, including my 15 walk. Then about half an hour to get where I am going in Manhattan. I know that seems like a long time. In Denver if I had to drive an hour and a half I would have thought the place was impossibly far away (or perhaps equivalent to Eva Wilson's daily commute). But here, that is just the time it takes. And riding is much less stressful than driving. Of course I do a lot of walking and it is cold now, so that makes trips to the city a lot less appealing. But I generally go twice a week.
Friday I met Meg in SoHo for lunch and a movie. The restaurant actually had linen tablecloths, which means it was wildly overpriced but pretty good. We went to see "The Artist" which has garnered rave reviews and a bunch of Golden Globe nominations. We both thought it is wildly overrated. Basically a silent, black and white remake of "A Star is Born." Without the dog the picture would have been unwatchable, and I don't even like dogs.
This is the street to the train station in Stamford. Needless to say most of Stamford does not look like this. This street is next to a big bank. At the end is the exit to the parking lot where if I am walking across the street I am almost sure to have a near miss. People drive like jerks.
Looking back to downtown Stamford. It is clean and new.
The Metro North train car. Most of the time all the seats are taken.
The platform at Grand Central Terminal. I sit at the end of the train and sometimes it takes me five minutes just to get inside the terminal.
The is the main concourse that you always see pictures of.
You don't often see pictures of this. This is the lower level of Grand Central which is a food court. Actually there is some pretty good food here. It was packed this day. New York is really crowded this time of year.
They are having a holiday fair at Grand Central. These things are all over the city. Lots of interesting stuff exorbitantly priced.
A street in Soho. You probably think all street in New York are choked with cars all the time, but really in Soho not so much. Of course, had I taken a picture of Houston which is a main street you would have seen more of what you expect.
I didn't take a picture in the subway because I was not sure how the other riders would react.
It generally takes me a little over an hour to get to Grand Central, including my 15 walk. Then about half an hour to get where I am going in Manhattan. I know that seems like a long time. In Denver if I had to drive an hour and a half I would have thought the place was impossibly far away (or perhaps equivalent to Eva Wilson's daily commute). But here, that is just the time it takes. And riding is much less stressful than driving. Of course I do a lot of walking and it is cold now, so that makes trips to the city a lot less appealing. But I generally go twice a week.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
I am proud of the hockey team from my alma mater Boston University. Not just because they beat Cornell and silenced Cornell’s obnoxious and sophomoric fans when Meg and I were there, and not just because they have risen to ninth place in the polls. I am proud of how the university and coach handled a problem in a manner much differently than how similar matters have been handled at other schools.
The New York Times yesterday had this brief:
Corey Trivino, a Boston University center and the leading goal scorer in the Hockey East conference, was thrown off the team by Coach Jack Parker after he was arrested Sunday on charges of indecent assault and battery. . . witnesses described an intoxicated Trivino breaking into the room of a female student and trying to kiss and grope her.
The more complete article describes in essence a burglary and sexual assault.
Contrast this with the University of Nebraska. According to journalist Jeff Benedict: “In 1995 and 1996, the University of Nebraska won consecutive football championships with a starting lineup that included players charged with sexual assault, theft, assault and unlawfully firing a gun at an unoccupied vehicle. One reserve player had been indicted for attempted murder.”
One hopes that the culture, even at Nebraska, has changed in 15 years, but still, I think BU’s actions are exemplary and unusual. In light of the protection of Jeff Sandusky, even to the extent of committing perjury by members of the Penn State administration, the immediate removal of a drunken sex offender from the hockey team is worthy of admiration. Let’s hope this results in the loss of his scholarship and expulsion from school.
Protection of athletes has been common policy for years. My friend Noel Blum prosecuted a high school football player charged with sexual assault and the entire football team would come to court in their letterman jackets as a sign of support. The victim, of course, was harassed to the point of having to transfer, while the defendant got to graduate with his class, and go on to play in college. I imagine the poor victim at BU is suffering much the same problem.
Hockey at BU is equal on campus to football at Nebraska. BU is a large school but with modest athletic aspirations, aside from hockey. Football is a distant memory, and the basketball team occasionally finds a way to win its conference only to become fodder for a Duke or Kentucky in the first round of the tournament. You know how no number 16 seed has ever beaten a number one seed?
But there is a proud history in hockey. I arrived in the fall of 1972 following back-to-back national championships. In my four years we won three league championships, and should have won at least one national title. (Watch the movie Miracle for an explanation.) They have won three national championships since I left, the most recent in 2009.
Can you imagine a top football program handling a similar matter the same way? Of course, hockey does not generate the interest or income of football, but that is more indictment of college sports than defense of Nebraska’s action. Like Lehman Brothers, football is too big to fail, and football players too big to punish. At least the NFL and big city prosecutors often are not cowed—ask Michael Vick and Plaxico Burress. Even Ben Roethlisburger was suspended, if not prosecuted.
I do think the Penn State scandal has forced a re-examination of college sports. People are disgusted. Of course, no one has been convicted of anything yet. We all know how difficult child sex assault charges are to prove in the most routine case. Those victims should be grateful he waived his preliminary hearing, their cross-examinations will be brutal, I imagine. But at least the public perception has caused college administrators to look in the mirror. Penn State will suffer from their ineptitude, and worse, in the Sandusky affair. BU, on the other hand, should gain. Parents can be sure the school takes allegation of sexual assault, even those committed by high-profile athletes, seriously.
The New York Times yesterday had this brief:
Corey Trivino, a Boston University center and the leading goal scorer in the Hockey East conference, was thrown off the team by Coach Jack Parker after he was arrested Sunday on charges of indecent assault and battery. . . witnesses described an intoxicated Trivino breaking into the room of a female student and trying to kiss and grope her.
The more complete article describes in essence a burglary and sexual assault.
Contrast this with the University of Nebraska. According to journalist Jeff Benedict: “In 1995 and 1996, the University of Nebraska won consecutive football championships with a starting lineup that included players charged with sexual assault, theft, assault and unlawfully firing a gun at an unoccupied vehicle. One reserve player had been indicted for attempted murder.”
One hopes that the culture, even at Nebraska, has changed in 15 years, but still, I think BU’s actions are exemplary and unusual. In light of the protection of Jeff Sandusky, even to the extent of committing perjury by members of the Penn State administration, the immediate removal of a drunken sex offender from the hockey team is worthy of admiration. Let’s hope this results in the loss of his scholarship and expulsion from school.
Protection of athletes has been common policy for years. My friend Noel Blum prosecuted a high school football player charged with sexual assault and the entire football team would come to court in their letterman jackets as a sign of support. The victim, of course, was harassed to the point of having to transfer, while the defendant got to graduate with his class, and go on to play in college. I imagine the poor victim at BU is suffering much the same problem.
Hockey at BU is equal on campus to football at Nebraska. BU is a large school but with modest athletic aspirations, aside from hockey. Football is a distant memory, and the basketball team occasionally finds a way to win its conference only to become fodder for a Duke or Kentucky in the first round of the tournament. You know how no number 16 seed has ever beaten a number one seed?
But there is a proud history in hockey. I arrived in the fall of 1972 following back-to-back national championships. In my four years we won three league championships, and should have won at least one national title. (Watch the movie Miracle for an explanation.) They have won three national championships since I left, the most recent in 2009.
Can you imagine a top football program handling a similar matter the same way? Of course, hockey does not generate the interest or income of football, but that is more indictment of college sports than defense of Nebraska’s action. Like Lehman Brothers, football is too big to fail, and football players too big to punish. At least the NFL and big city prosecutors often are not cowed—ask Michael Vick and Plaxico Burress. Even Ben Roethlisburger was suspended, if not prosecuted.
I do think the Penn State scandal has forced a re-examination of college sports. People are disgusted. Of course, no one has been convicted of anything yet. We all know how difficult child sex assault charges are to prove in the most routine case. Those victims should be grateful he waived his preliminary hearing, their cross-examinations will be brutal, I imagine. But at least the public perception has caused college administrators to look in the mirror. Penn State will suffer from their ineptitude, and worse, in the Sandusky affair. BU, on the other hand, should gain. Parents can be sure the school takes allegation of sexual assault, even those committed by high-profile athletes, seriously.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
I haven’t blogged for a while. I went to Florida for a few days over the weekend. It was northern Florida so I did not expect summer-like weather, but gee, they do call it the “Sunshine State,” so I thought I might get a little sunshine. Nope. Three days of clouds with scattered rain. Temperatures mostly in the 50s. 
Not that I had a bad time. I actually had a very nice time. I was in St. Augustine which, I believe, is the oldest continuous settlement in the United States. We toured the old fort
which was built around 1730 or so. Amazingly, it is made of stone created by the compression of sea shells. You wouldn’t think this would be all that strong, but the thing is still standing after 370 years so I guess it worked ok. Actually, this stone helped the fort withstand the battering of cannon balls because, unlike other kinds of rock it has some give in it. The balls would hit the walls and kind of bounce off.
The fort is now part of the Park Service. They have tour guides and rangers. Every hour they shoot off an antique cannon in an elaborate ritual. According to the ranger giving the presentation these cannons could shoot a six-pound cannon ball a mile and half. The bigger cannons could shoot heavier balls over two miles. Can you imagine? I guess they were not very accurate. But I would not want to be sitting on a ship which could barely even see the fort and be subjected to bomarbment by solid iron bowling balls.
While in St. Augustine I also went to the Golf Hall of Fame, continuing my 2011 tour of Halls of Fame (another shirt). This is a fairly new facility, built in 1998 as part of a development called the “World Golf Village.” At that time the Florida economy was booming and the developers apparently thought people would buy homes built around a couple of golf courses. In the middle they built, for lack of a better term, a shopping mall, with a line of storefronts, restaurants, an IMAX movie theater, hotels, and the Hall of Fame. Property values in Florida are now in the toilet so the development has stalled.
Frankly, the Hall of Fame was pretty disappointing. You would think it would highlight not only great golfers but great rounds of golf. I expected televisions showing highlights of great golf shots. But instead, the only people they show hitting golf balls are Bob Hope (who has a bigger display than basically all the real golfers put together), and astronaut Alan Shepherd (whose famous shot was not on a regulation course). Aside from an informative and well-presented history of the game, the rest of the museum comprises shelf after shelf of golf clubs, balls, shoes, bags, clothing, and trophies. I am not a big golf fan, so after a while one club looks pretty much like another club.
There was a computerized golf course which I guess I could have taken a few shots on, but I don’t play golf anymore (and was terrible when I did) so I was not interested in that. Many of the hall of famers are represented by lockers containing their items, but I mean really, Gary Player’s golf shirt looks a lot like Arnold Palmer’s.
The days a hall of fame could get by just putting items on a shelf with an index card are gone. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame shows videos in connection with pretty much every exhibit. So while you are looking at Jimi Hendrix’s guitar you can watch film of him playing that guitar. Music is everywhere. The exhibits put the history of rock and roll in context, starting with its roots. The golf hall, by contrast, has an extensive history of clubs, balls, and courses through about the 1920s, then nothing. Just a mind-numbing set of room with golf stuff.
Well, to be fair, there is not only that, there is some video of the inductees at their induction ceremonies. Poor Annika Sorentstam. She will forever be remembered as the great golfer with bad hair. For some reason she attended her induction ceremony looking as if she had just gotten out of bed. I know, it is shallow to notice a great athlete’s looks, but come on.
In that same shopping area is “Murray Brothers’ Caddyshack,” a restaurant owned and operated by, yes, that Murray brother, Bill, star of the immortal golf movie Caddyshack. The golf-themed restaurant can be described as basically an upscale sports bar. It has the requisite big-screen televisions in the bar. The fairly-large restaurant has walls plastered with photos, posters, etc., not all of Murray. The food was pretty good. I was surprised at the size and variety of the menu, everything from salad, to burgers, to steak. The star attraction was the key lime pie, maybe the best I have ever had. I have heard there is a place in Brooklyn which makes great key lime pie. I plan on finding some (they sell it in a few places in Manhattan) and making a comparison.
I also was given as a gift a terrific Caddyshack t-shirt emblazoned with Murray’s immortal line: “It’s in the hole!” You cannot beat that. Thank you, Susan.
Not that I had a bad time. I actually had a very nice time. I was in St. Augustine which, I believe, is the oldest continuous settlement in the United States. We toured the old fort
which was built around 1730 or so. Amazingly, it is made of stone created by the compression of sea shells. You wouldn’t think this would be all that strong, but the thing is still standing after 370 years so I guess it worked ok. Actually, this stone helped the fort withstand the battering of cannon balls because, unlike other kinds of rock it has some give in it. The balls would hit the walls and kind of bounce off.
The fort is now part of the Park Service. They have tour guides and rangers. Every hour they shoot off an antique cannon in an elaborate ritual. According to the ranger giving the presentation these cannons could shoot a six-pound cannon ball a mile and half. The bigger cannons could shoot heavier balls over two miles. Can you imagine? I guess they were not very accurate. But I would not want to be sitting on a ship which could barely even see the fort and be subjected to bomarbment by solid iron bowling balls.
While in St. Augustine I also went to the Golf Hall of Fame, continuing my 2011 tour of Halls of Fame (another shirt). This is a fairly new facility, built in 1998 as part of a development called the “World Golf Village.” At that time the Florida economy was booming and the developers apparently thought people would buy homes built around a couple of golf courses. In the middle they built, for lack of a better term, a shopping mall, with a line of storefronts, restaurants, an IMAX movie theater, hotels, and the Hall of Fame. Property values in Florida are now in the toilet so the development has stalled.
Frankly, the Hall of Fame was pretty disappointing. You would think it would highlight not only great golfers but great rounds of golf. I expected televisions showing highlights of great golf shots. But instead, the only people they show hitting golf balls are Bob Hope (who has a bigger display than basically all the real golfers put together), and astronaut Alan Shepherd (whose famous shot was not on a regulation course). Aside from an informative and well-presented history of the game, the rest of the museum comprises shelf after shelf of golf clubs, balls, shoes, bags, clothing, and trophies. I am not a big golf fan, so after a while one club looks pretty much like another club.
There was a computerized golf course which I guess I could have taken a few shots on, but I don’t play golf anymore (and was terrible when I did) so I was not interested in that. Many of the hall of famers are represented by lockers containing their items, but I mean really, Gary Player’s golf shirt looks a lot like Arnold Palmer’s.
The days a hall of fame could get by just putting items on a shelf with an index card are gone. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame shows videos in connection with pretty much every exhibit. So while you are looking at Jimi Hendrix’s guitar you can watch film of him playing that guitar. Music is everywhere. The exhibits put the history of rock and roll in context, starting with its roots. The golf hall, by contrast, has an extensive history of clubs, balls, and courses through about the 1920s, then nothing. Just a mind-numbing set of room with golf stuff.
Well, to be fair, there is not only that, there is some video of the inductees at their induction ceremonies. Poor Annika Sorentstam. She will forever be remembered as the great golfer with bad hair. For some reason she attended her induction ceremony looking as if she had just gotten out of bed. I know, it is shallow to notice a great athlete’s looks, but come on.
In that same shopping area is “Murray Brothers’ Caddyshack,” a restaurant owned and operated by, yes, that Murray brother, Bill, star of the immortal golf movie Caddyshack. The golf-themed restaurant can be described as basically an upscale sports bar. It has the requisite big-screen televisions in the bar. The fairly-large restaurant has walls plastered with photos, posters, etc., not all of Murray. The food was pretty good. I was surprised at the size and variety of the menu, everything from salad, to burgers, to steak. The star attraction was the key lime pie, maybe the best I have ever had. I have heard there is a place in Brooklyn which makes great key lime pie. I plan on finding some (they sell it in a few places in Manhattan) and making a comparison.
I also was given as a gift a terrific Caddyshack t-shirt emblazoned with Murray’s immortal line: “It’s in the hole!” You cannot beat that. Thank you, Susan.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
The New York Times had an article on Saturday about an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Like the name implies, this is a group of police officers, judges, prosecutors, prison guards and other members of law enforcement who advocate the legalization of at least marijuana, and apparently for some members, other drugs.
The quoted members cite the deaths of their colleagues as reasons they support legalization, and blame those losses on “failed drug policies.” At least one member was fired for telling another officer that if marijuana was legal all the killings in Mexico would cease. If only marijuana was legal, the organization believes, law enforcement could turn its attention away from the war on drugs, and back to the war on crime.
While I appreciate, and in many ways agree with, their fundamental premise—that the war on drugs has not achieved sufficient results—I disagree with their conclusion that the answer is to legalize drugs, or even just decriminalize marijuana. I don’t think the answer to the failed drug war is surrender; I believe we should try a different strategy.
One should only support the legalization of marijuana if you believe marijuana itself is so benign, or at least controllable, that widespread use will not cause serious societal problems. If you fundamentally believe marijuana should not be legalized, and there are many reasons to believe that which I have blogged about in the past, then a failed drug war is the worst reason to give in. I do not believe merely legalizing marijuana ends drug violence. Even legalizing all drugs would not, I don’t think, end the crime problem associated with drugs. Just as the end of prohibition did not mean the end of the mafia.
First, I do not equate the current drug laws with Prohibition. Alcohol had been legal, acceptable, and part of society for thousands of years. Marijuana has never been both legal and widely-used. No one really knows what would happen if it was legal because that is uncharted territory. Alcohol can be ingested, and most of the time is, to achieve a state far short of intoxication. A drink or two has little effect if done in a social setting. Marijuana, on the other hand, provides no purpose at all unless it causes the intoxicating effect. Whether or not this intoxication is “better” than alcohol intoxication is somewhat irrelevant to my point. One can drink without getting drunk or even buzzed; but marijuana is used for the specific purpose of achieving the desired effect of the drug.
However, that is really not what I want to blog about. I have thought for a long time that the way the war on drugs has been fought is a waste of money because it can never achieve success. The policy forever has been to go after dealers, thinking that if they arrest, prosecute, convict, and imprison dealers and seize their drugs and proceeds that the trafficking will stop. However, the trafficking continues, drug lords are billionaires, and people just keep dying. There is a simple reality which seems to evade those who formulate drug policy—as long as there is demand for drugs, there will suppliers of drugs.
The money we are spending on interdiction, and it is plenty, would be better spent on treatment and prevention. Drug cases have spawned lots of terrible case law, generated a lot of friction between police and prosecutors, and led to myriad statutory changes trying to gauge how, exactly, to handle drug offenders. Nothing really has worked, and the laws are still a moving target. I think current law enforcement tactics, like the West Metro Drug Task Force, for example, are a waste of money. I do not wish to debate here whether this group does a good job or knows what it is doing, because that begs the question. Throughout America there are thousands of excellent drug interdiction programs. Whether they do a good job or not, whether they intercept drugs and get convictions or not, the result has not been a reduction in drug use or drug crimes. What it has done is increase jail populations and taken many law enforcement resources away from crime prevention and prosecution in other areas.
The only answer in my mind, is to see what we can do to reduce drug usage. I believe that the money used for these types of operations would be better spent in having all these officers assigned to patrol and detective positions, where they would arrest, investigate and prosecute drug offenders anyway. The way it is now, dealers are arrested and even imprisoned, but the users are still out there demanding drugs, so new dealers step up immediately. (Of course many of the users are given immunity to help set up the dealers, a completely backward approach to supply and demand realities.) Were the police just doing their normal jobs they would arrest far more users, many of whom are dealers, too for all kinds of assorted offenses. The users’ prosecutions would lead to treatment and other intervention with the hopes of getting them ultimately to stop, or at least reduce, their drug usage.
Unfortunately, that is one area where government and social policy has spent very little time and money. I spent some time on the Drug Policy Task Force of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. We spent a lot of time on evaluating the criminal penalties for drug crimes. Of course we did not reduce, and in some cases we increased, the penalties for distribution; while reducing the penalties for simple possession. Some members of the group were from the treatment community and they worked hard on getting funds to help convicted defendants get treatment to stop their use of drugs. All of this done with a recognition that drug addicts will always relapse and once a person develops an addiction it stays with him the rest of his life.
But when I raised the idea of getting funds for prevention I was meant with silence and blank stares. The police officers in the room showed support, although only lukewarm, but the treatment providers fear prevention above all.
Crime prevention has worked well in many other areas. Car thefts, burglaries, even robberies and child abuse have been reduced where effective crime prevention methods have been employed. I don’t know what techniques, if any, have been developed to prevent initial drug use, but I believe the only solution to the drug problem lies there. I have no idea why people start using drugs. What is it exactly that causes both poverty-stricken teenagers and millionaire rock stars to get high? If someone could figure this out we would be well on our way to keeping people from addiction. Other addictive behaviors have been reduced. Cigarette smoking is down more than 50 percent from its peak, for example.
Without some successful strategy to reduce the demand for marijuana and other drugs (and legalizing marijuana without any other drugs does nothing for the bigger problem and causes all kinds of little problems) the killings will continue, the prisons will stay full, and the police and courts will spend way too much time trying to figure out whether the search of some dirtbag’s backpack that turned up a bindle of meth was legal.
The quoted members cite the deaths of their colleagues as reasons they support legalization, and blame those losses on “failed drug policies.” At least one member was fired for telling another officer that if marijuana was legal all the killings in Mexico would cease. If only marijuana was legal, the organization believes, law enforcement could turn its attention away from the war on drugs, and back to the war on crime.
While I appreciate, and in many ways agree with, their fundamental premise—that the war on drugs has not achieved sufficient results—I disagree with their conclusion that the answer is to legalize drugs, or even just decriminalize marijuana. I don’t think the answer to the failed drug war is surrender; I believe we should try a different strategy.
One should only support the legalization of marijuana if you believe marijuana itself is so benign, or at least controllable, that widespread use will not cause serious societal problems. If you fundamentally believe marijuana should not be legalized, and there are many reasons to believe that which I have blogged about in the past, then a failed drug war is the worst reason to give in. I do not believe merely legalizing marijuana ends drug violence. Even legalizing all drugs would not, I don’t think, end the crime problem associated with drugs. Just as the end of prohibition did not mean the end of the mafia.
First, I do not equate the current drug laws with Prohibition. Alcohol had been legal, acceptable, and part of society for thousands of years. Marijuana has never been both legal and widely-used. No one really knows what would happen if it was legal because that is uncharted territory. Alcohol can be ingested, and most of the time is, to achieve a state far short of intoxication. A drink or two has little effect if done in a social setting. Marijuana, on the other hand, provides no purpose at all unless it causes the intoxicating effect. Whether or not this intoxication is “better” than alcohol intoxication is somewhat irrelevant to my point. One can drink without getting drunk or even buzzed; but marijuana is used for the specific purpose of achieving the desired effect of the drug.
However, that is really not what I want to blog about. I have thought for a long time that the way the war on drugs has been fought is a waste of money because it can never achieve success. The policy forever has been to go after dealers, thinking that if they arrest, prosecute, convict, and imprison dealers and seize their drugs and proceeds that the trafficking will stop. However, the trafficking continues, drug lords are billionaires, and people just keep dying. There is a simple reality which seems to evade those who formulate drug policy—as long as there is demand for drugs, there will suppliers of drugs.
The money we are spending on interdiction, and it is plenty, would be better spent on treatment and prevention. Drug cases have spawned lots of terrible case law, generated a lot of friction between police and prosecutors, and led to myriad statutory changes trying to gauge how, exactly, to handle drug offenders. Nothing really has worked, and the laws are still a moving target. I think current law enforcement tactics, like the West Metro Drug Task Force, for example, are a waste of money. I do not wish to debate here whether this group does a good job or knows what it is doing, because that begs the question. Throughout America there are thousands of excellent drug interdiction programs. Whether they do a good job or not, whether they intercept drugs and get convictions or not, the result has not been a reduction in drug use or drug crimes. What it has done is increase jail populations and taken many law enforcement resources away from crime prevention and prosecution in other areas.
The only answer in my mind, is to see what we can do to reduce drug usage. I believe that the money used for these types of operations would be better spent in having all these officers assigned to patrol and detective positions, where they would arrest, investigate and prosecute drug offenders anyway. The way it is now, dealers are arrested and even imprisoned, but the users are still out there demanding drugs, so new dealers step up immediately. (Of course many of the users are given immunity to help set up the dealers, a completely backward approach to supply and demand realities.) Were the police just doing their normal jobs they would arrest far more users, many of whom are dealers, too for all kinds of assorted offenses. The users’ prosecutions would lead to treatment and other intervention with the hopes of getting them ultimately to stop, or at least reduce, their drug usage.
Unfortunately, that is one area where government and social policy has spent very little time and money. I spent some time on the Drug Policy Task Force of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. We spent a lot of time on evaluating the criminal penalties for drug crimes. Of course we did not reduce, and in some cases we increased, the penalties for distribution; while reducing the penalties for simple possession. Some members of the group were from the treatment community and they worked hard on getting funds to help convicted defendants get treatment to stop their use of drugs. All of this done with a recognition that drug addicts will always relapse and once a person develops an addiction it stays with him the rest of his life.
But when I raised the idea of getting funds for prevention I was meant with silence and blank stares. The police officers in the room showed support, although only lukewarm, but the treatment providers fear prevention above all.
Crime prevention has worked well in many other areas. Car thefts, burglaries, even robberies and child abuse have been reduced where effective crime prevention methods have been employed. I don’t know what techniques, if any, have been developed to prevent initial drug use, but I believe the only solution to the drug problem lies there. I have no idea why people start using drugs. What is it exactly that causes both poverty-stricken teenagers and millionaire rock stars to get high? If someone could figure this out we would be well on our way to keeping people from addiction. Other addictive behaviors have been reduced. Cigarette smoking is down more than 50 percent from its peak, for example.
Without some successful strategy to reduce the demand for marijuana and other drugs (and legalizing marijuana without any other drugs does nothing for the bigger problem and causes all kinds of little problems) the killings will continue, the prisons will stay full, and the police and courts will spend way too much time trying to figure out whether the search of some dirtbag’s backpack that turned up a bindle of meth was legal.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
One of the cool things about New York is that there are lots of places that show old movies on the big screen. Yesterday, I went to the Museum of the Moving Image to see one of their presentations from the “See It Big” series, or movies meant to be seen in a movie theater and not at home.
Yesterday’s show was Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I loved this movie when it first came out. I was more of a science fiction fan back then, and yes, I was a trekkie. I don’t feel too bad about that because I used to watch the show in the first run when I was a kid. I think that gives me the right to be a fan of the series for the rest of my life. I remember in college when Star Trek first started showing up in syndication how much I loved the idea of seeing it again. I used to watch it with a friend of mine who really was one of those trekkies whom William Shatner told to “get a life.” Trek conventions were new and not very well attended back then and he went to every one. He even bought a Star Trek uniform shirt, and I think he had ears. I can’t recall his name, I am not sure I ever knew his name, but we all called him “Trekman.” We would separate our fingers and tell him to “live long and prosper.” He probably has a million dollar collection of Star Trek memorabilia.
I used to go to all the science fiction movies. I went to Star Wars on the first day of its release. Not the first showing (which was at normal time, they did not do the midnight frenzy thing in those day), but I think the second. Of course, I loved it.
When Speilberg brought out Close Encounters I was more into the idea of UFOs and extraterrestrial life. I even bought a Close Encounters movie poster and hung it my apartment. Of course this has been lost, which is too bad because I think it would be worth hundreds today.
I have seen Close Encounters on video at home and I own it, but like most movies this is better on the big screen. So I was excited to take the almost two-full hour journey from Stamford to Queens to see it. The Museum of the Moving Image is worth a trip by itself. It is devoted to the history of film and television, containing a great deal of historical artifacts like old motion picture cameras, and antique televisions. The movie was included in the price of admission. The theater is large, about the size of a big multiplex theater and it was maybe 75 percent full, including a large contingent of children.
I remembered the movie had some slow portions in the middle, but originally the special effects and creativity of the story won me over. Unfortunately, this film does not age well. Not only do the special effects look almost childish, the characters are really not every appealing , and the family drama between Richard Dreyfuss and Terri Garr is quite uncomfortable. Their arguments are loud and shrill, and Garr’s repeated threats to beat her children are creepy. Then Dreyfuss gets fixated on Devil’s Tower, takes off on his unstoppable quest, and seemingly loses all interest in his wife and children. He willingly walks into the spaceship of comical-looking aliens without a second thought of leaving his family behind on the planet he used to call home. Me, I would wonder if the spaceship can get the ballgame on video and whether they have French fries, but Dreyfuss just gets a goofy expression and strolls into the mothership.
I never did get the whole thing with the musical notes, and watching it again I still didn’t. I did enjoy watching it again, but really more for nostalgia than entertainment. This has happened before. I dragged Meg to a big-screen showing of Star Wars a while ago and again, I loved it, but Meg was nonplussed. I tried to explain how the special effects of Star Wars paved the way for modern CGI, but to her the entire movie was lame. Strangely, other films have held up well. Meg and I loved Rear Window on the big screen when we saw it. Although she was bored with Gone With the Wind, while I still relished it.
Still, the idea that I could see a movie like Close Encounters on a movie screen is pretty cool. I watch for the listings of these in New York, one of the few places in America where these showings take place.
Yesterday’s show was Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I loved this movie when it first came out. I was more of a science fiction fan back then, and yes, I was a trekkie. I don’t feel too bad about that because I used to watch the show in the first run when I was a kid. I think that gives me the right to be a fan of the series for the rest of my life. I remember in college when Star Trek first started showing up in syndication how much I loved the idea of seeing it again. I used to watch it with a friend of mine who really was one of those trekkies whom William Shatner told to “get a life.” Trek conventions were new and not very well attended back then and he went to every one. He even bought a Star Trek uniform shirt, and I think he had ears. I can’t recall his name, I am not sure I ever knew his name, but we all called him “Trekman.” We would separate our fingers and tell him to “live long and prosper.” He probably has a million dollar collection of Star Trek memorabilia.
I used to go to all the science fiction movies. I went to Star Wars on the first day of its release. Not the first showing (which was at normal time, they did not do the midnight frenzy thing in those day), but I think the second. Of course, I loved it.
When Speilberg brought out Close Encounters I was more into the idea of UFOs and extraterrestrial life. I even bought a Close Encounters movie poster and hung it my apartment. Of course this has been lost, which is too bad because I think it would be worth hundreds today.
I have seen Close Encounters on video at home and I own it, but like most movies this is better on the big screen. So I was excited to take the almost two-full hour journey from Stamford to Queens to see it. The Museum of the Moving Image is worth a trip by itself. It is devoted to the history of film and television, containing a great deal of historical artifacts like old motion picture cameras, and antique televisions. The movie was included in the price of admission. The theater is large, about the size of a big multiplex theater and it was maybe 75 percent full, including a large contingent of children.
I remembered the movie had some slow portions in the middle, but originally the special effects and creativity of the story won me over. Unfortunately, this film does not age well. Not only do the special effects look almost childish, the characters are really not every appealing , and the family drama between Richard Dreyfuss and Terri Garr is quite uncomfortable. Their arguments are loud and shrill, and Garr’s repeated threats to beat her children are creepy. Then Dreyfuss gets fixated on Devil’s Tower, takes off on his unstoppable quest, and seemingly loses all interest in his wife and children. He willingly walks into the spaceship of comical-looking aliens without a second thought of leaving his family behind on the planet he used to call home. Me, I would wonder if the spaceship can get the ballgame on video and whether they have French fries, but Dreyfuss just gets a goofy expression and strolls into the mothership.
I never did get the whole thing with the musical notes, and watching it again I still didn’t. I did enjoy watching it again, but really more for nostalgia than entertainment. This has happened before. I dragged Meg to a big-screen showing of Star Wars a while ago and again, I loved it, but Meg was nonplussed. I tried to explain how the special effects of Star Wars paved the way for modern CGI, but to her the entire movie was lame. Strangely, other films have held up well. Meg and I loved Rear Window on the big screen when we saw it. Although she was bored with Gone With the Wind, while I still relished it.
Still, the idea that I could see a movie like Close Encounters on a movie screen is pretty cool. I watch for the listings of these in New York, one of the few places in America where these showings take place.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Meg and I went to the Museum of Modern Art yesterday. We have been to MOMA before, often arguing about the quality of the artwork. We had one memorable debate, perhaps a bit too loudly when Meg believed that a canvas painted completely white, was a legitimate work of art (as obviously did the curator from MOMA) while I said it was mere affectation, not art but arrogance. Truly, the only way you could tell it from the wall it was hung on was because of the frame. Art? Seriously?
We had no such disagreements yesterday at the retrospective of the art of Willem de Kooning. De Kooning was a major art figure of the 20th Century, gaining significance in the 40s and creating important works of art until shortly before his death in 1997. De Kooning is primarily known as an “abstract expressionist” a term which has no meaning for me. I have always thought of de Kooning as an abstract painter from the same school as Jackson Pollock, but he was much more varied than Pollock. The exhibit contained a large number of pieces, partly because he was so prolific. It was not unusual to see a dozen paintings from a single year.
By any measure, his work was impressive. Of course, I thought some were not so great, but by and large I loved most of the work. (I know you are thinking: “What does Miles know about art?” Nothing. But I know what I like and it is a free country, so I will blog that stuff is good or bad based upon my tastes.) De Kooning was known for both abstracts and figures, colors and black and white, painting and sculpture (although frankly, I thought the sculpture was putrid). We spent more than two hours in this exhibit. The curator did a terrific job. A lot of the work belongs to private collectors (including some from record producer David Geffen). The exhibit is presented chronologically and you can really see how de Kooning moved through phases in his career. The signage is kind of weak, unfortunately. I wish it described his life a little more, rather than just repeating the same analysis of brushstrokes. Still, I learned a lot about this artist.
Meg’s interest in fine art does not come from her father. I like art, but Meg’s mom is the artist, and really imbued in Meg a love of painting and other arts. I cannot say we agree always. Last year Meg repeatedly returned to MOMA to see a performance artist sit at a table for seven hours a day (what bladder control!) and stare at the chair across a table from her. People sat in the chair sometimes, and she just stared. That was her performance. Professional starer. Not art to me, but she presented at MOMA.
Meg and I had a real New York day. After MOMA (which I joined to allow me to go for the rest of the year without additional cost), we went down to Rockefeller Center to see the most famous Christmas tree in the world. I had never seen the tree. I know it is a cliché and that I don’t even celebrate Christmas, but it is an impressive sight.
You cannot get a sense on television of how big the tree really is. According to Wikipedia it is 74 feet tall, or about the height of a seven-story building. Next to Rockefeller Center, over 800 feet tall, the tree doesn’t look all that big. But standing at the base the tree seems to climb high into the sky, the lights making for a glittering and inspiring show. At the top sits a huge star, which you can’t appreciate from the ground, but for which a duplicate sits on a stand across the street.
Thousands of people crowded into the Plaza, most either taking pictures or having their picture taken. I made Meg pose in front of the tree.
Beneath sits the tiny ice rink, filled with little kids wobbily trying to skate, while their older siblings glide around demonstrating the achievements of years of lessons. Meg and I looked at each other while standing above the rink and reminded ourselves of why we live here.
I walked back to Grand Central past the windows of Saks Fifth Avenue.
I was disappointed. They did not match the store windows of Marshall Field & Co. I remember going to see as a child in Chicago. I took a picture or two and will try to get it on here and on my Facebook page. I plan to spend more time looking at windows later. The windows of Barney’s apparently are Lady Gaga-themed because they have a Lady Gaga store. I am not sure I want to go out of my way to see those.
On every corner of Fifth Avenue is a pushcart selling roasted chestnuts. I am not a big chestnut fan, but if you like Mel Torme songs, it is easy to buy a bag. (I think the bag is about $4.50). I have no idea if they were roasted on an open fire. But Jack Frost was definitely nipping at my nose (which admittedly is a large target for him).
Also, while walking around I got cold and went into Trump Tower. Guess who was in there? That is right...the Donald himself. My camera didn't work so I didn't get a shot, but he walked right past me. He is getting older and frankly, his hair didn't look that great.
I wish I could report that the crowds were imbued with the Christmas spirit and filled with joy for their fellow man. Sadly, no. They were just as pushy as always.
We had no such disagreements yesterday at the retrospective of the art of Willem de Kooning. De Kooning was a major art figure of the 20th Century, gaining significance in the 40s and creating important works of art until shortly before his death in 1997. De Kooning is primarily known as an “abstract expressionist” a term which has no meaning for me. I have always thought of de Kooning as an abstract painter from the same school as Jackson Pollock, but he was much more varied than Pollock. The exhibit contained a large number of pieces, partly because he was so prolific. It was not unusual to see a dozen paintings from a single year.
By any measure, his work was impressive. Of course, I thought some were not so great, but by and large I loved most of the work. (I know you are thinking: “What does Miles know about art?” Nothing. But I know what I like and it is a free country, so I will blog that stuff is good or bad based upon my tastes.) De Kooning was known for both abstracts and figures, colors and black and white, painting and sculpture (although frankly, I thought the sculpture was putrid). We spent more than two hours in this exhibit. The curator did a terrific job. A lot of the work belongs to private collectors (including some from record producer David Geffen). The exhibit is presented chronologically and you can really see how de Kooning moved through phases in his career. The signage is kind of weak, unfortunately. I wish it described his life a little more, rather than just repeating the same analysis of brushstrokes. Still, I learned a lot about this artist.
Meg’s interest in fine art does not come from her father. I like art, but Meg’s mom is the artist, and really imbued in Meg a love of painting and other arts. I cannot say we agree always. Last year Meg repeatedly returned to MOMA to see a performance artist sit at a table for seven hours a day (what bladder control!) and stare at the chair across a table from her. People sat in the chair sometimes, and she just stared. That was her performance. Professional starer. Not art to me, but she presented at MOMA.
Meg and I had a real New York day. After MOMA (which I joined to allow me to go for the rest of the year without additional cost), we went down to Rockefeller Center to see the most famous Christmas tree in the world. I had never seen the tree. I know it is a cliché and that I don’t even celebrate Christmas, but it is an impressive sight.
You cannot get a sense on television of how big the tree really is. According to Wikipedia it is 74 feet tall, or about the height of a seven-story building. Next to Rockefeller Center, over 800 feet tall, the tree doesn’t look all that big. But standing at the base the tree seems to climb high into the sky, the lights making for a glittering and inspiring show. At the top sits a huge star, which you can’t appreciate from the ground, but for which a duplicate sits on a stand across the street.
Thousands of people crowded into the Plaza, most either taking pictures or having their picture taken. I made Meg pose in front of the tree.
Beneath sits the tiny ice rink, filled with little kids wobbily trying to skate, while their older siblings glide around demonstrating the achievements of years of lessons. Meg and I looked at each other while standing above the rink and reminded ourselves of why we live here.
I walked back to Grand Central past the windows of Saks Fifth Avenue.
I was disappointed. They did not match the store windows of Marshall Field & Co. I remember going to see as a child in Chicago. I took a picture or two and will try to get it on here and on my Facebook page. I plan to spend more time looking at windows later. The windows of Barney’s apparently are Lady Gaga-themed because they have a Lady Gaga store. I am not sure I want to go out of my way to see those.
On every corner of Fifth Avenue is a pushcart selling roasted chestnuts. I am not a big chestnut fan, but if you like Mel Torme songs, it is easy to buy a bag. (I think the bag is about $4.50). I have no idea if they were roasted on an open fire. But Jack Frost was definitely nipping at my nose (which admittedly is a large target for him).
Also, while walking around I got cold and went into Trump Tower. Guess who was in there? That is right...the Donald himself. My camera didn't work so I didn't get a shot, but he walked right past me. He is getting older and frankly, his hair didn't look that great.
I wish I could report that the crowds were imbued with the Christmas spirit and filled with joy for their fellow man. Sadly, no. They were just as pushy as always.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]