Or is that a "whine" industry? There sure are a lot of sour grapes coming out of Indianapolis in the wake of Danica Patrick's wonderful 4th place finish in the Indy 500.
It seems a lot of the male drivers think Danica has an unfair advantage. She is so tiny that her car weighs less than theirs, which means she gets better fuel mileage and can run faster . . . so somehow her record-setting performance is not fair.
Right. I'll bet not a one of them ever complained about a smaller MALE driver having an unfair advantage. Besides, the race rules specifically take into account that drivers' weights will differ: the required maximum weight for the race car is specifically to be measured WITHOUT fuel or driver on board.
Furthermore, cars are not horses. I doubt we need a system to install lead weights into Indy cars to "equalize" the field. If we really wanted to make the field totally equal, we'd insist on all the cars being identical and all the drivers being of equal weight, age, experience, and so on. Silly. Variables are the entire point of the sport. Who squanders his/her advantage? Who overcomes his/her disadvantage? Those are the ingredients of competition. Those are the elements of the stories that make the events worth our time.
Besides, her being smaller makes for Danica having fewer physical resources on which to draw, which means she by definition will have less stamina . . . which should make the other, male drivers happy. The Indy 500 is as much a test of driver stamina as anything.
Let's face it: a lot of the male drivers are embarrassed and feel threatened by the fact that Danica did so very well in her first Indy 500 . . . better than most of them. When Anika Sorenstam competed last year in a male PGA event, a lot of the male golfers carped about her presence there, too.
And yet the Women's Pro Bowling tour has ceased to exist as a separate entity, and now the women compete directly against the men. And have even made the TV finals. I haven't heard the male bowlers griping. Egads! Does that mean that they are more enlightened than some of their fellows?
There is no real way to make the playing field perfectly level for everyone at every time. But when a sport relies more on skill and brain power than on brute strength, even though strength can be a component, there is no reason NOT to let the women compete at the same time on the same track.
So I say, "way to go, Danica!" Illegitimi non carbundum!
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Riddle Me This
I am saddened to learn of the recent deaths of Frank Gorshin, best known for his impressions (his Kirk Douglas was a gem) and his portrayal of "The Riddler" on the old Batman TV series, and of Thurl Ravenscroft, best known as the voice of "Tony the Tiger" and the man who sang "You're A Mean One, Mister Grinch" in the 1966 TV special "How The Grinch Stole Christmas."
Ravenscroft was born in Norfolk, NE, by the way. >>sigh<< Another great one gone.
It's weird how the strands of fate and history intertwine. I hope that Jim Carrey is lighting candles for both these eminent performers--after all, by playing The Riddler in a Batman movie, and the Grinch itself in that movie, he owes a lot to both of them.
*** *** *** *** ***
On the subject of riddles, here's a political one: when is a victory/compromise neither a victory nor a compromise?
When the "solution" does nothing to solve the problem. Witness the recent US Senate shenanigans, wherein 14 (7 GOP and & 7 Dems) senators agreed to let the entire Senate do an up-or-down vote on at least 3 of Dubya's judicial nominees in exchange for no filibusters (except under "extraordinary circumstances") nor use of the "nuclear option" to demolish the filibuster.
The truth be told, one man's "extraordinary circumstances" are another man's "walks in the park."
Besides, Senator Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, has said the agreement doesn't apply to him. Furthermore, he's getting ready to use a filibuster to block Senate action on the House's proposal for expanded stem cell research funding.
Why aren't more people outraged at the blatant hypocricy of these people? "When you do it, it's bad and sinful and against the will of the people, but when I do it, it's a principled use of the reins of power" seems to be Frist's motto.
I would like to remind the GOP's extreme right and its supporters that (1) the judiciary is a co-equal, independent branch of the government, not some toy the winners get to play with. Furthermore, their argument that stalling Dubya's nominees is against the will of the majority is specious. Our entire system is set up to protect the minority from the will of the majority running roughshod over it. Doesn't anyone teach civics anymore? (2) What about the majority of the people who favor expanded funding for stem cell research?
It's no wonder so many people in this country do not vote. What's the point, when all you get for your trouble is partisan sniping and no genuine statesmanship?
Gads, I want to crawl under a rock and not come out!
*** *** *** *** ***
Have you seen the Burger King commercial wherein the Burger King and Darth Vader have a mask-to-mask staredown? A good friend of mine says the first thing he thought of was "Quien es mas macho?"
Please don't make me explain the reference; it will just remind me how old I am.
*** *** *** *** ***
Speaking of Burger King commercials . . . I was struck by conflicting emotions when I saw the one wherein Darth Vader tells the man who just won $1 million in the Burger King scratch-off game that Vader is his father . . . no, his uncle.
Believe me, I understand marketing ploys. And the commercial IS funny. But it is also sad, because we've taken one of the all-time great cinema bad guys and reduced him to a money-grubbing panderer. George Lucas, did you really need to OK this?
On the other hand, the dark chocolate M&Ms commercial, wherein Vader "convinces" Red and Yellow to go to the dark side, is extremely funny and entirely appropriate. The material is silly, but Vader does nothing out of character.
I have to put in my 2-cents'-worth and note that I didn't think either Star Wars Episode I or Episode II were as bad as a lot of the critics said. I have yet to see Episode III, but it looks good, entirely befitting the creation myth of the ultimate movie monster. Which in turn makes the monster's redemption in Episode VI all the more poignant.
I still get chills when I hear Darth Vader's theme in lento pianissimo pizzacato violin.
Ravenscroft was born in Norfolk, NE, by the way. >>sigh<< Another great one gone.
It's weird how the strands of fate and history intertwine. I hope that Jim Carrey is lighting candles for both these eminent performers--after all, by playing The Riddler in a Batman movie, and the Grinch itself in that movie, he owes a lot to both of them.
*** *** *** *** ***
On the subject of riddles, here's a political one: when is a victory/compromise neither a victory nor a compromise?
When the "solution" does nothing to solve the problem. Witness the recent US Senate shenanigans, wherein 14 (7 GOP and & 7 Dems) senators agreed to let the entire Senate do an up-or-down vote on at least 3 of Dubya's judicial nominees in exchange for no filibusters (except under "extraordinary circumstances") nor use of the "nuclear option" to demolish the filibuster.
The truth be told, one man's "extraordinary circumstances" are another man's "walks in the park."
Besides, Senator Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, has said the agreement doesn't apply to him. Furthermore, he's getting ready to use a filibuster to block Senate action on the House's proposal for expanded stem cell research funding.
Why aren't more people outraged at the blatant hypocricy of these people? "When you do it, it's bad and sinful and against the will of the people, but when I do it, it's a principled use of the reins of power" seems to be Frist's motto.
I would like to remind the GOP's extreme right and its supporters that (1) the judiciary is a co-equal, independent branch of the government, not some toy the winners get to play with. Furthermore, their argument that stalling Dubya's nominees is against the will of the majority is specious. Our entire system is set up to protect the minority from the will of the majority running roughshod over it. Doesn't anyone teach civics anymore? (2) What about the majority of the people who favor expanded funding for stem cell research?
It's no wonder so many people in this country do not vote. What's the point, when all you get for your trouble is partisan sniping and no genuine statesmanship?
Gads, I want to crawl under a rock and not come out!
*** *** *** *** ***
Have you seen the Burger King commercial wherein the Burger King and Darth Vader have a mask-to-mask staredown? A good friend of mine says the first thing he thought of was "Quien es mas macho?"
Please don't make me explain the reference; it will just remind me how old I am.
*** *** *** *** ***
Speaking of Burger King commercials . . . I was struck by conflicting emotions when I saw the one wherein Darth Vader tells the man who just won $1 million in the Burger King scratch-off game that Vader is his father . . . no, his uncle.
Believe me, I understand marketing ploys. And the commercial IS funny. But it is also sad, because we've taken one of the all-time great cinema bad guys and reduced him to a money-grubbing panderer. George Lucas, did you really need to OK this?
On the other hand, the dark chocolate M&Ms commercial, wherein Vader "convinces" Red and Yellow to go to the dark side, is extremely funny and entirely appropriate. The material is silly, but Vader does nothing out of character.
I have to put in my 2-cents'-worth and note that I didn't think either Star Wars Episode I or Episode II were as bad as a lot of the critics said. I have yet to see Episode III, but it looks good, entirely befitting the creation myth of the ultimate movie monster. Which in turn makes the monster's redemption in Episode VI all the more poignant.
I still get chills when I hear Darth Vader's theme in lento pianissimo pizzacato violin.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Those Who Refuse To Learn--And Learn From--History Are Doomed To Repeat It
Dubya is at it again: ignoring Mark Twain's advice to keep his mouth shut and let everyone think he is an idiot rather than to open it and remove all doubt.
In his recent jaunt through the former USSR in honor of the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW II, Dubya insisted more than once that "America was at least partly responsible for the Soviet take-over of Eastern Europe," and that Franklin Roosevelt's acquiesence to Josef Stalin at Yalta was a shameful moment in US (and thus world) history.
I am sure I am not the only person to notice that Dubya got several facts wrong in his little paean to freedom. I do believe, however, that I am at least among the first to note certain similarities in Dubya's own behavior to FDR's . . . ones that have apparently escaped Dubya's own notice.
First, note that a lot of what Dubya said specifically about FDR can be explained by the neocon's article of faith that FDR was a traitor to his economic class. Thus, in the neocon world view, any chance to trash FDR, no matter how tenuous in reality, must be taken. Who cares that Dubya's comments were for international and not domestic consumption? FDR must be trashed!
Second, if FDR was guilty of anything at Yalta, it was the mistaken belief that since he'd established a personal relationship with Stalin, he could work with the man and curb some of Stalin's more egregious impulses. Of course, FDR had no idea he'd shortly be dead. He also was sick enough at Yalta (just look at the photos if you don't believe me) to miss the fact that Stalin was playing both him and Winston Churchill.
Except for the being physically ill part, Dubya's own behavior toward Vladimir Putin bears a striking resemblance to FDR's toward Stalin. And Putin's behavior has belied, time and again, Dubya's insistence that since he knows Putin and believes he can work with him, Dubya can "control" Putin's (and by extension, Russia's) tendency to excess.
Right. And I can fly without an airplane or illegal drugs.
Third, and finally, anyone who knows ANYTHING about Yalta and what the Big Three powers agreed to there knows that Stalin promised to ensure full and free elections for postwar governments in the countries of Eastern Europe.
Stalin reneged. Further, as a practical matter, the Soviet Army already occupied most of Eastern Europe, and to dislodge it would require a shooting war . . . something no one wanted as WW II was ending or in its aftermath.
[Which leads me to another of my pet theories, that maybe we in the West were collectively wrong in casting the USSR as pure, 100% unadulterated evil. After all, while the USSR controlled Eastern Europe and had alliances with most of the Arab states, it kept the lid on. No Kosovos happened under Soviet domination, for instance. Nor any terrorist attacks on US soil.
[We also have to remember that to live in a free society is to accept a certain amount of risk. You cannot have real freedom and at the same time be entirely free from the risk of terrorism. It is impossible to have 100% of both at the same time. Just another bit of reality that has escaped Dubya's notice.]
So to blame "America" for the woes of postwar Eastern Europe is wrong. And stupid. And typical of Dubya. Trashing FDR matters more to him than his stated goal of ensuring the spread of democracy worldwide.
What is Dubya going to do about North Korea, anyway?
In his recent jaunt through the former USSR in honor of the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW II, Dubya insisted more than once that "America was at least partly responsible for the Soviet take-over of Eastern Europe," and that Franklin Roosevelt's acquiesence to Josef Stalin at Yalta was a shameful moment in US (and thus world) history.
I am sure I am not the only person to notice that Dubya got several facts wrong in his little paean to freedom. I do believe, however, that I am at least among the first to note certain similarities in Dubya's own behavior to FDR's . . . ones that have apparently escaped Dubya's own notice.
First, note that a lot of what Dubya said specifically about FDR can be explained by the neocon's article of faith that FDR was a traitor to his economic class. Thus, in the neocon world view, any chance to trash FDR, no matter how tenuous in reality, must be taken. Who cares that Dubya's comments were for international and not domestic consumption? FDR must be trashed!
Second, if FDR was guilty of anything at Yalta, it was the mistaken belief that since he'd established a personal relationship with Stalin, he could work with the man and curb some of Stalin's more egregious impulses. Of course, FDR had no idea he'd shortly be dead. He also was sick enough at Yalta (just look at the photos if you don't believe me) to miss the fact that Stalin was playing both him and Winston Churchill.
Except for the being physically ill part, Dubya's own behavior toward Vladimir Putin bears a striking resemblance to FDR's toward Stalin. And Putin's behavior has belied, time and again, Dubya's insistence that since he knows Putin and believes he can work with him, Dubya can "control" Putin's (and by extension, Russia's) tendency to excess.
Right. And I can fly without an airplane or illegal drugs.
Third, and finally, anyone who knows ANYTHING about Yalta and what the Big Three powers agreed to there knows that Stalin promised to ensure full and free elections for postwar governments in the countries of Eastern Europe.
Stalin reneged. Further, as a practical matter, the Soviet Army already occupied most of Eastern Europe, and to dislodge it would require a shooting war . . . something no one wanted as WW II was ending or in its aftermath.
[Which leads me to another of my pet theories, that maybe we in the West were collectively wrong in casting the USSR as pure, 100% unadulterated evil. After all, while the USSR controlled Eastern Europe and had alliances with most of the Arab states, it kept the lid on. No Kosovos happened under Soviet domination, for instance. Nor any terrorist attacks on US soil.
[We also have to remember that to live in a free society is to accept a certain amount of risk. You cannot have real freedom and at the same time be entirely free from the risk of terrorism. It is impossible to have 100% of both at the same time. Just another bit of reality that has escaped Dubya's notice.]
So to blame "America" for the woes of postwar Eastern Europe is wrong. And stupid. And typical of Dubya. Trashing FDR matters more to him than his stated goal of ensuring the spread of democracy worldwide.
What is Dubya going to do about North Korea, anyway?
Monday, May 02, 2005
Dr. T And The Women--And The Men--Of Nebraska
Dr. Tom Osborne, Nebraska's Third Congressional District US Representative, and former University of Nebraska football head coach, announced this weekend that he intends to give up his seat in Congress to run for Governor of the State of Nebraska.
He will be running against a sitting governor of his own Republican party, John Heineman. Gov. Heineman was the Lt. Gov., and became governor when the elected governor, Mike Johanns, accepted Dubya's offer earlier this year to become US Secretary of Agriculture.
Why is Dr. Tom doing this? He says he is not trying to cause dissention in the party, and that he will never say a bad word about Gov. Heineman. Further, he is flying in the face of an early endorsement of Gov. Heineman by Nebraska US Senator Chuck Hagel--also a Republican. Hagel has announced that while he has nothing bad to say about Dr. T, he stands by his endorsement of Gov. Heineman. So, Dr. T, wazzup?
I think I know. Dr. T liked being in charge when he was the head football coach . . . and after he started beating Oklahoma (i.e., after Barry Switzer left) and won 3, count 'em, 3, National Championships, his nickname in these parts became "God." (His smallest winning percentage in his three runs for Congress was something on the order of 87%.)
In Congress, he is one of 435. As Governor, he'd be 1 of 1.
Besides, he'll get to move back to Lincoln. Heck, I'd live in Lincoln if my health and financial circumstances would permit it. Don't get me wrong. I love living in Bellevue; but Lincoln is where I went to college, and those days were in many respects the best of my life. I sometimes wish I had more immediate connections to them than I presently do.
For Dr. Tom, however, it's less about party loyalty and the need to solve Nebraska's problems (despite what he said in his announcement) than it is about his own ego, methinks.
After all, he retired from coaching on the advice of his cardiologists. The stress was too much on his heart. And yet he entered elective politics AFTER he was told to slow down and take it easy. He has served long enough to be getting some influence in Congress, too. Why would he abandon what he has built for a potentially divisive and disastrous (for his party) run for the governorship?
Under that mild demeanor may lurk the soul of a dictator. Dr. Tom evidently found being one of many unsatisfying; he seems to prefer the opportunity to be totally in charge.
This may bode well for the Democrats' chances to retake the governor's office. One can but hope.
He will be running against a sitting governor of his own Republican party, John Heineman. Gov. Heineman was the Lt. Gov., and became governor when the elected governor, Mike Johanns, accepted Dubya's offer earlier this year to become US Secretary of Agriculture.
Why is Dr. Tom doing this? He says he is not trying to cause dissention in the party, and that he will never say a bad word about Gov. Heineman. Further, he is flying in the face of an early endorsement of Gov. Heineman by Nebraska US Senator Chuck Hagel--also a Republican. Hagel has announced that while he has nothing bad to say about Dr. T, he stands by his endorsement of Gov. Heineman. So, Dr. T, wazzup?
I think I know. Dr. T liked being in charge when he was the head football coach . . . and after he started beating Oklahoma (i.e., after Barry Switzer left) and won 3, count 'em, 3, National Championships, his nickname in these parts became "God." (His smallest winning percentage in his three runs for Congress was something on the order of 87%.)
In Congress, he is one of 435. As Governor, he'd be 1 of 1.
Besides, he'll get to move back to Lincoln. Heck, I'd live in Lincoln if my health and financial circumstances would permit it. Don't get me wrong. I love living in Bellevue; but Lincoln is where I went to college, and those days were in many respects the best of my life. I sometimes wish I had more immediate connections to them than I presently do.
For Dr. Tom, however, it's less about party loyalty and the need to solve Nebraska's problems (despite what he said in his announcement) than it is about his own ego, methinks.
After all, he retired from coaching on the advice of his cardiologists. The stress was too much on his heart. And yet he entered elective politics AFTER he was told to slow down and take it easy. He has served long enough to be getting some influence in Congress, too. Why would he abandon what he has built for a potentially divisive and disastrous (for his party) run for the governorship?
Under that mild demeanor may lurk the soul of a dictator. Dr. Tom evidently found being one of many unsatisfying; he seems to prefer the opportunity to be totally in charge.
This may bode well for the Democrats' chances to retake the governor's office. One can but hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)