Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Poor Sportsman...ship

So, here's the thing. In our society there is a perhaps unfair standard that the more money you make, the less we want to hear you whine about your job. Because, sure we all have days, week, years where we know if we just had a better manager, a better co-worker, other people to pick up the slack or to do all the crap that was never supposed to be your job in the first place, that our live would be better. Our jobs would be better. And we would be better at our jobs. If we had the tools and resources we needed. And we all have had those times when we knew we were under-appreciated. That management wasn't using our skills in the best way. And if they would just listen - then it would all be better.

But when your salary hits six-plus digits - people are less understanding of your woes. And when you play a sport for a living - people are less understanding. Perhaps it's the "play" that throws us off. Since the verb play makes it sound as if your job couldn't really be hard - it gets easier to wonder why you have all this time to whine.

In any job, our society measures your worth by how much you make. Your market value. So, it makes sense that athletes (or actors, but that's a whole other thing) would work hard to show that they are the best by getting paid the most. And I don't begrudge them that. But once you hit a certain tax bracket - even factoring in the shorter career span, the increased risk of bodily harm - my tolerance for complaints goes down. If you have concerns about management sure. But hey, if you keep dropping balls or pucks or whatever, don't talk to me. If you can't perform, you don't get to complain.

And when you are making six or seven figures and management says, I'd like you to try this - you do it. (Even when you're not making big money, if my manager said we are moving you to this job or changing you to this position, I have choices but none of them - if I want to keep my job - include not showing up in protest). I'm not saying it may not be a flawed plan, and after you've tried it - talk to them, but until then try it. Hey, for that money I'd try it. I'd try it for less than that. And sure, I'm not an athlete. I lack the skills that got you where you are. But, yeah, that only gets you a little sympathy.

And if you are smart, you also won't trash your management or your teammates. Because the other part of this equation, is the more money you make, the more you need to step up. If you can't do it - get out. Don't try to blame everyone else. Let's face it - I make much less than these folks. But if I got in front of a bunch of cameras and trashed my manager and my co-workers - I wouldn't really expect to have a job the next day much less a promotion or more responsibility. And sure, professional sports is a different arena (sorry - couldn't help it), but at the end of the day you are asking these people to trust you to do a job. And if they can't trust you not to pull stunts every time you think there's a camera around, if they can't trust you to show up when and where you're supposed to, why should they pay you?

And hey, we all make mistakes and everyone deserves a second chance. But, get it together. Oh yeah, and if you act like an idiot in front of the cameras - don't expect the fans to love you. In fact, even if you don't act like an idiot - fan love is a crazy, fickle thing. That's just how it is. You do not get to trash the fans. These people paid - dearly - for their tickets and for the right to sit there and say pretty much whatever they want. If you want them to love you, there is a fairly good formula. You may notice - for example - that players on the Washington Capitals such as Alex Ovechkin, Jeff Halpern and Olie Kolzig are gracious even when the team loses. They share credit when they win and they don't point fingers when they lose. And people love them.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Stop Whining About the Oscars

Yeah. I'm a hypocrite. Because I want to move on from the Oscars, and yet I am writing about the Oscars, thereby perpetuating the discussion. But here's the thing. From my perspective this was one of the few years in recent history that I would have been happy with any of the nominated movies winning Best Picture. How often does that happen? (Not often let me tell you. I'm still bitter about stupid "Titanic".) So why are all thee people all upset about "Crash"?

I enjoyed "Crash". I think it hopefully got people to look a little at themselves, but even if it didn't it was a well crafted movie with an excellent ensemble. (Hey any movie that can make me not totally itch every time Ryan Phillipe is on screen is doing something right.) And because the Academy Awards, like several other in the insane awards train, do not have an ensemble award, it was unlikely to score an acting award.

But now everyone wants to say it had to be prejudice that had "Crash" winning over "Brokeback Mountain". (Which I find a bit ironic, but there you go.) First, "Brokeback Mountain" won several awards, including Best Director.

And by the way, why is there almost no attention on the fact that Ang Lee was not only the first Asian to win Best Director he was also the first non-white. First. Think about that for a moment.

Why isn't it equally plausible that because there were five good movies nominated, the race was tight. Or maybe it really was down to "Crash" and "Brokeback Mountain" and the votes tipped a little bit one way for director and the other way for the picture. Both movies won for Best Screenplay (original and adapted) - how is it that hard to imagine that the two top stories should have been neck and neck for what turned into the best movie?

And "Brokeback Mountain" won a ton of awards. It's not like all these people are going to have empty shelves. So, why are we still talking about it?

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Adoption Discrimination

I am so saddened by this. I recognize that the Catholic church doesn't support homosexuality. And I know that all of us come to places in or lives where we have to prioritize our beliefs. We have to make decisions about what things we have to draw the hard line on, even (or especially) when it means limiting our ability to do something else of importance.

But this saddens me. The Catholic church believes that the creation of life is a sacred thing that should not be interfered with, hence their position on abortion and birth control of all kinds. The reality is there are children who need homes.
And due to the above, the Catholic Church cannot address this through birth control (there is of course the option of better sexual decisions, which the Catholic Church is of course addressing, but their solutions their are a bit limiting also). So,
there is adoption. And in the state of Massachusetts, qualified adults who are homosexual may adopt children.

The Catholic Church has requested that when their current contract with the state ends, the new contract allow them continue to provide adoption assistance without having to place children with homosexuals. Now, I am all for people having and
adhering to religious beliefs. But people of faith (myself included) also need to recognize that when acting in partnership with the government, you have to abide by the law. Just as Habitat for Humanity provides homes for all people who need
them, I think the Catholic Church has two choices. Accept that when working for the state, you have to abide by the rules of the land, or stop working for the state, at least in that capacity.

Because - as US Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts pointed out, the real issue here is that these kids get good homes. We are sadly not in a place where children are being fought over. There are not long lists of parents hoping to take these children in. This is not a time to pick and choose which anti-discrimination laws you want to follow.

Friday, March 10, 2006

Prank Rules

It has come to my attention that there are apparently people out there who do not really understand what a prank is. (Ahem) defines a prank as: "A mischievous trick or practical joke." Now I see how that could be misleading, especially with shows today such as "Punk'd" and "Overhauled" where it is considered funny to convince people their vehicle has been stolen. (I'm not saying that can't be funny, I'm just saying that's a big one).

So, I think maybe some guidelines or parameters are in order.

*A prank should be funny.
It may not seem funny to the prankee at the time, but it should be something that by the time it is being retold, should be funny. Compare:
1. So, we set this church on fire and it burned down. (Not funny)
2. So, we put thirty for sale signs in front of the school. (Funny)

*Know your target.
First - you should actually know the person you are pranking - or have the involvement of the someone who does (same rules if it is a place). This is also important because the bigger the idea is the more important it is to know if this person will sue you or have you arrested. (This is the world we live in guys).
So if (for example) you build an indoor pool, your targets need to find this funny. If it's more along the lines of a whoopee cushion thing this will be less crucial.

*It needs to be fixable.
Anything that causes permanent damage is not funny. There might be little leeway along the lines of we painted the roof, but not really, as long a the roof can be painted back. Which brings us to...

*You need to then clean it up.
If you turn someone's office into a beach (hilarious, by the way), you need to also be willing to clean it all up after everyone has had their laughs. If you are not willing to do that, then you might want to stick to something more along the lines of salt cookies instead.

Standard Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any consequences should you decide to re-enact any of the examples listed above.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Words: A New We

We (yeah, I know) all know that there is the Royal We. Originally it referred to the fact that monarchs and other important folk did not refer to themselves in the singular, but employed a we. Then there is the, well, regular we. But there is this we that I have noticed a lot lately. It is employed in such sentences as, "We have to make a better effort to keep this area clean." Very polite and all, but we (again) know that the underlying subtext is often you - as in you need to make a better effort but I'm much too nice to accuse you so I'm saying we.

To my knowledge there is no official term for this we, so I have two suggestions.

The Passive - Aggressive We: acknowledging the currents inherent within the usage of the word we in place of you.

The Reverse We: again an homage to a we that really doesn't include the speaker.

These could also be shortened to PAWe or ReWe.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Things to Know about DC

I thought I try to clear up some common misconceptions about our wonderful capital city of Washington, DC - where I grew up.

It's not a swamp.
When the C&O Canal was completed, all that standing water attracted a larger amount of mosquitoes, which combined with the humidity of the summer gave the place a swampy feel.

Streets have a clear pattern (except for a few weird places where they think the rules don't apply to them).
The city was designed by Pierre L'Enfant. The Capitol is the center, with state streets spoking out diagonally from there. The number streets go north/south - starting at the Capitol and moving east and west. (So there is a 2nd Street in the west side of the Capitol and on the east side. This is why the quadrant - NE, NW, SE, SW - is important in locating an address.) The letter streets go east/west starting at the Capitol (leading to to C Streets, one north and one south). Once the alphabet is finished, the name streets start. The streets (for the most part) are alphabetical and arranged by number of syllables. So the first run through the alphabet is all the single syllable streets, then the two syllable streets, then the three syllable streets. The numbers on each block move by the hundreds, and are based on the number street (or for north south streets, the first block counting from the capitol is unit, then one hundreds, and so on.) So 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is at the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 16th Street. Now, how easy is that.

We don't all work for the government.
I've lived her most of my life and never worked for the government, or any politically affiliated organizations. (And yes, this means I do not get all the pretty holidays.) We do exist.

He's just as much your president as mine.
Just because he lives her doesn't mean I had any more to do with electing him than you did. Check out the electoral college rules if you're confused. I'm not disowning him (so far all hims) necessarily, but just because I live near him doesn't mean I see him or have any more or less to do with him than you.

Taxation without representation is alive and well.
DC was carved out of Maryland and Virginia. One of the rules put into place since these people ended up in a new locale without moving was that they should not lose any of their existing rights. Sadly, no one seems to think this applies to voting rights. DC has requested statehood, but gotten nowhere. In 1963, the twenty-third amendment to the constitution deemed that DC resident would be allowed to participate in Presidential elections. DC is under the jurisdiction of the US Congress. DC has a shadow representative and shadow senators. They are allowed to make speeches and participate in Congressional committees, but they have no voting power. DC does have a mayor and a city council, but the budget is approved by congress, and Congress can (and has) intervene at any time should they not like the local decisions being made. However, unlike Puerto Rico, American Guam and American Samoa - which are territories also without voting rights - DC residents do have to pay Federal taxes. DC is the only capital city in the world, that affords its residents lesser rights than the rest of its citizens.

The crackhead was set up and he's not mayor anymore and even if he was trust me you people have elected same major dinks too.
People often mention this when I bring up the lack of rights (as I did above). And here's the thing, the joy of democracy is that the people get to elect whomever they want. And personally, I think the FBI went to a lot of effort to get a guy for possession of drugs (especially since he wasn't even the one who purchased them). But whatever, the place you live has elected plenty of idiots. It's the joy of democracy at work.

We are not murder capital (anymore).
We were in the late 1980's. But since 1991 (knock on wood) the murder rate has gone down and other cities have taken on that dubious distinction. So, get over it.

We are in the South.
Look, I know there's the geographic south and the Deep South and all sorts of other hair splitting things. And it's a city with more than it's share of politicians and such so perhaps that lends people to think it must seem more Northern. And it certainly is more Northern (geographically, psychologically) than Atlanta for example. But the Mason-Dixon line - is separating Maryland from Pennsylvania. And part of the politicking in deciding on the placement of DC, was that it be in the South. So there you go.

We are the Chocolate City.
Mayor Nagin got a lot of attention for say that New Orleans would be a Chocolate city again. But he didn't invent the term. The term started in the 1970's, and was used by local stations to describe the predominately black racial make-up of the city. At one time DC was 75% black. That number has dwindled (as has the DC population due to urban flight) and is now around 60%.

Our museums are free (mostly).
The entire Smithsonian Institution (National Zoo, Air & Space Museum, Museum of American Art, etc) is free. There are some non-institution museums and most of them do charge for entrance, but the Smithsonian does not.

And PS. - that suburb to the north - is not named after an actor.