Olympic QUESTION


Are you watching the Olympics? I turned on the TV for the opening ceremonies, only to see how luge competitor Nodar Kumaritashvili of the Republic of Georgia died. In case I missed it, NBC kindly showed it a couple more times.

(Sidebar: before I saw the accident, I was talking on the bus yesterday with some of the regulars. We found it an interesting sociological phenomenon that ABC Wide World of Sports showed Slovian ski jumper Vinko Bogataj as the Agony of Defeat for 20+ years; the guy fortunately only suffered a concussion.)

But I’m not a big Winter Olympics fan. The newish extreme sports (halfpipe, etc.) look interesting, but I have no sense of how they score them. I learned a while ago that hockey is more interesting live than on TV, but if the US is in the match and not being trounced, I’ll probably watch some.

I figured out only yesterday why skiing, as inherently appealing as it should be, bores me silly. It’s one guy going down the hill. Then another guy going down the hill. And another. And another. And it all looks the same unless someone makes a mistake, and falls. Are we supposed to wait for a tumble, and hope it’s of the Vinko Bogataj variety rather than the Nodar Kumaritashvili type?

I realized that skiing is like the Kentucky Derby, except that only one horse and jockey go around the track. Then another. Then another. Substitute your favorite race (auto racing, track and field, swimming). Whereas the luge is so intense, not just fast but claustrophobic, it’s generally more watchable. Are we waiting for the (non-fatal) wipeout there as well?

The only thing I’ll truly see, though, is figure skating. The one thing my ex and my wife have in common is a love for the sport. I’ve been watching since 1992 and even have a basic understanding for the scoring in the men’s and women’s events, less so in the pairs, and hardly at all in ice dancing.

ROG

Found Post: Gonna Take a Miracle

Sometimes I write a post which I start then forget about, then find again. This isn’t one of those. This was actually found in our front lawn by my wife, a green handkerchief with two notes on either side of the fold.

One note reads, in all capital letters:

{Name 1], I long to meet your needs in a supernatural way. I want to bless you more than you even can even imagine. Don’t hold back by limiting my ways to your ways. I can make a way where there is no way. Even as Paul sent forth handkerchief, so my servant, [Name 2- first and last name], has sent you this handkerchief in obedience to me, as an act of faith, that I will meet your need with a miracle. Release your faith now and believe my word.

Then, handwritten (though it looks Xeroxed):

[Name 1], receive this word.
I am standing in prayer with you. [signed Name 2, first name only]

On the other side of the hankerchief is Name 1’s full name and full address, three or four blocks from our house.

Then the message:

Write the amount of money you need here:

Initially an amount was written, then whited-out and replaced with the handwritten, “Thousands of dollars.”

Sign your name here, claiming Matt 18:19. [Name 1 has signed].

In the King James Version, Matthew 18:19 reads: “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.”

WOW. This disturbs me more than I can explain. There’s an old tradition of taking a Bible verse, pulling it out of context and “proof texting” a point. It seems clear, at least to me, that the two gathered together would be praying for God’s church, not personal wealth. And this commentary agrees:

WHAT VERSE 19 IS NOT
1. Verse 19 has NOTHING to do with requests to God by a believer, in relation to health, wealth, happiness or any other aspect or desire in their own life…
5. The two persons of verse 19 are NOT individual Christian believers making requests for themselves.

This reeks of charlatan theology in the Oral Roberts/Reverend Ike tradition. I’m wondering what kind of “contribution” this person made to receive the “gift” of the handkerchief. Yet another example of “Christians” making Christians look bad.

ROG

MOVIE REVIEW: A Single Man

I saw the A Single Man a couple weeks ago, in one of those “split date” things my wife and I go on, where we see the same movie in the same weekend, then compare notes. It’s the story of George (Colin Firth), a British gay man and a professor in 1962 Los Angeles, who lost his life partner (Matthew Goode) and is just trying to get through the day. His public grieving is limited and his lover’s family don’t even allow him to the funeral. He’s friendly to the housewife neighbor (Ginnifer Goodwin of Big Love), but her husband is less than friendly. His only real friend is fellow British expat Charley (Julianne Moore), who has issues of her own. One of his colleagues (Lee Pace from Pushing Daisies) represents the Cold war backdrop of this movie.

I certainly understand why Firth was nominated for an Academy Award for his role. His character is quite in need of structure in his life. Even when George lets go a little, it’s honed with a certain British reserve. There’s a surprisingly darkly funny sequence near the end of the film.

Tom Ford is a rookie director, a fashion designer and former Gucci executive who also wrote the screenplay based on the Chris Isherwood novel. While he tells a succinct tale, occasionally he would engage in cinematic trickery that was at times more irritating than enlightening. Julianne Moore is fine in her role, but Ford made her look every one of her 47 years, and then some.

I read someone describe the film as somnambulant, and I do understand his point. This is not a Michael Bay movie. Not much happens in A Single Man, yet quite a bit does.

Recommended, unless you’re only a fan of action flicks, in which case this will undoubtedly bore you silly.
***
A few years ago, probably after seeing her in the 2002 movies Far from Heaven and the Hours, I had a dream about Julianne Moore. I almost never dream about real people I don’t know. Anyway, I saved her from some some peril – getting hit by a car, I believe. She was grateful, and we became pen pals, with her sending me autographed photos and tickets to her movies. [Alas, I woke up.)

ROG

Sports and Weather

I understand why people don’t care about sports, I really do. There are lots of particular sports I don’t care much about myself. What I don’t get is this antipathy towards the things that others happen to enjoy. The Super Bowl, which had the highest ratings ever of any US TV show, apparently dethroning the M*A*S*H finale of 1983, is such an example. Don’t want to watch it? Fine. But there’s no reason to suck the joy out of other people’s pleasure.

I was rooting for the New Orleans Saints, and even predicted that they’d win. Some are puzzled about how important the Saints’ victory would be for the city of New Orleans. One pundit sniffed that if the victory would help New Orleans get over Hurricane Katrina, wouldn’t a Jets victory have done the same for New York City after 9/11? Well, no.

Anyone watching the aftermath of the August 2005 devastation will recall that the Superdome, home of the Saints, was at the epicenter of the disaster. Thousands of people lived there for days. The roof collapsed. The team ended up playing its home games elsewhere for a time, including San Antonio, Texas. The refurbishing of the Superdome and the win by the Saints, who had never even GOTTEN to a Super Bowl, let alone won one, was a fitting climax for both the team and the city that embraced each other in a most profound manner.

Of course, the real reason for watching the Super Bowl: the commercials, which you can see here or here. My favorite was the Betty White/Abe Vigoda Snickers commercial. While Betty White has been a regular working actress (the movie The Proposal and the TV show Boston Legal, e.g.), now at the age of 88, there’s been a running gag whether Abe Vigoda, a star on Barney Miller, was even still alive. I also liked the Dave Letterman ad; yes, late night TV rivals Letterman and Jay Leno were actually in the same room at the same time; see this. I liked the Simpsons ad for Coca-Cola; reminds me of an ad with MC Hammer losing all his bling AND the ad with Mean Joe Greene being offered a Coke. I enjoyed the Google ad. I’ve long admitted my thing about chickens, so a couple of Denny’s ads – for a promotion that’s now over – stick in my head.

Whereas I’ve long tired of the E*Trade babies. Even the sweet Clydesdale commercial for Budweiser has become predictable. I can’t imagine wanting to see ANY of the movies advertised. The commercials Casual Friday and I Wear No Pants were so close to each other, I thought they were for the same product; they weren’t. The Tim Tebow ad, with his mother, the reportedly anti-abortion message from Focus on the Family, was mostly, “Is that all there is?” And, most unfortunately, I thought the Census ad was an ineffective use of taxpayer money.

As for the music, Queen Latifah’s America the Beautiful was a bit wobbly and flat in the beginning, but Carrie Underwood’s a capella rendition of The Star Spangled Banner was OK, but the last note was painful. I love the band, The Who’s halftime show seemed off. The harmonies didn’t work, and the medley segues were clunky. But the drummer Zak Starkey (Ringo Starr’s son) was energetic, and they finished strong with Won’t Get Fooled Again.

Meanwhile, it’s been cold in Albany, but all the snow that has been hitting the Delmarva peninsula, Philadelphia (32.3 inches in 2010) and up the coast, repeatedly this winter, has so far missed Albany. Likewise, whatever snow off the Great Lakes may have affected Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, but Albany has been so far immune. Baltimore has been hammered; 41 inches this calendar year through February 8, more than Buffalo (36.1). All my NYC friends have made snarky remarks about Albany winters, but Albany has had only 8.3 inches of snow since January 1, the most 2.4 inches on January 3.

ANOTHER storm’s coming up the coast yesterday and today. Again the mid-Atlantic will get pummeled. What Albany gets will depend on the track of the storm, from an inch or two to six or eight. And it’ll still pale in comparison with what NYC’s going to suffer today; expect massive airline delays and cancellations.
ROG

D is for Decade


It’s five weeks into the new decade. There was no consensus on what to call the OLD decade: the zeroes, the aughts, the naughts?

This got me to thinking. How did some of the decades of the past get such colorful appellations? Specifically, why the Gay Nineties? Was there an excessive amount of nitrous oxide available? And what of the Roaring Twenties? What was so leonine about it, and did it have something to do with the MGM lion?

According to the Wikipedia, “The (‘Gay Nineties’) term…began to be used in the 1920s and is believed to have been created by the artist Richard V. Culter, who first released a series of drawings in Life magazine entitled ‘the Gay Nineties’ and later published a book of drawings with the same name. The high life of the ‘old money’ families was well documented in the novels of, for example, Edith Wharton, and Booth Tarkington.” It was “sometimes referred to as the ‘Mauve Decade,’ because William Henry Perkin’s aniline dye allowed the widespread use of that colour in fashion.” That latter designation was totally unfamiliar to me. It’s an interesting idea, given the fact that there was a depression in 1893 in the United States, following economic distress in Europe and elsewhere in the years before the collapse.

“The Roaring Twenties is a phrase used to describe the 1920s, principally in North America but also in London, Paris and Berlin. The phrase was meant to emphasize the period’s social, artistic, and cultural dynamism.” Likewise, “the Jazz Age describes the period after the end of World War I, through the Roaring Twenties, ending with the onset of
the Great Depression. Traditional values of the previous period declined while the American stock market soared. The age takes its name from popular music, which saw a tremendous surge in popularity. Among the prominent concerns and trends of the
period are the public embrace of technological developments typically seen as progress — cars, air travel and the telephone – as well as new modernist trends in social behavior, the arts, and culture. Central developments included Art Deco design and architecture.”

While I had heard of the Dust Bowl, I was totally unfamiliar with this paired designation: The Dust Bowl or the Dirty Thirties was a period of severe dust storms causing major ecological and agricultural damage to American and Canadian prairie lands from 1930 to 1936 (in some areas until 1940). The phenomenon was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent erosion.”

Some have called the Fifties “Fabulous” but it was not a standardized definition, as far as I can tell. I can’t help but think that some think of it as “fabulous” because of a post-WWII “normalcy”, while others might find it likewise fabulous because of the growth of rock & roll.

The sixties were tumultuous, but again no one made that a designation that stuck. Whereas, “Novelist Tom Wolfe coined the term Me decade in New York magazine in August 1976 referring to the 1970s. The term describes a general new attitude of Americans towards self-awareness and away from history, community, and human reciprocity awareness, in clear contrast with the 1960s.

Will there be clear naming of these last three decades that we can agree on?

Here’s something that had created some disagreement: some people seem to think that the new decade does not start until after 2010, and that it runs 2001-2010. This seems to come from a desire to create consistency, but it lacks logic. We know that the 19th Century ran from 1801 to 1900, and that the century is essentially named for the last year of the century, 1900. It’s likewise true with the 20th Century and 2000 or the 21st Century and 2100. There are those who seem to think that the borders of the decades should fit into the borders of the century. But why?

Clearly the 1960s is named for 1960, the first year in the range 1960-1969. To suggest that it started in 1961 would be illogical; the year that names a decade should be IN the decade. Likewise, the Seventies started in 1970. The Aughts (or whatever), started in 2000, which, as noted, is the last year of the prior century. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

If consistency were in play, we might have 13 months, each four weeks long, with one or two off-calendar days, or perhaps a catch-up week every few years, as described here. Instead we have 30 days in “September, April, June and November”, etc. Of course, if logic were in play, our ninth through twelfth months wouldn’t have prefixes representing the numbers seven through ten, respectively.

Oh, one last thing: when you write 1960s, or 1990s or 1870s, please do not use an apostrophe; it’s not 1960’s or 1990’s or 1870’s. This source confirms my point. Which means that that lovely graphic above, which I purloined from the Chicago Sun Times newspaper, is, unfortunately, wrong!

Decade pictures courtesy of Life magazine, allowed for non-commercial use.

ROG

Ramblin' with Roger
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial