Articles of the Opinionated: Choosing Substance Over Style In Films

A friend of mine just posted on Facebook her enthusiasm regarding the anticipated delivery of a ”Wall-E” Netfix DVD to her waiting mailbox, and I am happy for her, to be sure.  I would typically express either interest or disdain at her choice, but honestly, I have no idea what the movie is about, other than having a little robot that is apparently cute.  Then it struck me how often, over the past several years, it has happened when I have seen an advertisement for a coming attraction that provided little context other than the bright, flashy images on the screen.  More often than not, this observation occurs when the film in question is an animated feature or an over-hyped sequel.  You might accuse me of making an obvious argument with little depth to it, but still, it happens so often that a film’s marketing campaign will thrust images at us without much mention of story to it.  And not all of us will take the time to read the review or hit up the website just because the studio has paid for three hours of TV time a day.  Here are some examples of the details I can recall from some past movie advertisements:

WALL-E:  As I mentioned, a cute robot that makes cute noises.  But can it improve on the quality of my life without a hostile takeover?

Robots:  This time, more than one robot, and one of them sounds like Robin Williams.  But can they improve on the quality of my life without a hostile takeover?

Surf’s Up:  Something that looks like an emperor penguin, looking at you with total confidence that you will waste money on this film.  I assume it also surfs.

Righteous Kill:  All I know is that Al Pacino and Robert de Niro are “together at last”.  I wish I had gotten an invitation to that wedding.  Are they cops or mobsters in this one?

Cars:  I don’t think I’ll ever watch any of these movies where the one-word title should be good enough.  “Oh, cars, you say?  Let’s rent that sucker now!”

Pirates of the Caribbean 3:  Is anybody in this film NOT a pirate?  Some of you have to accept that Johnny Depp is not the only justifiable reason for watching a film.

Madagascar:  I think a bunch of animals are trying to escape a zoo and go to Madagascar, so if I’m right, maybe this is a bad example.  But I do know it has Ben Stiller in it, so I’m leery.

Bee Movie:  Much as I loved the TV show, a bunch of bees and a weak pun of a title are not good enough for me to listen to Jerry Seinfeld for 90 minutes.  “What’s the deal with honeycombs?” I wonder.

Spider-Man 3:  Spidey seems to fight 3 baddies, a bad job and a weird love life, all of which will probably give me a seizure from trying to keep up.  The only thing I’m missing is the central story.  Seriously, are you trying to tell me that Topher Grace is Venom?

Sex and the City (the movie):  It’s got the ladies.  Is that good enough?  I rarely ever saw this show, so that’s  about all I can say.

Open Season:  A film about two animals dealing with each other’s bad qualities, or so I guess.  Isn’t this “Shrek”?  And speaking of…

Shrek the 3rd:  Mike Myers seriously needs to stop and try to come up with some other lovable character, or unlovable character, whatever.  I think they make Shrek babies in this one.

High School Musical (all of them):  Kids sing and dance.  I get enough of that nonsense in my classroom.

Ice Age 2:  The Meltdown:  Does the subtitle say it all?  Maybe.  I guess the title said it all in the first film, too, then.

Role Models:  Apparently, guys who look like losers trying to convince kids that they can be winners should be good enough for you.  It’s always fun to watch children’s time be wasted!

—

What I’m trying to get at is that the people who market these films are confident that the only context you need might be the star or stars involved, or the success of similar products in the past.  And they may be right, because many of the films above have been box-office successes.  But I would suggest a dumbing-down of the culture when the only reason to see a movie is one minor plus or detail.  I always think that the main draw to a story should be the story, not whether or not it has the word “Pixar” attached to it.  Part of the problem may be that, in our current tech culture, the demand for readily-consumable entertainment is such that the product itself often becomes condescended into one selling point.  And then afterwards we wonder why nothing seems original anymore.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: Palin Defines Patriotic Demographic?

Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin recently made a misstep at a North Carolina fundraiser, according to CNN.com.  Speaking to those gathered at the fundraiser, she used words like “very pro-American” and “very patriotic” to describe small-town America.  Palin tried to clarify her comments the next day, but Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden wasted no time in lambasting his opponent for her misplaced glorification, expressing outrage at the “implications about patriotism” and that “we are all patriotic”.  In what has been a rough couple of weeks for Palin given the cold reception given to her by European media, added to a little public safety director firing fiasco, and you may start to think that her highfalutin praises of small-town America can only be damaging to the Republican campaign.

Biden hit the nail on the head with this timely criticism.  We’ve often heard the “small-town America is real America” line before, but for a vice-presidential candidate to proclaim that these are where the so-called truly patriotic people live, that is pushing it.  What makes these people more patriotic than, say, people in Lower Manhattan?  Because small-town people have porches from which to hang American flags?  Maybe more apartment dwellers should tape flag cut-outs to their front doors so as to notify Gov. Palin of her misunderstanding.  Or perhaps the governor believes that the patriotic American is someone from constituencies represented by her party and politics.  Either way, it’s not a good line for winning over swing voters, when you are effectively telling them  that their patriotism is determined by how many neighbors they have.

But that’s not even really the annoying part.  For the last several years, America has endured a Bush administration that questioned its citizens left and right.  If you were not for the war, you were against America!  In light or our recent economic woes, a bleak outlook in our “war on terror” and other grim domestic concerns, Gov. Palin’s comments are not only pretentious, they’re off-track and unwanted.  People don’t want to here about your pompous praising, what they want to know is that, should Sen. McCain assume office and follow that with a stroke, that you won’t be a dim bulb leader who tells people to believe in God and their country while they can’t afford the gas to move their cars and heat their homes.  So I was glad that Sen. Biden immediately followed up on her quotes, because after eight years of being told I was a bad American for not supporting the current agenda, I don’t want to have to fear another four of that nonsense.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: Thoughts on a Black Presidential Candidate

In the past, and for all we know still, it has been an unwritten rule that the President of the United States had to be a white male of Christian upbringing, deep pockets with deep connections, and maybe even a puppy. Candidates of minority status were often fringe candidates, people who made an attempt to push the agenda but probably never had a serious shot.
Before Sen. Barack Obama, there was the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who achieved more than most expected when he ran as a Democrat in both 1984 and 1988. He still didn’t earn the nomination. Others that have run before or after him (Cleaver, Sharpton, Keyes, etc.) didn’t have serious chances. The fact that Barack Obama is not only running for President, but that he also has a strong chance of winning, poses some series potential implications. My thoughts on a few.
1) That Americans are one small step closer to “looking beyond race”. Obama is winning over many people, both of Caucasian and minority descent, and doing so without being overtly smug or aggressive in his tactics. November will be the truer test of this sentiment, but the fact that Obama may be both likeable and electable is a strong statement given the history of our country.
Of course, we can’t discount the number of people voting for or against him using race as an issue, which would challenge the first point. Statistical analysis and observation will give us hints soon enough, so for now we have to settle for an incomplete picture with a promising chance of completion.
2) That our image to the world will be affected dramatically. There are parts of the world where Pres. George W. Bush (and every President before them) is the representative of what Americans are like and care about, something that has a certain grain of truth. Obama represents an extreme alteration to the type of leader Americans may seem to generally follow, and that goes well beyond issues of race.
As voters, we do have to be careful there. Obama is as fallible as the next politician, and it’s the wrong idea to pick him because he represents only one kind of change. America needs improvement, not novelty. The American populace has to fairly scrutinize the senator as much as any other candidate, lest they risk being disappointed with the results.
3) That the political conventions will have a dramatic difference from 2004. The 2004 GOP and Dem conventions were downright overzealous, both camps desperately clamoring for their candidates as if they were chosen apostles. All conventions are like this to an extent, but I can’t see it as so crazed this time around. The Republicans are in some minor disarray at the moment; their base has weakened since right before the 2006 mid-terms and their trying to redefine their message. The Democrats are still in the process of “winning back the people” and demonstrating what they feel is the better road.
A stark difference in candidates’ profiles and agendas will be the highlight, even if it goes largely unmentioned. Both candidates will be very, very careful with how they elate the hopes of their own base while trying to reach the massive amount of swing voters out there.
4) That someone this election is going to make a big-time blunder. It could be either of the candidates, or those who represent them, or those who support them. We’ve seen it already with people like Jeremiah Wright or Geraldine Ferraro, and it can still get worse. Someone is going to overreach and pay dearly. Perhaps either Obama or McCain try too hard to reach the moral and sophisticated high ground to counter the other (Kerry as the “Vet” in 2004 rings bells). Perhaps one of them says something that’ll completely ruin their own credibility. Perhaps that credibility gets touched by someone trying to speak on their behalf.
The most likely event is that one of the Sharptons or Limbaughs that exist out there will say something extremely arrogant and stupid. Then both candidates will have to answer to questions about it, something neither will want to do. It won’t take much for the sensitivity level to rise in that event, but I expect both McCain and Obama to be smart and respectful enough to minimize such issues.
5) That Obama might be shot at. Seriously, there’s that small possibility, and it’s a truly terrifying thought. We’d like to think that there’s no chance of that happening, that it hasn’t happened since Reagan in the early 80’s (not true at all), but that’s rather naive thinking (many of us thought America was unassailable pre 9-11).
There are vicious, hateful, psychotic people out there, and if they see Sen. Obama as perhaps being the next President and don’t like that, they may act on it. Not everyone halts at the fears of justice or risked martyrdom. I remember when someone I knew wondered aloud why Gen. Colin Powell never ran for President, and I answered that he might not want to be shot. That could sound harsh and short-sighted, but the actions of many people can often be harsh and short-sighted.
6) That the outcome of this election will have serious ramifications on voter turnout in the future (among other things). No one really knows where this is going to take us. In the past, I’ve been certain that the standard for President of the United States would long be maintained. Several people now feel that victory is already in one candidate’s grasp. I’m not so sure, but I do think a LOT of people may show up to vote if they feel it is close.
And when the results come in, it will generate some rejoicing, some bemoaning, but everyone will be pondering. They’ll be thinking about what America is, how much it has changed and where it is going. Perhaps even more significantly then in previous elections, people will use these results to determine what this society is, and support or abandon it from there. I think these are truly important times worthy of both excitement and trepidation, as America finds itself forging ahead through issues it so hesitates to confront.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: Cheesesteaks Should Not Be Political Topics

In 2006, Joey Vento, the owner of Philadelphia’s well-known “Geno’s Steaks“, put up a sign saying “This is America. When Ordering, Please Speak English.” The sign was coupled with “Management Reserves the Right to Refuse Service.” The message angered those who feared discriminatory business practices, and a complaint was filed. The event garnered national notice as many parties weighed in on the debate.

Well, it seems that a three-member panel of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations decided (not unanimously) that the postings and Vento’s business practices were not discriminatory and dismissed the complaint. Vento is now something of a cause celebre for free-speech activists and illegal immigration alarmists. That’s all well and interesting, perhaps, but as an issue of political correctness (or incorrectness), the whole matter feels somewhat overblown, and on all sides. The reasons why:

1) Proving and alleging discrimination are two different things. While many people against the posting weighed in on the issue and witnesses were called, no one could prove that Vento practiced illicitly discriminatory actions. If customers were turned away upon ordering or experienced abusive or derogatory remarks during service, then no one should feel compelled to defend Vento in any way. If, however, they were still served, then an argument against his business practices is weak.

There are those that have argued that the notice potentially discourages some customers (particularly those of Mexican decent) from attending, but that’s another thin argument; I might as well say that I feel discriminated against because I want to go to the club and don’t look cool enough. Do dress codes discriminate against the poor, or poorly-dressed? Any customer should feel the right to ask for services and then file a complaint if such services are denied or unfair.

2) “Speak English” is not quite the same as “Whites Only”. This was the argument of UPenn professor Camille Z. Charles, who equated the two. And you can see something of a correlation; denying Spanish speakers is essentially the same as denying people based on ethnic identity. One problem, however, is that service is still being rendered, though likely cumbersomely and even begrudgingly. These difficulties would exist regardless of the posted notices.

However political-correct some of us want to be, businesses cannot always provide equal servicing if customers cannot provide common queries. We used to have this problem at a bank I once worked at; if a translator was not available at the moment, a Spanish speaker might not get his or her problem attended to. It was not from lack of trying. And I’m certain that a cheesesteak will be sold if a person has the capacity to look and point.  Again, unless demonstrated otherwise, the signs make little difference in the matter.

3) If a customer cannot order in English, then the customer probably cannot read the sign. C’mon, isn’t this maybe true? Look, I live in Korea, and I’ve yet to learn Korean due to my lackadaisical nature. On a near-daily basis, I ask things of someone who has little to no clue as to what I’m talking about. If they cannot understand and therefore help me, I have no right to complain. At least they tried.

The sign therefore is more a reflection of Vento’s own haughty political stance than an actual demand of his client base. It’s certainly obnoxious, but not quite derogatory. At the same time, people offended by the notice require the ability to understand its meaning and therefore are likely able to order. The only exceptions would be a non-English speaker informed by others beforehand, or a demonstrated act by the establishment to demand English be spoken. Regardless, no one in this world can expect exactly what they want if they lack the ability to convey it.

4) Ordering in other languages teaches nothing. I remember hearing about small mutterings of potential flash mobs (there were some Craigslist postings, I think) regarding going to Geno’s and ordering in a different language. The “that’ll teach ‘em” mentality is ill-conceived and inciting. Should the company go in the opposite direction and have a translator on staff at all times? Should the same be expected of all businesses?

I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been funny to watch a large group of people ask for help in an impossible manner (actually, that would be funny no matter where they went). But hoping someone will “learn their lesson” with this tactic is helpful to no one, and is just as self-congratulatory as Vento is himself.

4) Non-English speakers can hardly be a great problem for cheesesteak-purchasing. I like the idea that Vento feels so overwhelmed with people coming in and demanding orders in other languages, and that only a sign requesting spoken English can clear the matter up.  The silliness continues with the selling of bumper stickers to “spread the word”, essentially encouraging people to be indignant about foreign speakers not using English.  Then those same bumper-sticker owners travel abroad at one point and demand services in their own native language.  That’s fair, huh?

I’d bet money that, if you asked Vento and his staff what were some of the biggest problem customers they can recall ever having, speakers of foreign languages wouldn’t even break the top ten (else, they’d be lying).  To feel the need to post a request for English language-ordering seems moot and pompous, and to make an issue of it is more self-serving than people may care to admit.  I’d rather not talk about Vento as a free-speech, pro-America advocate; his fighting for the right to ask for English is not on the same par as, say, civil rights and women’s rights leaders.

5) This doesn’t deserve notice of illegal immigration issues. Plenty of people in America have legitimately emigrated here with a lacking in English language skills. The specific issues at hand are those of free speech, discrimination and business practices. The contention is that Vento has turned away either people who cannot speak English or people of Mexican or Hispanic descent all together.

So how does this ruling become a victory in the fight against illegal immigration? If people cannot order a sandwich, then they will see the error of their ways and turn themselves in? The nut-job mayor from Hazleton, Pa., Lou Barletta, who seems to think his town is overwhelmed by an illegal immigration epidemic despite being nowhere near an international border or port, got in touch with Vento on the matter. What could they have talked about?

Lou: Hey, Joe, congrats on fighting off those illegals.

Joe: Actually, I don’t know if they were illegals or not, Lou.

Lou: Oh.

6) It’s a cheesesteak. Maybe that little fact doesn’t matter to some, but we need a little perspective here. This is not a municipal service, nor a medical one. It’s not a supermarket and it’s not a bank. The place sells cheesesteaks. Artery-clogging, grease-tastic, fat-enriched (though quite tasty) cheesesteaks. What is being lost other than a PC-desired attitude?

I once entered a bar with a group of my friends here in Seoul. We were a large group, all foreigners, entering a private, quiet, for-professionals establishment, looking for drinks. We made our orders (the waitress kind of understood the orders), but then she returned saying that all of those drinks were unavailable. She was politely saying that they wanted us out.

We left feeling rather insulted (“What, is my money not good enough?” and blah blah blah) and confused at the matter. And then we went to the next bar, which was happy to serve. We lost no money and only a modicum of our time (I lost a little of my buzz). If we had filed a complaint here (in English, no less!), what good would that have done? Little, I tells ya!

———————————————————–

My opinion on the whole matter is this: Vento is a self-righteous and self-congratulatory individual who likes the attention and knows it’s good for business. It’d be more than polite and prudent to take the signs down, but if he’s not causing any illicit harm, I shrug my shoulders and make fun of him.  I can think of worse things (Confederate flags, for one) that can send the wrong message to potential patrons.

I don’t think people are wronged if they cannot order a sandwich that’s not even good for you. Sometimes we all need to take a step back and weigh such matters on our priority lists, and being asked to speak English while ordering is not one of them. In the end, if you hate the intent but love the cheesesteak, you can best show how you feel by going to Pat’s across the street instead.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: My Endorsement for Vice-President

 

Once upon a time, I wrote and discussed for consideration the legitimacy of Bill Richardson’s candidacy as President of the United States. Well, he won’t be President, so ah well. However, with Obama and Clinton getting hotter by the minute, it’s easy to forget that one of them will eventually be the Democratic nominee for President. So one thing worth discussing at this point is who would be a smart choice as a running mate. Well, how about Bill Richardson now?

The first reason for Richardson consideration is the need to appeal to southern voters. There are few Democratic politicians (Jim Webb?) that are popular and have that kind of appeal. If Obama or Clinton were to pick the other candidate, I would be angered, because it would be just a pick for popularity that would not significantly increase votes. The appeal of John Edwards has disappeared. Richardson is a strange brew of New England education and southwestern living.

Richardson also has the Dick Cheney-esque elder statesman quality that Obama and Clinton don’t. I spoke to Richardson’s experience in the past as UN ambassador, energy secretary and a successful governorship in New Mexico. These qualities are desirable for either a Pres or Vice-Pres., and almost no one else in Democratic politics fits the bill better. Also, similar to Bush-Cheney, you don’t need a charismatic, popular choice because the main candidate already would embody that.

Richardson’s Hispanic heritage also has to be considered. Where the Democratic candidate will be either black or female, and voters already considering that as a factor in their Presidential pick, I don’t think Richardson’s ethnicity hurts him at all as a candidate. Not only that, but his immigration stance and experience, which promotes successful and legal immigration, would garner a lot of respect among voters. I don’t think he will heavily polarize many voters against him and his running mate.

The need for an experienced running mate that will grab attention, respect and ultimately votes is a value shared by both sides.  But I think the Democrats can make a stronger statement with this pick than the Republicans can this time around.  My reasoning for this is McCain, who is respected by liberals and conservatives alike, as well as young and older voters.  He has a great deal of clout and therefore support in his party, and a great deal of political experience.  Given that, who can help make that ticket stronger?  My thought would be Giuliani, both famous and from the northeast, though that makes the ticket look a bit geriatric.

Richardson, however, can assimilated into the Democratic candidate’s message while also providing it more legitimacy.  He’ll speak to some voters that Obama and Clinton cannot do so easily, and he’ll also demand a great deal of respect amongst the voting populace, the party and the pundits.  But perhaps most importantly, there is little about him (as with others like the Clintons, Edwards, Kerry and so on) that bothers voters.  He has enough presence to demand attention without engendering a great deal of negativity.  And that might help make the difference this November.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: Judge Some Books By Their Covers

I’m always fond of venturing into bookstores, because I like to pretend that I am a literary type in front of a group of people that I do not know. However, as I browse around, I always come across a selection of books that make me shake my head and wish I walked with aspirin. One reason for this would the fact that they exist in the first place, but what’s even worse is the prominence that some of these titles are given.

As a child, my teachers would tell to never judge a book by its cover. But as an adult, I know this to be a lie. Here are some books that should be judged by their covers, titles, etc.:

- Current affairs or political books where the author’s face is pasted all over the cover. When I see the latest Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Al Franken and so on, I wince a bit. Seeing these smug faces staring at me with their self-implied polymathic diatribes inside is not appealing in the slightest. And you’ve got to love some of the titles attached, like How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), one of Coulter’s many wastes-o’-trees. You can even apply this to people like Jose Canseco, author of Juiced, written primarily so that he can still be remembered for something other than being a cheater at the game of baseball. The faces you see ultimately mirror the true point of the content inside, which is “Hey, I’m smarter than you and you should pay me for it”. When it comes to political or cultural commentary, I have two requests: Be intelligent in your criticism, or be funny. Many of these types strike me as neither. And when you have neither, what you really have left is nothing but bile. Skip ‘em.

- Books by and about current political personalities. I think the prominent thought that I have concerning books written (well, ghost-written) by political figures on the rise is that I hardly think their personal lives are nearly as important as what they should be doing at the moment. Barack Obama publishes The Audacity of Hope, and maybe it gives me some insight into his character, the reason for his political stances and some other neat little factoid that I could share with my friends. Or maybe it’s just a veil for what he and his campaign want me to go along with. After all, if we think about it for a minute, public record already has a substantial amount of information about the senator. Personally, I’d rather stick to their qualifications and stances, and I can get that without shelling out some $15 for a book I’ll never read again. Because in the grander scheme of things, I care more about how Obama will handle our education crisis than what might have been a big turning point in his outlook on life at, say, age 12. If you’re that interested in learning more about a political figure, hit up your local library for the book.

- Rebuttals of other people or other books. In 2004, Hillary Rodham Clinton came out with her autobiography Living History, ostensibly a simple account of her life and upbringing, though obviously another selling point with which to sound off her eventual Presidential run. I never picked it up myself, as my last rule warns me against such reads. But what may bother me even more would be Dick Morris’ Rewriting History, which challenges the information Clinton shares in her own book. Now, essentially, Morris was close to the Clintons during their years in prominence, but scandals have a way of creating falling-out, and Morris decided to set the facts straight with his rebuttal book. I’m not all that interested in what is inside and the truth of his or Clinton’s content (especially since I don’t expect much from either), but I also find that such books are a joke, where a person pushes a political agenda using a contentious public persona while making some extra dough on the side. Not worth my time or yours, dear reader.

- Books with incredibly ignorant titles. In 2004, American journalist Thomas Frank wrote a book about the changing trend of politics (from left-to-right), from the 60’s and 70’s up to today, in his home state. He particularly highlights the evangelical side of conservatism, which claims a major role in that political pole reversal. Now that sounds somewhat interesting. I like reading about historical trends and talking politics. The name of the book? What’s the Matter With Kansas? Aside from essentially calling a state out, the title is revealing of Frank’s strong leftist slant. I’m a strong liberal myself, but I never feel the need to have my beliefs regurgitated to me like a mother wren feeding its fledglings. Or how about Bernard Goldberg’s 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America? A title like that just begs for contempt. I might give Frank’s book a try in the future, but I do admit that I am seldom optimistic about these kind of books. Is it too much to ask for an unbiased opinion or at least a more classy imparting of one? Maybe. Read these books with caution.

- Books about other popular books. I have never read nor plan to read The Da Vinci Code. It’s just not my cup of tea; when I see things like that, or maybe movies like “National Treasure”, they seem like a lot of fluff disguised by intelligent research and fun what-ifs. So when I hit up my local bookstore for recent book recommendations, it’s a bit much to have seen seven to ten other books about The Da Vinci Code and how accurate it is (or isn’t), during its height in popularity. A book of fiction, and people are challenging or supporting the accuracy of the book? That makes no sense. As a former English major, I realize the importance of criticism, but I like for things to weather a bit. But I also contend that such books can be like scavengers after the main kill, and some of these people probably wish they could write something as engaging or digestible as what they are writing about. Again, proceed with caution.

- Novelizations, tie-ins and similar books. When I was a kid, and was very much into sci-fi and fantasy, I loved to read “Doctor Who” books because it was my favorite sci-fi series. I would also, from time to time, read novelizations of other famous works, like “Star Wars” or “Star Trek”. However, the more often I read such things, the more I thought them to be a bit trite compared to the original cinematic or televised works. Some things just don’t translate well, and it gets even worse when you see original stories taking place in the same universe. You wonder why these writers don’t strive at coming up with something of their own (though there are exceptions). I’d like to think that I am (usually) a more matured reader now, and look for more challenging ways to stimulate my literary curiosity. But sometimes I still read a “Doctor Who” book. Don’t touch unless you are truly a huge fan.

- Books with “secrets” and “success”.  I have a rather profound loathing of the traditional self-help books.  I can try to empathize with people that are depressed or stressed or what have you.  But I don’t think a book is a great resource to “buck you up”, no matter how much it is endorsed by Oprah or Dr. Phil (spare me).  That sentiment gets stronger with books that promise riches and prosperity.  American materialism is bad enough without some pretentious schmoe telling you those simple little steps to glorious wealth that really are not all that simple.  It gets worse when you add the bull that is positive thinking or, even better, Rolanda Byrne’s “The Secret” and her “Laws of Attraction” garbage.  Do you know what one secret to success is, folks?  Writing “secret-to-success” books that dupe people into paying for your beach house.  You’re better off working it out on your own.

- Books with ridiculously long sub-titles. Seeing these just annoy me. I don’t even care what it’s about. I wish publishers and editors could think of more creative ways of selling a book. When I see a title like (just to make one up) My Struggle Against the Struggles: How I Did This And That And a Lot of Other Things In Between And Came Out a Winner, I feel like I have just read the book right there. Surely this can be condensed; after all, what will you struggle against if not struggles? I’d like to think that the educated person will be interested in the content without needing the sub-titular overdose, but then again, not enough people read in America. Just go ahead and read it if you want.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: ***Steroid Paranoia, Part II***

I just viewed this last Friday’s episode of “Around the Horn” on ESPN, and once again the columnists were clamoring for Roger Clemens to come out in front of a television camera and either refute or admit to the accusations of the Mitchell Report and former trainer Brian McNamee that he has taken performance-enhancing drugs. Curt Schilling not only agrees, but he thinks that Clemens has to give up some of his trophies if he can’t “clear his name”, according to ESPN.com, which sources Schill’s blog. David Justice, also named on the Mitchell Report, has urged Clemens to speak to the public as well. It seems lately that the sweat lamp that is sports press conferences is the only way for one to acknowledge the current crisis that I have labeled “steroid paranoia”, and it’s a shame that these very people do not realize how preposterous their demands are.

No one, save Congressional subpoena power, has the right or even fair reason to demand that Clemens and other ballplayers come to speak to the press about this issue. We have a couple of guaranteed rights that these people tend to forget about; freedom of speech and protection from self-incrimination. Though the press has freedom to ask and prod for a response, they are in no position to make Clemens speak. Simple as that. And yet, since the release of the report, many have been issuing vague ultimatums of “he has to speak now, or…”.

Or what? The second problem with the demand is that people have already made up their minds on the matter, and what’s done is done. What do you expect Clemens to say, and do you expect to react differently? Since the accusation, notable journalists and others have said Clemens has to speak, only to be frustrated by the presence of attorneys. Clemens has to speak, you say? And what should he say? What can he say? If he wanted to take the Pettite route and admit, he already would have. If he had legitimate proof he could show to the masses saying, “See, I was right,” he would have. But he obviously doesn’t. The lawyers are his wall until he has his case straight, and that’s what people accused of a crime or infraction do. They protect themselves. To expect otherwise is to be self-absorbed.

And if he ultimately chooses to speak, it means nothing without a break in the news. Without that, Clemens would come out and reiterate what he already told his lawyers to impart. Media people will ask stupid questions, and Clemens will issue ambiguous responses. And nothing changes. Those who are against stay against, those who support still support. Without some new evidence for or against, there’s really no news. When people say Clemens has to speak, what they really want is for him to either admit to wrongdoing or have on record that he said, so that they may blast him later should we find that McNamee speaks the truth.

The word “credibility” keeps getting bandied about since McNamee named names (those three words are fun to say), but why? Just because some people admitted, or that he has details that anyone with a wit of imagination could come up with? McNamee’s accusations of some of these players are reasonable, long and detailed, but in many cases prove nothing. Curt Schilling says that Roger Clemens has to clear his name, but how do you clear your name from something like this? That’s like a woman accusing a man of fondling her on the subway while no one was looking. And let’s remember that we should be just as suspicious of Brian McNamee as we should of Roger Clemens, because he was one-half of a supposed tandem of people committing unethical acts.

Once again, this is nothing more than a desperate search for a scapegoat. If famous players like Clemens or Bonds are proven to have done dirty deeds, then George Mitchell can justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars with a moral victory, and journalists don’t have to feel as bad about cheering for these great players as they did. People have to realize that this is not about the injustices done to the average fan, but rather the need for accusers to cover their backs when nothing comes of it. The fact that people like Jason Grimsley were caught (yes, CAUGHT!) means so little because his career meant so little to others. Rafael Palmeiro has been all but forgotten himself. Many are willing to say that the organization and the owners are just as responsible as the players and the union, but no one’s calling them all to task. But that’s just how it is in the court of public opinion. We’ll only care about the juice if the news is juicy.

And, in the meantime, Goose Gossage says this, but Derek Jeter says this, and while Sen. John McCain is saying this, Gene Wojciechowski tells you this. But in the end, they all are pretty much telling you nothing useful at all.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: ***Steroid Paranoia***

At long last, the Mitchell report is available to the public, and many names were indeed named. Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada, David Justice and Nook Logan (sorry, I just love that name) were but a few of many well-known and (Nook) not-so well-known players. It was both an exciting and ugly day for baseball, and a whole lot of people seem to have a whole lot to answer to. The release of the report will certainly prompt deeper investigations, by both the feds and the MLB, and some legacies in the game might never recover.

Which is all a big load. Steroid use in baseball, while an important matter that needs stronger addressing, is the most overblown sports story in recent memory, sensationalized by a number of individuals in baseball, in the media and in Congress, who are remiss to either admit their own culpability or shame in cheering for these alleged users. I do agree that a level playing field should be maintained and illegal drug usage is certainly illegal and therefore punishable, but what this fervor for “justice” has done is nothing more than to have brought an unnecessary and unfair McCarthyism to baseball.

The first, and perhaps greatest, grudge I have against this type of public reaction is the fact that people are chiming in a bit too late. Concerns over performance-enhancing drugs were sprouting in the late 90’s, when the home run surge happened and McGwire admitted to using andro. At that time, some serious questions were raised, but for the most part, all parties shrugged their shoulders. The fans and the media ate up the home runs, and baseball (both owners and players alike) made big money. Everybody was happy, even though it was fairly obvious to those willing to look that some players might have been benefiting from a little extra help.

The fact that some drugs were once legal and that many of these alleged players have never tested positive or have been known to purchase or use these drugs is immaterial in the court of public opinion. Just mentioning somebody’s name and attaching steroids to it is enough for a baseball player to be tarred and feathered and chased out of the village. It’s even to the point where many people and media members will affect the legacies of ball players on nothing more than mere hunches. Albert Belle? Oh, yeah, he got big and beefy, didn’t he? Plus he was an ass, so asterisk him, too! (Yes, yes, I know, asterisk is not a verb, but neither is Netflix…)

The inflated standard that is set is so ridiculously subjective, yet no one is willing to admit to it. Rafael Palmeiro, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and maybe even Roger Clemens now may never see their plaques in the Hall of Fame, due more in part to the clamor raised than the actual or alleged roid use attached to their names. And Jason Grimsley? Who? Ah, that relief pitcher, yes, we all vaguely remember him. Another problem with this witch hunt; many out there only give a hoot about the big salary players, not the lesser known players, or the providers and enablers like BALCO or McNamee, or the owners who essentially turned a blind eye to what was going on in their sport. I’ve always had a moderately-low opinion of commissioner Bud Selig, and seeing him promise to shake things up and strike down the wicked after years of blatant negligence is most bothersome. I don’t want to downplay the players and the union on this too much, but the fact of the matter is that they are the only ones the average fan cares about, even though there is a shared complicity amongst many parties.

Now, Barry Bonds is going to be the defendant in what will be the fifth “trial of the century” that we have had in the last seven years. Another sham. Why, you may ask? Because nobody cares, other than whether or not he’ll admit or be found guilty. Nobody cares what his punishment will be. Most people have made up their mind about who he is and what he has done. Everybody knows that the results won’t change much of anything. And a great deal of taxpayer money will be wasted on it. Like I said, a sham, an attempt by the feds to get the one big kahuna so as to prove they haven’t wasted everybody’s time. The point isn’t legal satisfaction so much as it is public satisfaction, and that alone makes the proceedings a joke.

Inevitably, steroid talk and Barry Bonds talk leads us back to another loathsome topic; the dreaded asterisk. Yep, the sports media’s notion of punishing unlikable players with an asterisk is popular again. And it means just as much as it meant when applied to Roger Maris, which is close to nil. Asterisk enthusiasm is the apex of steroid paranoia. This guy cheated, you say? Asterisk! Brand him forever! More than anything else, more than punishment by the law, or long and indefinite suspensions or even more than exclusion from the Hall, people want a permanent label attached to a player’s record, a lilliputian notation that does little to deny the fact that someone hit over 755 home runs.

What is the biggest problem with the asterisk? You can’t substantiate it. You say Barry Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs? OK, when? Give me a time period. How often? Now determine the lasting metabolic effect on his body. Let’s say he only took steroids in 2001, his single-season HR breaking year. Is an entire career tarnished by one year? Should we pretend that this year didn’t happen? Take those numbers away, and he is still a Hall of Famer for those willing to vote him in.

But maybe getting caught just once is good enough for most out there (seems that way). Fine then, put an asterisk near Barry Bond’s HR record. Do the same for all of his other marks and MVP awards. Now do the same for all other proven, or hell, even alleged players. Let’s have an asterisk next to Ryan Franklin’s 45 career wins and 4.25 ERA (I can hear some of you saying “Who?” already). There, don’tcha feel better? But why stop there? Let’s throw an asterisk at the six players that were caught using corked bats. And what about the spitballers? Yes, yes, we’ve been too lenient on guys like Joe Niekro all these years. And if Pete Rose hasn’t been punished enough for some of you, let’s place an asterisk next to all of the games he managed, because you certainly don’t know how many he may have bet on, do you now?

Asterisk support is nothing more than a small piece of solace for those fans embarrassed by the fact that they were wowed for years by a guy that might have been juiced. And steroid paranoia is nothing more than an over-exaggeration by baseball fans who are always, amazingly, shocked to find out that baseball is not as pristine and innocent as they once thought. Performance-enhancing drug use is a punishable offense and that’s as it should be. But the holier-than-thou attitude adopted by those upset with this part of the game shouldn’t be too quick to judge until they have taken a harder look at baseball people, the media and themselves.