For those who want to know more about possible warning signs of child abuse (sexual and other forms), the organization Childhelp is pretty reputable. Their homepage can be found at
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
R.I.P. (Rest in Paterno)
What bothers me the most about all that's been said about Joe Paterno and Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky indictment is not the criticism of Paterno's handling of the matter or the reaction of people around the university to Paterno's firing. Paterno himself has admitted, particularly in the interviews shortly before his death, that he should have done more and it’s obvious that the reactions of some students and other Penn State supporters didn’t show the proper perspective on the real gravity of the situation and the victims.
What I find reprehensible, though, is the combination of gutlessness and ignorance that so many commentators have displayed. This is embodied by both the hack writers who only crawled out of the ground to sharpen their hatchets after Paterno was fired and the media blowhards who've gone out of their way to portray Joe Paterno and State College as the second coming of Jim Jones and Jonestown. I expect some of the same culprits to criticize Paterno’s family for suggesting that those wishing to honor his memory make donations to the Pennsylvania Special Olympics and THON (i.e. the world's largest student-run philanthropy) rather than RAINN or other worthy organizations involved in preventing abuse.
Joe Paterno was a man who tried to do good for as many people as possible. Like any man, he didn’t always succeed, but any rational assessment shows that he succeeded more than he failed. That bit of context is conspicuously absent from the work of writers who lacked the courage to voice their criticisms about things like how he treated NFL scouts until after he was fired. As for my hometown of State College, we all knew that the success of the football team brought our big small-town a lot more national attention than it would have gotten as just a good Midwestern-style university that happened to be in the middle of Pennsylvania.
That did not, however, mean that football was the only thing that mattered there. No one was patrolling the streets of State College or sweeping through the Nittany Mall on Saturday afternoons to ask people why they weren’t at the game. We lived our lives normally, enjoying the accomplishments of the team the same way fans in Pittsburgh and Dallas did for the Steelers and the Cowboys not because someone made us “drink the Kool-Aid” but because that’s what fans do when they’re proud. A lot of that stemmed from Paterno and the honest work he put into making the team and the university better. That’s what I’ll remember about the one sports figure I ever admired, not because someone made me “drink the Kool-Aid” but because that’s what fans do when they’re proud.
Friday, January 20, 2012
A New Low in Comic Logos
On the one hand, the logo a company puts on their products doesn't make any difference to the quality of those items. After all, it's just a symbol. That said, the decision to change their logo twice in less than a decade, not to mention that the soon-to-be-launched logo discussed in an icv2.com article today looks pretty dire, is perhaps a symbol of questionable artistic judgment on the part of decision markers at DC Comics.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Being Digital
Yesterday I read an article about the state of the publishing industry and Amazon's ambitions in that area. The writer made some interesting points about how Amazon's land-grab in the publishing arena is driving up the money being paid to writers and thus disrupting the economics of the whole business, but the part that most caught my attention was the assessment of an unnamed publishing industry "insider" that, "Long-term there’s no future in printed books. They’ll be like vinyl: pricey and for collectors only. 95% of people will read digitally."
On the face of it, the comparison between vinyl and printed books seems sensible, but it's really just an indicator that this "insider" has the same shortsightedness that afflicts most people predicting the demise of physical media. Like most pieces predicting the imminent demise of DVD and other physical media on the basis of what happened to the music industry, it overlooks the fact people engage with books and movies/TV in a different way than they do with music. This applies to both the way people acquire and how they enjoy it.
In contrast to books and movies, which involve an investment of multiple hours, the primary unit of enjoyment for popular music is the individual song, most of which tend to be in the 3-5 minute range. Much of the record-buying public had put that thought aside for a while during the height of CD sales in the 80s and 90s, either because they were re-purchasing albums they already owned in another format or because they had no alternative to get the specific songs they wanted in the post-vinyl/cassette era. Whether people realized how much they were paying for so little that they really enjoyed because of the internet or that realization is what led them to the internet I can’t say for sure, but the bottom line is that the rise of the music download can be tied self-inflicted wounds on the part of the record industry at pretty much every key juncture. The failure of labels to offer a viable consumer alternative to the 45 enabled downloading to take hold among music lovers, and their draconian legal responses to downloading turned off a lot of people who might otherwise have been receptive to the ethical arguments against downloading.
Movies and books are a bit different, though both industries seem intent on fostering a few self-inflicted wounds of their own. The fact is that, while music can be easily enjoyed in the course of other activities, books and movies don't lend themselves so well to that kind of passive engagement. More so than questions of bandwidth and file sizes, that post-purchase element of consumer behavior is the factor that should make people think twice about drawing such parallels.
Those points aside, it's quite possible that downloading may assume a dominant place in the market for certain areas of publishing, mainly periodicals. The idea that books will become to the printed word what vinyl is to music, though, overlooks a central reason why people like to have books in their house. A rack of vinyl records may make you look hip and cool, but a well-filled bookcase makes you look smart.
A kindle is a nifty gadget, especially for reading magazines that I’m unlikely to ever read again, but it doesn’t do much for my living room and my wife doesn’t like when I leave it on the coffee table. On the other hand, my wife may think comic-books are a little silly , but she doesn’t object to me leaving my giant book about the history DC Comics out on the coffee table when we have company. At the end of the day, more people want to be seen as smart than hip, and if my teenage niece is any indication that’s not likely to change any time soon.
On the face of it, the comparison between vinyl and printed books seems sensible, but it's really just an indicator that this "insider" has the same shortsightedness that afflicts most people predicting the demise of physical media. Like most pieces predicting the imminent demise of DVD and other physical media on the basis of what happened to the music industry, it overlooks the fact people engage with books and movies/TV in a different way than they do with music. This applies to both the way people acquire and how they enjoy it.
In contrast to books and movies, which involve an investment of multiple hours, the primary unit of enjoyment for popular music is the individual song, most of which tend to be in the 3-5 minute range. Much of the record-buying public had put that thought aside for a while during the height of CD sales in the 80s and 90s, either because they were re-purchasing albums they already owned in another format or because they had no alternative to get the specific songs they wanted in the post-vinyl/cassette era. Whether people realized how much they were paying for so little that they really enjoyed because of the internet or that realization is what led them to the internet I can’t say for sure, but the bottom line is that the rise of the music download can be tied self-inflicted wounds on the part of the record industry at pretty much every key juncture. The failure of labels to offer a viable consumer alternative to the 45 enabled downloading to take hold among music lovers, and their draconian legal responses to downloading turned off a lot of people who might otherwise have been receptive to the ethical arguments against downloading.
Movies and books are a bit different, though both industries seem intent on fostering a few self-inflicted wounds of their own. The fact is that, while music can be easily enjoyed in the course of other activities, books and movies don't lend themselves so well to that kind of passive engagement. More so than questions of bandwidth and file sizes, that post-purchase element of consumer behavior is the factor that should make people think twice about drawing such parallels.
Those points aside, it's quite possible that downloading may assume a dominant place in the market for certain areas of publishing, mainly periodicals. The idea that books will become to the printed word what vinyl is to music, though, overlooks a central reason why people like to have books in their house. A rack of vinyl records may make you look hip and cool, but a well-filled bookcase makes you look smart.
A kindle is a nifty gadget, especially for reading magazines that I’m unlikely to ever read again, but it doesn’t do much for my living room and my wife doesn’t like when I leave it on the coffee table. On the other hand, my wife may think comic-books are a little silly , but she doesn’t object to me leaving my giant book about the history DC Comics out on the coffee table when we have company. At the end of the day, more people want to be seen as smart than hip, and if my teenage niece is any indication that’s not likely to change any time soon.
Monday, January 16, 2012
There Isn't a Sanity Clause After All
Jon Hunstman's decision to withdraw from the presidential race isn't surprising. Polling consistently showed his support in the low single digits, and he never threatened to attain the front-runner status that most of the other candidates managed to gain however briefly. The reasons given for this vary, but the most compelling is that Hunstman was too reasonable in his positions.
Between his record as Utah's governor and accepting a position for the Obama administration, Huntsman appeared to favor the pragmatism necessary to govern over ideological posturing. Since ideology tends to dominate the "discourse" in primary elections more so than in a general election, and the race already had a pragmatist in the form of Mitt Romney, it isn't hard to see why Hunstman's campaign struggled to gain traction.
What is somewhat puzzling, though, is the reaction of the news media which paints Hunstman's withdrawal as some kind of (to use an NBC anchor's words) "shake up" to the race. It seems to be just another manifestation of the same phenomenon that leads to modest declines in the stock market being labeled as a "plunge", but being able to explain it doesn't make it less annoying. When a candidate's poll numbers are the same (or even less) than the typical margin of error for polling, that candidate's actions are by definition incapable of shaking up the campaign. I know the 24-hour news-cycle is a beast that needs to be fed, but it would be nice if news anchors could be at least a little bit immunized from the lack of rationality that dominates the campaign season.
Between his record as Utah's governor and accepting a position for the Obama administration, Huntsman appeared to favor the pragmatism necessary to govern over ideological posturing. Since ideology tends to dominate the "discourse" in primary elections more so than in a general election, and the race already had a pragmatist in the form of Mitt Romney, it isn't hard to see why Hunstman's campaign struggled to gain traction.
What is somewhat puzzling, though, is the reaction of the news media which paints Hunstman's withdrawal as some kind of (to use an NBC anchor's words) "shake up" to the race. It seems to be just another manifestation of the same phenomenon that leads to modest declines in the stock market being labeled as a "plunge", but being able to explain it doesn't make it less annoying. When a candidate's poll numbers are the same (or even less) than the typical margin of error for polling, that candidate's actions are by definition incapable of shaking up the campaign. I know the 24-hour news-cycle is a beast that needs to be fed, but it would be nice if news anchors could be at least a little bit immunized from the lack of rationality that dominates the campaign season.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Core Competencies
It's hard not to laugh at the fact that four of the six GOP presidential candidates, including Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, failed to submit the necessary paperwork to get on the ballot for Virginia's upcoming primary election. Over the last year or so, the GOP presidential candidates have been very persistent (some would say strident) in their questioning of President Obama's competency. It seems to me that if this is going to be the fulcrum of your leap to paint yourself as the best replacement for the current President, actually getting your name onto the ballot in every state is the bare minimum level of competency that you should be able to demonstrate to voters. Admittedly, I'm already unlikely to vote for any of them, even the seemingly sane Jon Huntsman, but things like this make me wonder why any sensible person would.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Other GM Issue
It's hardly surprising that the GOP presidential candidates have strong views on the topic of same-sex marriage. Nor should it surprise us that these views are typically negative. What is amazing, though, is the wild abandon with which the candidates express those views, usually with a profound disregard for logic and reason (not to mention facts).
Had she not withdrawn from the race after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses, top prize would certainly go Michele Bachmann for proclaiming that gay people could get married as long as they got married to people of a different gender. Among the surviving candidates, Mitt Romney would seem to be the obvious leader based on the sheer volume of positions he's taken in the course of his political career, generally depending on what political group he's trying to woo at any given moment, but I think Gingrich is probably the real winner.
His comments last year describing same-sex marriage as something that "fundamentally goes against everything we know" seem straightforward enough, but the former Speaker of the House saved his "A" game for the end of the year. When asked at a December campaign event in Iowa how he'd engage members of the gay community who want the right to marry, Gingrich told the man that those people should vote for President Obama. On the surface, that sounds fairly sensible until you remember that the President is actually ambivalent about gay-marriage as opposed to civil unions.
I could continue by talking about Rick Santorum's views, but if you're reading this you probably have access to Google, where a quick query will render any such recap superfluous. To what extent any given candidate's comments are expressions of genuine principle or political expediency is hard to say. Whatever the case may be, I can't shake the over-riding feeling that at least some of their opposition to gay-marriage stems from their insecurities about having another half of the population reject them as hateful people that no one would ever want to share their lives with them.
Had she not withdrawn from the race after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses, top prize would certainly go Michele Bachmann for proclaiming that gay people could get married as long as they got married to people of a different gender. Among the surviving candidates, Mitt Romney would seem to be the obvious leader based on the sheer volume of positions he's taken in the course of his political career, generally depending on what political group he's trying to woo at any given moment, but I think Gingrich is probably the real winner.
His comments last year describing same-sex marriage as something that "fundamentally goes against everything we know" seem straightforward enough, but the former Speaker of the House saved his "A" game for the end of the year. When asked at a December campaign event in Iowa how he'd engage members of the gay community who want the right to marry, Gingrich told the man that those people should vote for President Obama. On the surface, that sounds fairly sensible until you remember that the President is actually ambivalent about gay-marriage as opposed to civil unions.
I could continue by talking about Rick Santorum's views, but if you're reading this you probably have access to Google, where a quick query will render any such recap superfluous. To what extent any given candidate's comments are expressions of genuine principle or political expediency is hard to say. Whatever the case may be, I can't shake the over-riding feeling that at least some of their opposition to gay-marriage stems from their insecurities about having another half of the population reject them as hateful people that no one would ever want to share their lives with them.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Retirement of the Thin White Duke?
I have mixed feelings about the prospect that Reality and its predecessor, 2002's Heathen, will end up being Bowie's last. Because both albums were so good, standing up to comparison with some of Bowie's best early work, part of me is eager to hear more. On the other hand, if songs like "Slip Away", "Everyone Says Hi" and especially "Bring Me the Disco King" turn out to be Bowie's final word, it's hard to think of a better way to go out.
Very few rock music icons get to finish at the top of their game artistically. Then again, Bowie always seemed to stand apart from the rest, in part because of his unwillingness to pursue things that bored him. For that reason, the only prediction that seems worth making is that, whatever his next step is, it won't be boring.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Do You Get Extra Points in the Polls for Being Extra Strident?
Though many people are proud to boast they never cross party lines when voting, my view is that if you show me a Republican worth voting for I'll vote for them. Former House member Connie Morella, was such a person. Former Senator (and current presidential candidate) Rick Santorum is not.
Not content with equating gay people to pedophiles, the action that led to his "google problem", Santorum has amped up the rhetoric as his poll numbers have ramped up ahead of the Iowa Caucuses. In addition to declaring his support of states restricting exceptionally private behavior, including contraception and sexual activity between consenting adults, Santorum has also declared his support for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would render any current same-sex marriages invalid.
This hypocrisy when it comes to state's rights would be bad enough, but the contempt for individual rights is especially rich. If this was about tax policy, environmental regulations or other elements of public life whose effects go beyond purely personal choices into the larger public space, you can bet Santorum would be banging the drum to keep the federal government out of it. For his stripe of Republican, though, individual liberties that involve sexuality always come with strings attached.
This would be beside the point if Santorum was still just a marginal candidate. Unfortunately, though Santorum seems unelectable on a national level, his recent rise in the Iowa polls means he has the potential to continue poisoning the political atmosphere with his especially rank form of hypocrisy.
Not content with equating gay people to pedophiles, the action that led to his "google problem", Santorum has amped up the rhetoric as his poll numbers have ramped up ahead of the Iowa Caucuses. In addition to declaring his support of states restricting exceptionally private behavior, including contraception and sexual activity between consenting adults, Santorum has also declared his support for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would render any current same-sex marriages invalid.
This hypocrisy when it comes to state's rights would be bad enough, but the contempt for individual rights is especially rich. If this was about tax policy, environmental regulations or other elements of public life whose effects go beyond purely personal choices into the larger public space, you can bet Santorum would be banging the drum to keep the federal government out of it. For his stripe of Republican, though, individual liberties that involve sexuality always come with strings attached.
This would be beside the point if Santorum was still just a marginal candidate. Unfortunately, though Santorum seems unelectable on a national level, his recent rise in the Iowa polls means he has the potential to continue poisoning the political atmosphere with his especially rank form of hypocrisy.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Circle Of Life (Geek Edition)
In the wake of all the celebrity divorce news the past year, I was happy to read about a wedding that hopefully has a bit more long-term potential. Former Doctor Who star David Tennant just married actress Georgia Moffett. In addition to having played the title character in the Doctor Who episode The Doctor's Daughter, Moffett is the daughter of British actor Peter Moffett. Geeks like myself know Mister Moffett better as Peter Davison. Whether Peter Davison thoroughly approves of his son-in-law is anyone's guess, but surely he's happy that his granddaughter has a guaranteed livelihood appearing at Doctor Who conventions where she can talk about growing up with Doctor Who as both her father and grandfather.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)