The Tin Lizard

Star Power

Movie stars, recording artists, and others from the performing arts are constantly in the news with their efforts to influence Congress, voters, or charitable contributors.   Recently it was the turn of some fairly second-tier actors like Alec Baldwin and Melina Kanakaredes (both of the wooden stump school of acting) to appear before Congress to argue for more funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. 

I wonder if anyone has ever analyzed the effectiveness of these intercessions.  My guess is that when Congress is the audience, such gigs have almost zero effect on members' votes, but they do help put boring old Congress in the limelight for a half-day or so.   The verdict is a little less certain when it's a matter of a star performing for the benefit of an individual politician - at a fundraiser, for example.  There too, I suspect negligible practical effect, though I am sure there must be some voters whose minds can be swayed by the inference that favorite singer Sirenia Squawker likes John Whitebread for Congress.  After all, why shouldn't a performer be just as influential in these matters as equally irrelevant pastors or tribal leaders?

No doubt performers' best chance at having impact is to connect his/her name, reputation, and bank account with a charitable or humanitarian cause.  Not that they influence political action as such (though they do try) but they can attract attention and contributions to a cause that hasn't had much publicity.  Most of our media quickly get bored with starving refugees, but a star's trip to visit those same refugees can refocus the spotlight for a day or two.

In all cases, it helps to keep in mind that the primary beneficiary of a performer's appearance for a "cause" is probably ... that performer. 

Forward To The Past: Our Home Computers

In the ongoing boom of personal technology, the iPad and its various imitators has led the pack of late.  The latest version is arriving in stores today.  The trend to tablets is unmistakably clear and large. 

Do tablets do anything a laptop or desktop computer can't do?  No.  They have the advantage in portability, but beyond that they do far less, IF you actually use your computer for things a computer is good at, you'll probably never embrace a tablet.   I keep a half-dozen databases, I do some online publishing, I do my two blogs, I edit photos, I do bookkeeping and taxes for a small business and a charitable organization -- none of these would be particularly convenient to do on a tablet, even if it had the requisite memory and speed to run the programs involved.  While I don't do much with graphics or design programs, I'm pretty sure artists, architects and others would also find tablets sadly wanting for these purposes.

But the question posed above is the wrong one to ask.  Although tablets arose out of the concept of the home computer, they're not really computers, but mobile entertainment centers.  (To put a retro twist on it, they are today's transistor radios, just as SUVs are today's station wagons.)  Tablets are all about fun and games -- movies, music, photos, web surfing, e-books, shopping, and e-mail -- and that's probably what about 90% of users really want. 

The genius of the iPad was in deconstructing the 1990s concept of home computers. Two decades ago, computers made the jump from offices to people's homes, largely based on the much-ballyhooed advantages of all the wonderful things they'd be able to do.  Mostly, these were the same things the iPad now does (allowing for the inevitable advances in technology).  The computer world is now being re-stacked into a consumer/consumption segment (increasingly, tablets) and a work/production segment.

I'm comfortable with that, so long as I can still get a desktop to do the things I need to do.  On that score, Microsoft's new operating system (Windows 8), which by all accounts is focused on moving its software to giving the user a touch-screen, tablet-like experience, gives some cause for concern.  The main issue I see is that the new OS won't allow you to keep more than two programs or "windows" open at once.  This makes impossible my standard operating procedure, when I'm likely to have - and need - four or five things open. 

So far Microsoft is getting high praise from techies for reinventing itself, and the trend away from proprietary software isn't new.   Microsoft appears to have thrown in the towel to it, but I for one am tired of costly format, program, and interface changes and hope this latest one is a leap I can avoid until my dotage.  If not, I suppose I'll find myself having to migrate to different OSs and software, maybe UNIX based.    

Superbowl Moves The Ho-Hum

We watched the Superbowl.  That in itself is worth mentioning, since my wife and I otherwise have little interest in watching sports on TV.  But a few years ago we decided to get in synch with the quintessentially American phenomenon by watching one; we decided on champagne and popcorn as the "fare," and actually found it was kind of fun to watch one game - supposedly the best one - a year.  Years have gone by (that first one was so long ago it was in January, not February; and also was before people started to watch the 'bowl "for the commercials"); and we've changed the menu a little (now it's champagne, chips and guacamole) but we have kept that tradition ever since, gradually falling into the rut of a usually-boring game, a mediocre half-time show, and some occasionally humorous ads. 

What struck me about the 46th iteration this year was that, in contrast to most recent years, the game itself was the attention-getter, with a close match between the Boston and New York that went right down to the wire.  Those famous expensive commercials this year became the bore, demonstrating far less originality than in the past, as many of them stuck to the same old shticks - polar bears, bimbos, talking babies, and the like.  The half-time show looked to be one of those things for which you "had to be there" - if you saw it in person you might get caught up in the moment, but watching at home, it's just a lot of noise and flashing lights; you can kind of watch the money being burned. 

The other point I found interesting was the tendency for politics to creep in.  Some saw politics in Clint Eastwood's message.  I watched his soliloquy, and thought it might be political, probably because it was just a talking head; yet listening to it, I didn't detect anything overtly political.  I've heard some reports that it was actually a commercial for Chrysler (?) but I never heard Chrysler mentioned, so I assume not.  If Eastwood meant it to be political, he cleverly made it fuzzy enough that it might be taken as positive by either major party. 

On the other hand, the mayors of New York and Boston did a joint appearance to brief their take on the second Amendment to the Constitution and its public-safety ramifications.  That shouldn't be political, either, but it is these days, and I thought they made the most of the exposure.  Will this camel's nose of liberal consciousness edge farther into the tent of NASCAR America, or will there be a move next year to ban overtly political messages?  Curiously, I haven't seen anyone comment publicly on this spot.  It's very possible it didn't even register with a lot of people. 

The End Of Halloween

Our peculiarly American, pollyannaish habit of celebrating October 31 by putting kids out in the streets at night to collect candy, rather than putting candles on real graves in memory of real dead, has caught on in other societies as well.  Yet it seems in decline here in the land of its origin.

At my house, we had only five trick-or-treaters.  That's not even the full complement of the kids who live on our block.  Could it be that the kids are just avoiding old Mr. and Mrs. Tin Lizard, because we're grumpy, or give out really bad treats like Big Nate's dad in the comic strip (who hands out celery sticks and other health food)?  I don't think so, because nearly everyone we encounter reports a similar downtrend in ToTs - only one at this house, only two at another place halfway across town, etc.

The Halloween experience is dying.  Kids, I know, are going to mall parties that will help to commercialize Halloween and turn it into yet another buying opportunity; or to home parties that may be good social experiences, and that provide a safe, controlled environment with adult supervision.  And that's just the problem.  I was never much of a fan of dressing up in costume, but I still remember from the Halloweens of my childhood the thrill of getting out at night, in the dark, with just a handful of friends, or maybe as a tiny tot, with my older sister.   That's the unique experience of Halloween - it's liberating, it's scary, it's when you face the big bad world (kind of) on your own.  It's not supposed to be just another birthday party.

When will true trick-or-treating vanish altogether?  I can't say, but the end seems near.  Soon, folks will be lamenting the lost "true meaning of Halloween" just as they now bewail our ignorance of the "true meaning of Christmas."   

Field Of Dreams No More

The Iowa cornfield that was the location for the famous movie "Field of Dreams" (1989) has been sold.  The new owners say they will preserve the 193-acre site's "baseball legacy" as a "special place," yet the fact remains that they plan to turn it into a commercial complex called "All-Star Ballpark Heaven."  So, while they may preserve it, they will also develop it, changing its nature.

The news strikes me as sad.  It's not a baseball story, even if it is being announced just as the World Series ends.  It's just another tale in the panorama of man's continuing effort to leave no square inch of the globe untouched by his "improvements."  The current owners, who've had the property since before the movie, began the process (with the willing help of the movie moguls); the new owners merely continue it. 

We're always told that there is "plenty of land" in the United States.  Yet overall, the process is inexorable, unless a plague or unexpected climatic cataclysm puts an end to human population growth.  Already, much of the land that remains unexploited is in inhospitable areas - arid desert or steep mountains (we'll get to them eventually too).  It's all very well to set aside national parks and wilderness areas (though in many we permit all sorts of un-wilderness-like activity, from mining to snowmobiling). 

More pertinent, I think, is what land remains available for cultivation; as population growth continues unabated, food shortages and even more serious water shortages threaten increasingly large swathes of territory.  Malthus could not have imagined the kind of population growth we now experience.  He is often considered to have been "wrong" in his predictions, but perhaps he was far more prescient than anyone realized.   How can a constantly decreasing supply of arable land continue to feed a constantly increasing supply of humans?  Is a second "green revolution" in the offing?  Experts say not.

Personally, I'm waiting for the news that a sports complex, a shopping center, or even a parking lot has been sold for "dedevelopment," and will be returned to its natural state.    

Proper Attire For Old Folks' Music

I was curious when one of MSN's "most visited" tabs today was "Pianist Dress," so I clicked on it, and found a surprising little piece about a little red dress.  It seems that piano soloist Yuja Wang strolled onstage to perform in a short, tight mini-dress that later evoked comment from one reviewer of the performance.  In a sense the reviewer may have been doing Wang a favor by raising her media profile in the classical music world, though Midgett's article focuses on the equally valid question of whether it's appropriate for a music reviewer to critique the performer's clothes. 

Still, I can't see that this is very controversial.  Let Wang wear what she wants.  Soloists - women soloists, anyway - have long been distinguishing themselves by attire in various ways -- fancy gowns, peacock (not peahen) colors, or low and slinky cuts that probably are just as revealing as Wang's mini.  The classical music audience isn't getting any younger, but if an occasional performer chooses to dress in a younger style, it might help break the genre's well-deserved reputation for stuffiness.

This incident reminds me of something else I've long meant to write about, though.  My wife and I go to classical music concerts regularly.  We have noticed that many orchestras seem to dictate the usual formal dress for men, but give women much more leeway in choosing what to wear.   Most still seem to require black, but beyond that, anything goes.   Often it produces a confused and distracting jumble of styles:  long, short, net or not, shiny and matte, skirts or slacks, different shades/values of black, etc.  Problem:  While soloists can and do "stand out" on stage, members of the orchestra should not.  They are members of a team; the whole concept is harmony. 

I think it helps if their dress reflects that.  Probably the best arrangement is one we've seen in a couple of European orchestras; the women wear black tie (jacket and slacks) just as the men do. If that's considered too draconian, a different dress code could be developed, but one that all the orchestra's female members should adhere to.   At the other extreme, we might argue that if women are allowed to wear whatever they want, as long as it's black, then the same privilege should be accorded the male musicians... tux, black shirt and trousers, black turtleneck and black shorts with black hiking boots?  The mind boggles, really.  Discord in attire creates the psychological impression of discord in the music.     

NCAA Excitement

I confess I'm not a huge fan of most spectator sporting events, but the NCAA is an exception.  Pro basketball can often be as exciting as watching paint dry -- the teams trooping back and forth from one end of the court to the other -- but college ball, well, that's a different story.

March Madness is one place where an outcome can be not just occasionally, but frequently, a complete and unpredictable surprise.   I recall George Mason's cinderella journey to the top a couple of years ago.  This year, my own alma mater (Kansas) was unexpectedly blown out of the water by the quintessential "scrappy upstart" VCU team and more surprisingly, no first- or second-seeded team even survived into the final four.  Yes!  That's what people want to see!

If there were more sports like the NCAA run-off, I might be a more committed sports fan.  The pros, by and large, and even some college sports, have been spoiled by overcommercialization and overexpansion, which leads to a dilution of quality and too homogeneous a field.  So I'm not at all in favor of plans reportedly being laid now to increase the number of playoff teams to 96.  Besides the persuasive arguments against this made by Tracee Hamilton, I think the new layer would serve to exhaust the less-famous teams and make it more difficult for them to triumph.  

Unfortunately I fear arguments based on the appeal or excitement level of a sport will fall on deaf ears; the drumbeat of "more games = more broadcasting profits" is far louder.

  

Blockbuster Busted; A World Without Borders?

The Washington Post's business section reports that onetime video-rental king Blockbuster is considering a new business model while keeping its current storefronts open for the time being.

So, Blockbuster is in trouble.  Gee, do ya think?  And as the article above mentions, experts suggest that they didn't adapt quickly enough to a changing market.  Tell me something I didn't know!  It's truly amazing how frequently our supposedly innovative, adaptive business executives are slow to react to reality.  Blockbuster was never as big as General Motors, but they suffered from the same blind hubris -- and so did their stockholders, eventually.

After all, my wife and I could see the handwriting on the wall at least two, maybe even three years ago; Netflix was already gaining market share and some stock analysts were still recommending Blockbuster because they had belatedly adopted a mail-delivery option as well.  Too late.  What we saw at our local Blockbuster stores (about half of which are now closed) included:

-- a continually dwindling selection of older films (it got to the point where it was hard to find anything that was more than three months old);
-- a contemporaneous focus on providing several billion copies of only the very latest movies;
-- an increase in empty space in the store, meaning less of anything to choose from;
-- more effort to sell DVDs rather than rent them;
-- greater space devoted to snacks;
-- and possibly worst of all, high prices -- $4 for a film that wasn't a new release, while many competitors around the country were selling the same for $1.

No wonder they're in trouble.  But if I could see these signs, couldn't they? 

The whole business of entertainment distribution is obviously in turmoil; some companies are adapting better than others.  I'd predict the next casualty is likely to be Borders.  Their stores are currently exhibiting some of the signs I saw at Blockbuster: reduced inventory, more empty space, increased focus on unrelated product lines (yoga mats?), late to the party on new trends (e-books), and increasingly desperate-sounding e-mail specials.

We've always bought a lot of books, and we recall when we walked into our first Borders store back in the early 80s, in a Maryland suburb of Washington DC.  It was a store that would seem tiny by the standards of today's huge retail premises, yet it was like emerging from the black-and-white of Dorothy's Kansas into the brilliant color and merriment of Oz.  What an amazing selection of books on all subjects!  What a bewildering, unprecedented choice!  At that time, neither independents (most of which focused on one niche or another) nor other chains (Barnes and Noble was still in the old mode of offering only the most popular and saleable titles) was offering anything like it.

Now, Borders stores are reducing their inventories; some sections are almost nonexistent.  Barnes & Noble also has gone this route, though seemingly to a lesser extent (their selection was never as large as Borders's).  I enjoy browsing as much as any booklover, but the dilemma is that browsing requires a huge selection that stores can't afford to maintain now.  I used to be able to go to Borders and find a classic like Plato, a coffeetable book about trees, a recent novel, several choices of titles on the history of Germany, and/or a computer manual for a cumbersome software program.  But if you searched for those things in recent months, you would find only the novel.

A story about Borders could be written today, similar to the one above about Blockbuster.  Sadly it will probably be a year or more before we see it.

 

Women Reporters, Men's Sports

Commenting on a recent flap in which Ines Sainz, a female reporter, asserted she had been sexually harassed while reporting from the New York Jets' locker room last week, Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis put foot in mouth, making some comments to the effect that a female reporter in such a situation would inevitably be attracted to at least some of the players and their "packages."  No doubt this is a common view among (male) players but Portis was the one who actually stated it.  He has since apologized.

Now, everyone knows by not that as long as we're going to have reporters in locker rooms, then women reporters are going to demand to be there along with the guys.  Why do we have women reporters of all-male sports?  Well, I'm sure there might be a few women who really have a passion for sports. But especially at the NFL level, it's pretty clear networks and team owners and even players know that guys might enjoy watching a pretty woman doing the reporting (no 60+ grandmas have been sighted in this profession yet); and they cloak that truth in the dubious proposition that having female reporters will attract more women as spectators.  Equality for women in their chosen professions is essential, yet we may legitimately ask whether we will ever see male reporters in the locker rooms of women's sports. 

One local commentator (Tim Brant, a former college player himself), reporting on Portis's statement for Washington's ABC affiliate, ventured into editorial mode on the question of equal professional access.  He should not have. 

Brant suggested that the locker room really is a refuge or sanctuary (I don't recall the exact term he used) and that women reporters ought to be restricted to areas where men and women are normally and typically present.  Hmm.  OK Tim, I tend to agree the locker room is supposed to be a place of sequestration, but from what?  From the pressures of the game.  The team retreats to the locker room at halftime to rest, recharge, and be harangued/charged up/instructed/critiqued by the coach.  There is really no place for reporters - male or female - in there.  Let's go back to the day when the press really wasn't allowed in the locker rooms. 

 

Sports Figures

I don't watch a lot of sports on TV but when I do, I'm often impressed by the superb physical conditioning of most athletes, male and female, and even in sports where you wouldn't necessarily expect it, like automobile racing.  (Yes, racing!  I remember about 20 years ago that someone set up a sort of modern pentathlon with top names from various sports competing against one another.  The race driver - I don't recall his name - won.)  

But the impression often turns negative when it comes to American football.  Because there, every weekend, on any NFL team's defensive squad, you can see what appear to be giants gone to pot -- beer bellies and balloon butts abound.  They have the physiques of many 60-year-olds, but they're not anywhere near 60; mostly, they're in their 20s.  The only other sport I can think of where you can regularly see specimens of such magnitude but with such clearly unhealthy avoirdupois is sumo wrestling. 

I look at these guys and think, well, they must be able to do something or they wouldn't be on a pro team in the first place...and of course any of them could crush me or rearrange my anatomy with one hand tied behind his back... and I realize they're really selected for that bulk... yet I had to wonder, wouldn't they have a better claim to the title of "athlete" if they could lose some of that loose, floppy heft and just get down to the muscle?   In short: are they really in SHAPE? 

Not to pick on one individual, but the case of Albert Haynesworth, a 29-year-old, six-foot-six, 350-pound defensive lineman for the Washington Redskins, is much in the news in our area and gives at least one answer to that fitness question.  Haynesworth seems to be having a little trouble getting past a conditioning test which is described thusly: 

The conditioning test consists of two 300-yard shuttle runs that must be completed with just a 3½ minute break in between. The player runs 25 yards at a time, back and forth for a total of 12 sprints. Linemen must complete the first shuttle in 70 seconds, the second one in 73 seconds.

Now, we might suppose that Redskins coach Mike Shanahan deserves a lot of credit for recognizing this problem of needless overweight, and doing something about it.  But we'd be wrong.  The conditioning test seems to be available more as a punishment than a fitness tool; nobody on the team is being asked to pass it except Haynesworth, because he played prima donna (oh, the mental picture of that!) by boycotting the team's early off-season workouts amid grumbling about the Redskins' defense strategy. 

The spotlight -- an embarrassing and possibly even unfair one -- may be on Haynesworth but there are many pro footballers out there who I'm sure couldn't pass this same conditioning test.  Maybe Haynesworth will have the last laugh by living a little longer than some of his peers.