Picture This!
Picture This
A while back we discussed those Canadians going to pot. Forget it. The Montreal Expos just let bullpen catcher Carlos Luis Perez go, after he plead guilty to charges of possession of 1.1 pounds (a half-kilo, is that some Canadian Imperial weight?) of marijuana. According to the news sources, the Expos employee had the not-yet-legal-in-Canada contraband on his person, among his stuff while at the stadium. Hmm..could he have been supplying the major leaguers? Oh, wait, no, excuse me. That would have meant he was working for the Mets. My mistake.
Our friends the Canadians may not be going to pot, but they are sort of going to the dogs. After a few recent cat posts in these quarters, it seemed just right to note something about the canines. It seems that in Vancouver, Canada, not only do they have what dogs do on their mindsÖ but it appears that the pooches to the North are able to read signs in both English, and English-style phonetic translation of dogspeak, eh.
Kudos for our neighbors to the North! They not only have their dog owners doing the ìpooper scoopî thing, they've appointed manís best friend to remind their masters to pick up what they (the dogs) put out! Gee, will this mean fewer sniffing opportunities for the North Vancouver dog population?
Do you think there are Canadian drinking laws specific to St. Bernards, and that little wooden keg they carry around? Woof, woof, eh?
Saddam Schultz?
This recent caricature of Saddam seems quite reminiscent of Sgt. Schulz, of Hoganís Heroes fame. Is this part of what the ìenemies of the stateî will refer to as the cartoonization of their beloved Saddam? How would the surviving family of the late actor John Banner (he played Schulz) feel about this similarity? Saddam is/was President of Iraq. Yet he was promoted (by himself, one would surmise) to the rank of Field Marshall. Funny, that title makes me think of the guys who go around parks with that little spear, for picking up litter and stray paper goods/garbage, and sticking it into a large debris sack! Saddam collects weapons of mass destruction (or so goes the story, according to the Shrub), not random, errant bits of detritus.
Sgt. Schulz, however, was a different sort of person. He was loyal to his superior in rank, Colonel Klink. Schulzís rank was Oberfeldwebel, which means Sergeant Major. As a civilian, Schulz owned the Schotsy Toy Company. Makes one wonder if thatís why Marge Schott, famed Nazi-lover and former owner of the Cincinnati Reds Baseball Club, named her dog Schotzy??) The whole scoop on Schulz, and John Banner can be found here.
THANKSGIVING FAMOUS BLOGGERS
Wow! Allied blogger (and superb writer) Jeneane Sessum is featured (and pictured, with her beautiful daughter, Jenna, too!) in a NY Times article.
The appearance of the article is wonderful, as anything that draws attention to blogging scores points big time in these quarters. The general thesis of the article, though, struck me as more along the lines of an annoying, plaintively self-righteous, half-assed attempt to put ìthe battle of the sexesí -although taken from a completely Politically Correct vantage point, as one would expect from the Yuppified New York Times- into blogging.
Jeneane and her blog (and Elaineís, too, also featured in the article, and always an excellent read, as well) deserve better than the treatment they got in the Times. The article probes (thought Iíd use PC-speak here) whether more men blog than women, whether blogging is some ooh-too new age groovy feelings-sappy way to post shit. And what it is to be women blogging, sorta kinda, in a manís blogging universe.
What a crock of shit!
He or she who blogs, well, BLOGS. Is gender an issue in deciding to have a blog? Why is this even a question? Did the writer do an analysis of all the blogs out there, or all the American blogs, and come up with a percentage by gender of author? What about some of those group blogs, with two, three, or more ìhome author-bloggers?î
The author writes, ìVirginia Postrel, one of the few women who is commonly listed among well-known bloggers, points out that blogging is actually quite friendly to women.î One of the "few women who is commonly listed?" What, she did a blogrolling analysis?
What is this bunk? Has the author done a survey of every single blogroll? The whole premise here is bullshit, in my not-so-humble opinion.
I guess the woman who penned this article never saw the famous New Yorker cartoon, ìOn the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.î Or maybe she took this as some sexist, looksist dis, and went haywire. (ooh, I may take a lot of grief for that one!)
Elaine, in her blog post on November 29th, comments that since the article appeared, women all around the world have inundated her and Jeneane to join in on the goings-on at Blog Sisters. That blog, chock-full of blogging women and their posts and links, is proof that, yes, loads of women blog. In fact, the author goes on to say that maybe the ratio is 40:60, or possibly 50:50.
As I recall, when one posits a theory (remember ìresolvedî from Debate Class, remember ìsubjectî from Writing Class?) doesnít one seek to argue, prove, or resolve it within the essay? What is her point? And, if sheís so concerned with male or female bloggers, why did she omit that Jeneane is a married blogger, with a blogging husband? And that Elaineís son is b!X, a blogger with no shortage of opinions and the guts to post them, even if they get him crank calls at ungodly early AM hours?
Why not just an article on women bloggers, and some of the topics and joint-blogs theyíve been posting? I guess the Times, and the author of the article, felt some sort of Mars-Venus (yeah, she used that phrase in the article, too) angle would be more in keeping with the oh-so-too-hip gentrified yuppified target Times readership.
Again, Jeneane, Elaine, and the other women bloggers mentioned in the article, all deserved better. And how odd that the writer, she of mega-correct Times slant, didnít write about blogs such as Halley Suittís, Heather Snow (wow, can she write! Great stuff!), or Blog Pioneer Meg Hourihan? And if she wanted to write about women involved in the emerging new tech world, she could have included Lisa Rein, or Meryl The K (not to be confused with my boyhood hero, Murray The K). The list could go on and on.
An excellent, well written, and much terser take on the Times article can be found here . It is written written by Lauren Fedira, another woman with, yes, a blog.
Thereís more to be found with regard to how men and women communicate, in and outside of the blogworld. Check out the post, and then the comments, in Jonathan Delacourís blog. The title is Wrong answer? Or wrong question? and it is good reading of lots of good writing. Disclaimer: I posted one of the comments, and was quite impressed by Jonathanís eloquent and insightful response to one aspect of what I wrote.
Once more: I am an ardent fan of the writing that comes from the hand, mind, and keyboard of Jeneane Sessum. Iíve said it here before: her blog is a daily must-read for me. I like Elaineís blog, too.
But these two bloggers deserved better than that inane Times article!
Error? Not if he gets the out!
Back on November 14 there was an error made in what is otherwise a generally wonderful blog to read, INSITEVIEW- - Tom Shugart's weblog . In Tomís nicely worded and brief essay (I am always impressed with much said in an economy of words, not something at which I seem to excel!) he manages to capture the essence of both the uncharacteristic mishandling of the Giantsí letting go of Dusty Baker, and the panache to which they seem to have returned, having hired Felipe Alou to replace the beloved Dusty. Alou won't be able to have his sons in the dugout, being batboys, as did Dusty, particularly since one of them is playing in the majors. Where, you ask? In Chicago, for the Cubs, where Dusty Baker will be his new manager!
The error: Tom got the spelling wrong of one of the Giantsí veritable legends, a living gone, at that. He typed in Willy Mays. Surely he meant Willie Mays. The Say Hey Kid, the man memorialized, career commemorated, by a gorgeous statue outside of PacBell Park, new home of The Giants. But Tomís short take on the recent goings-on in Giantsland is so well put, we wonít give him an E on this one. Why? Because he may have bobbled the play, but he got the out, and was right on target and on the money with his throw. Way to go, Tom!
