Thursday, June 29, 2017
In My Day We Only Had Two Solitudes
Canada's 150th is coming up, so I guess I should do something Canadian. I've seen these humourous maps of Europe by Yanko Tsvetkov at the Atlas of Prejudice website. I was wondering if you could split up Canada in similar ways, so here it goes:
Monday, June 26, 2017
Pride Goeth Before One Final Examination Of Both Sides
So we made it through this controversial Pride Week. The absence of police in Toronto didn't seem to dampen things too much - the PM made his usual appearance anyway, which some people didn't like. Though this was another one of those cases where the people who were really angry about it wouldn't have voted for him anyway, and the people who did vote for him probably won't be offended enough to not vote for him.
But I read a couple of things that are interesting relating to the police ban. One is from this Minister who talks about removing symbols of ministry when visiting first nations communities. And she feels this is a reasonable allowance, acknowledging the churches mistakes in the past and the reasonableness of fears of them. I can understand that, and it makes me wonder if there is some sense to the police uniform ban.
On the other hand, there was this incident in Chicago where Jewish members of the LGBT community waved rainbow Star of David flags. They were then took to go home, because that was considered offensive to some.
Just to clarify, they were offended by the presence of the Star of David as a symbol of Israel. I initially assumed that Jews or Israelis were offended by repurposing the flag, as I had recently seen similar complaints about Canadian rainbow flags. And also to clarify, this wasn't the main parade, but the Dyke March, which is the day before the main event, and supposedly more inclusive.
That incident is quite illustrative of the problem I had with excluding police. You've crossed the line from criticizing the actions of a group to eliminating aspects of the group itself. I've disliked many of the actions of Israel as much as the next guy, just as I've been critical of police actions. But in both cases, it's unreasonable and unfair to blame the entire group for the actions of a few. In this case it's a bit more obvious, since it's a more sympathetic group being targetted, and a group that has more often been victim of broad anger.
So how can I square these two points in favour of and against the police ban? First of all, we have to acknowledge that it's kind of comparing apples and oranges, since there is a big difference between voluntarily giving up symbols of your group vs. being told to give them up. I don't think anyone would have thought poorly of a police officer who chose to remove the uniform for the parade to improve community acceptance. And much as I understand why a minster might want to downplay the symbols of her church in a community hurt by it, it would be wrong for that community to ban the religion or symbols of it.
So that's why I'd stick with my original opinion. As the Chicago incident shows, you can't ban the symbols of a group without it being interpretted as an attack on the group itself. And unless you're going to say that the group is inherently bad, then their right to exist has to trump another group's discomfort.
But I read a couple of things that are interesting relating to the police ban. One is from this Minister who talks about removing symbols of ministry when visiting first nations communities. And she feels this is a reasonable allowance, acknowledging the churches mistakes in the past and the reasonableness of fears of them. I can understand that, and it makes me wonder if there is some sense to the police uniform ban.
On the other hand, there was this incident in Chicago where Jewish members of the LGBT community waved rainbow Star of David flags. They were then took to go home, because that was considered offensive to some.
Just to clarify, they were offended by the presence of the Star of David as a symbol of Israel. I initially assumed that Jews or Israelis were offended by repurposing the flag, as I had recently seen similar complaints about Canadian rainbow flags. And also to clarify, this wasn't the main parade, but the Dyke March, which is the day before the main event, and supposedly more inclusive.
That incident is quite illustrative of the problem I had with excluding police. You've crossed the line from criticizing the actions of a group to eliminating aspects of the group itself. I've disliked many of the actions of Israel as much as the next guy, just as I've been critical of police actions. But in both cases, it's unreasonable and unfair to blame the entire group for the actions of a few. In this case it's a bit more obvious, since it's a more sympathetic group being targetted, and a group that has more often been victim of broad anger.
So how can I square these two points in favour of and against the police ban? First of all, we have to acknowledge that it's kind of comparing apples and oranges, since there is a big difference between voluntarily giving up symbols of your group vs. being told to give them up. I don't think anyone would have thought poorly of a police officer who chose to remove the uniform for the parade to improve community acceptance. And much as I understand why a minster might want to downplay the symbols of her church in a community hurt by it, it would be wrong for that community to ban the religion or symbols of it.
So that's why I'd stick with my original opinion. As the Chicago incident shows, you can't ban the symbols of a group without it being interpretted as an attack on the group itself. And unless you're going to say that the group is inherently bad, then their right to exist has to trump another group's discomfort.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
This Post Is Keyboard Approved
There's a car dealership in the area, Barry Cullen Chevrolet in Guelph, that used to advertise heavily on local TV. All their ads were built around the idea that he was "The Regional Dealer." That might take the form of a simple slogan ("Come down to Barry Cullen Chevrolet, The Regional Dealer!") or claims of superior service ("When you're The Regional Dealer, you can offer the biggest rebates.") I found all this curious because he never actually explained what the hell a regional dealer was or what was so great about it.
I was thinking about this because Nissan has been running ads bragging about things being "factory approved." Their rebates, technology, option packages: they gleefully exclaim that it's all factory approved.
I have no idea why this is such a selling point. You sometimes hear the term "factory approved" when referring to replacement parts, just to assure you that they aren't some warranty-voiding knockoff. When you think about it, it's an anachronistic term; really, you need approval from the designers and engineers, and presumably their lawyers. The factory in a struggling right-to-work state where robots weld together parts freshly trucked-in from Mexico probably doesn't have the clout to approve anything in the company.
But is there really a problem with non-factory-approved sales prices? Have you ever received a thousand-off a car price, only to later find out that the factory didn't approve it? Even if the factory didn't approve, would you really have a problem with it? If anything, I think if be a little more inclined to buy a car if they could assure me that my deal is just between the dealer and me, because the factory would be real pissed-off if they found out.
But I'm being naive, what surely happened is that a focus group stumbled across the fact that "factory approved" really resonated with the demographics that buy cars, and they overreacted, and tried to call everything "factory approved.” Really, we should just be glad they weren’t claiming everything is “chocolate covered.”
I was thinking about this because Nissan has been running ads bragging about things being "factory approved." Their rebates, technology, option packages: they gleefully exclaim that it's all factory approved.
I have no idea why this is such a selling point. You sometimes hear the term "factory approved" when referring to replacement parts, just to assure you that they aren't some warranty-voiding knockoff. When you think about it, it's an anachronistic term; really, you need approval from the designers and engineers, and presumably their lawyers. The factory in a struggling right-to-work state where robots weld together parts freshly trucked-in from Mexico probably doesn't have the clout to approve anything in the company.
But is there really a problem with non-factory-approved sales prices? Have you ever received a thousand-off a car price, only to later find out that the factory didn't approve it? Even if the factory didn't approve, would you really have a problem with it? If anything, I think if be a little more inclined to buy a car if they could assure me that my deal is just between the dealer and me, because the factory would be real pissed-off if they found out.
But I'm being naive, what surely happened is that a focus group stumbled across the fact that "factory approved" really resonated with the demographics that buy cars, and they overreacted, and tried to call everything "factory approved.” Really, we should just be glad they weren’t claiming everything is “chocolate covered.”
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
I May Need Glastonbury
The big music festivals have posters that list all the bands playing, and they usually follow the same form:
The biggest acts are at the top, and they get the biggest print. As you go down, the performers are harder to recognize, and their names are harder to read. It occurred to me that this format is not unlike another famous poster:
Both posters seem harmless enough to young people. But for older people, they cause some trouble the further down the poster you go. The eye chart reminds you that your sight isn't what it once was, and the festival poster reminds you that you aren't as cool as you once were.
But the good news is that for many people, their eyesight and coolness deteriorate at the same rate. you haven't heard of the musicians named at the bottom of the lineup, but that's okay, because you can't read that far down anyway. Who's playing Coachella this year? Radiohead, Lady Gaga, Kendrick Lamar... um, some other people, I'm sure I'm familiar with as well.
The biggest acts are at the top, and they get the biggest print. As you go down, the performers are harder to recognize, and their names are harder to read. It occurred to me that this format is not unlike another famous poster:
But the good news is that for many people, their eyesight and coolness deteriorate at the same rate. you haven't heard of the musicians named at the bottom of the lineup, but that's okay, because you can't read that far down anyway. Who's playing Coachella this year? Radiohead, Lady Gaga, Kendrick Lamar... um, some other people, I'm sure I'm familiar with as well.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Moving Time
In the wake of the Grenfell tower fire in London, there's been a lot of anger, and questions being asked. If you aren't up on it, I'll point out that a lot of people are focusing on the cladding added to the outside walls a few years ago. The Times has revealed that they used cheaper flammable cladding for a total saving of £5000.
The Guardian published a controversial column by journalist Simon Jenkins claiming that residential towers themselves are just too dangerous, and we need to push society away from them.
That really seems to be coming out of nowhere. One thing this incident had made me appreciate is how safe buildings normally are. In looking for precedents for this fire, journalists have gone to a fire in Melbourne in 2014. Not to diminish the tragedy of either event, but given the huge number of of residential towers, the fact that they had to go back two years and three other side of the world shows how seldom big does happen. Fires in apartment buildings happen all the time, but the fact that they so rarely consume a whole building is a tribute to how well our codes work, and why this fire needs to be put under the microscope.
Also, his attempt to lay all of society's ills at the foot of tall buildings seems strange. He contends that they destroy communities and cannot be part of a livable city - which is of course news to people around the world. But the argument is especially odd given the out-of-control housing prices around the world, and at epic levels in the UK. Moving away from apartment blocks would make that problem much worse. Solving phantom societal problems with no concern for the less fortunate is what we would expect from Britain's tabloids, not the Guardian.
Of course, this is all rooted in the British experience with high density housing. Scores of ugly, poorly thought-out blocks were thrown up quickly in the mid-twentieth-century. So Britons associate them with slums, instead of luxury condos or that first apartment you had out of college. Essentially this article is the old American problem: a judgement based on that nation's own experience, oblivious to the fact that it would be disproven with even the slightest knowledge of the outside world.
But the big difficulty going forward will be to change the culture. For years the western world has been in the most that regulation is inherently bad and getting rid of it is always the right thing to do. For instance, here's former British PM David Cameron five years ago, saying that he wants to kill the health and safety culture.
I'm seeing the same pattern that we had in Canada after the Lac-Mégantic train accident: the public asks how this could happen in such an advanced country, oblivious to the decades of deregulation that preceded it. At that point, many excitable journalists saw this anger and frustration coalescing into a political issue that would demand greater accountability for public safety. I, on the other hand, felt that you just needed to give the public time to forget, and then they'll go back to their attitude of slow-motion Galtization.
In the British case, I could more easily picture it becoming a shift in political thinking. For one thing, they have an aggressively left-leaning party with all the momentum, and a right-wing party that's in disarray on several fronts. But more than anything, the issue has become a class matter, with poor people feeling like this is a personal struggle. That's in sharp contrast to this side of the Atlantic, where the fury that's getting all the play is coming from the middle class.
A good symbol of the start of the shift is the call by Labour's Jeremy Corbyn to house the fire's homeless in the many empty houses in the area that are owned by absentee landlords. This has lead to one of those political situations where the two sides are so completely opposed that they are each trying to demonize the other simply by quoting their opponents, without even needing to exaggerate or twist their words. That's the point at which there is no doubt that there are different visions, rather than different spins on a general consensus, so it may well be that a lot of Britons have truly shifted their political sensibilities.
The Guardian published a controversial column by journalist Simon Jenkins claiming that residential towers themselves are just too dangerous, and we need to push society away from them.
That really seems to be coming out of nowhere. One thing this incident had made me appreciate is how safe buildings normally are. In looking for precedents for this fire, journalists have gone to a fire in Melbourne in 2014. Not to diminish the tragedy of either event, but given the huge number of of residential towers, the fact that they had to go back two years and three other side of the world shows how seldom big does happen. Fires in apartment buildings happen all the time, but the fact that they so rarely consume a whole building is a tribute to how well our codes work, and why this fire needs to be put under the microscope.
Also, his attempt to lay all of society's ills at the foot of tall buildings seems strange. He contends that they destroy communities and cannot be part of a livable city - which is of course news to people around the world. But the argument is especially odd given the out-of-control housing prices around the world, and at epic levels in the UK. Moving away from apartment blocks would make that problem much worse. Solving phantom societal problems with no concern for the less fortunate is what we would expect from Britain's tabloids, not the Guardian.
Of course, this is all rooted in the British experience with high density housing. Scores of ugly, poorly thought-out blocks were thrown up quickly in the mid-twentieth-century. So Britons associate them with slums, instead of luxury condos or that first apartment you had out of college. Essentially this article is the old American problem: a judgement based on that nation's own experience, oblivious to the fact that it would be disproven with even the slightest knowledge of the outside world.
But the big difficulty going forward will be to change the culture. For years the western world has been in the most that regulation is inherently bad and getting rid of it is always the right thing to do. For instance, here's former British PM David Cameron five years ago, saying that he wants to kill the health and safety culture.
I'm seeing the same pattern that we had in Canada after the Lac-Mégantic train accident: the public asks how this could happen in such an advanced country, oblivious to the decades of deregulation that preceded it. At that point, many excitable journalists saw this anger and frustration coalescing into a political issue that would demand greater accountability for public safety. I, on the other hand, felt that you just needed to give the public time to forget, and then they'll go back to their attitude of slow-motion Galtization.
In the British case, I could more easily picture it becoming a shift in political thinking. For one thing, they have an aggressively left-leaning party with all the momentum, and a right-wing party that's in disarray on several fronts. But more than anything, the issue has become a class matter, with poor people feeling like this is a personal struggle. That's in sharp contrast to this side of the Atlantic, where the fury that's getting all the play is coming from the middle class.
A good symbol of the start of the shift is the call by Labour's Jeremy Corbyn to house the fire's homeless in the many empty houses in the area that are owned by absentee landlords. This has lead to one of those political situations where the two sides are so completely opposed that they are each trying to demonize the other simply by quoting their opponents, without even needing to exaggerate or twist their words. That's the point at which there is no doubt that there are different visions, rather than different spins on a general consensus, so it may well be that a lot of Britons have truly shifted their political sensibilities.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Sense And Sensitivity
It's Pride time again. Or, as it currently is in Canada, "How Much Do You Hate Police?" Week. Thanks to the Toronto Pride Parade's decision to grant Black Lives Matter's request to ban official police participation, that has become the big story this year.
There have been different reactions. Black gay-rights activist Orville Lloyd Douglas condemned the move. Interestingly he also called out Black Lives Matter for demanding that Pride be more accommodating of blacks, while not doing anything to stamp out homophobia within their own movement.
Meanwhile Now magazine has an article about how the policy was accepted at Pride Toronto with surprisingly little resistance and a fair amount of enthusiasm. Apparently, the outside assumption that BLM turned the screws and Pride caved is not very accurate. It's an interesting look at how people within the movements see the world and are motivated to act. If, like me, you find that understanding your political opponents makes them less frustrating, it may help even if it may not convince you.
Similar police bans - oh, I'm sorry, police in uniform bans; police are totally welcome as long as no one knows they're cops - have been enacted at Pride events throughout Canada. I'm not sure they really know what they're getting into. Sure, I realize that sometimes you have to play hardball. But you also need to choose your battles, particularly when you're thinking about a tactic that is going to give your opponent a sense of isolation and siege mentality.
Whenever I hear Pride activists talk about the bans, they use language that's not nearly as aggressive as the action itself. For instance, I saw a report from Brantford Pride in which a committee member explains it as eliminating something - the uniform - that some people find "scary." I have no doubt that many do find police officers scary, perhaps with good reason. But we are talking about picking a fight with a major societal institution full of largely innocent people just to eliminate some people's fears. My first reaction was that it sounds like something out of conservative paranoia, in which the desire for a safe space overrules the fair treatment of others. In this case, I have to agree that it doesn't seem like a fair compromise between people's rights. And, on a pragmatic level, it will ultimately do progressive movements more harm than good.
There have been different reactions. Black gay-rights activist Orville Lloyd Douglas condemned the move. Interestingly he also called out Black Lives Matter for demanding that Pride be more accommodating of blacks, while not doing anything to stamp out homophobia within their own movement.
Meanwhile Now magazine has an article about how the policy was accepted at Pride Toronto with surprisingly little resistance and a fair amount of enthusiasm. Apparently, the outside assumption that BLM turned the screws and Pride caved is not very accurate. It's an interesting look at how people within the movements see the world and are motivated to act. If, like me, you find that understanding your political opponents makes them less frustrating, it may help even if it may not convince you.
Similar police bans - oh, I'm sorry, police in uniform bans; police are totally welcome as long as no one knows they're cops - have been enacted at Pride events throughout Canada. I'm not sure they really know what they're getting into. Sure, I realize that sometimes you have to play hardball. But you also need to choose your battles, particularly when you're thinking about a tactic that is going to give your opponent a sense of isolation and siege mentality.
Whenever I hear Pride activists talk about the bans, they use language that's not nearly as aggressive as the action itself. For instance, I saw a report from Brantford Pride in which a committee member explains it as eliminating something - the uniform - that some people find "scary." I have no doubt that many do find police officers scary, perhaps with good reason. But we are talking about picking a fight with a major societal institution full of largely innocent people just to eliminate some people's fears. My first reaction was that it sounds like something out of conservative paranoia, in which the desire for a safe space overrules the fair treatment of others. In this case, I have to agree that it doesn't seem like a fair compromise between people's rights. And, on a pragmatic level, it will ultimately do progressive movements more harm than good.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Pineapple Express
This weekend we got news that the inventor of Hawaiian pizza has died. You may know - or may have just guessed - that Hawaiian pizza is not actually Hawaiian. In fact, it's not even popular in Hawaii.
I think I heard somewhere that Hawaiian pizza is originally Canadian. But I definitely didn't know that it was from Chatham of all places. So score one for small-town Ontario. It's good to know that between this and Crokinole we've made a lasting mark, of some sort.
It's also interesting that the inventor was of neither Italian or Hawaiian origin, but rather Greek. So a Greek immigrant running an Italian restaurant naming something after a place in the U.S. is either the most Canadian thing ever, or an epic incident of cultural appropriation.
Mostly though, I have to ask, can we please use this moment to end the tiresome argument about pineapples on pizza? Yes, I know, it's supposed to be one of those silly time-wasters where we have passionate discussions of something that doesn't really matter, like over-the-top vs. down-the-wall toilet paper. But this one is just annoying because:
I think I heard somewhere that Hawaiian pizza is originally Canadian. But I definitely didn't know that it was from Chatham of all places. So score one for small-town Ontario. It's good to know that between this and Crokinole we've made a lasting mark, of some sort.
It's also interesting that the inventor was of neither Italian or Hawaiian origin, but rather Greek. So a Greek immigrant running an Italian restaurant naming something after a place in the U.S. is either the most Canadian thing ever, or an epic incident of cultural appropriation.
Mostly though, I have to ask, can we please use this moment to end the tiresome argument about pineapples on pizza? Yes, I know, it's supposed to be one of those silly time-wasters where we have passionate discussions of something that doesn't really matter, like over-the-top vs. down-the-wall toilet paper. But this one is just annoying because:
- Hawaiian pizza has been around since the sixties, it's too late now. Watching people in their forties suddenly feigning disgust at a food that's been around their entire lives just sounds forced. It's not like we don't have new foods to get angry about. I mean, who decided salt and caramel have to go together? In what world is caramel not good enough on its own? Or not bad enough for you?
- It goes against the democratic appeal of pizza. As the ultimate personalizable food, I don't really care what disgusting things other people are putting on their pizza. I know someone in the world loves to defile their pizza with brussels sprouts, but I'm okay with that. I disapprove of their pizza, but I will defend to the death their right to eat it.
- Pineapple is constantly dropping down the list of unconventional pizza toppings. Look at Canada's other unconventional pizza institution named after an unrelated part of the U.S.: Boston Pizza. Have you looked at their menu? You can get perogy pizza with potatoes and sour cream on it; how is that not a bigger abomination?
Friday, June 9, 2017
All That Meets The Eye
I was never a big fan of the Transformers when I was a kid. I guess I was a little too old to be interested in them when they came along.
(The blogger, on the eve of his 44th birthday, looks down at the Lego race car on his desk and realizes that his previous sentence may not be entirely accurate.)
Okay, maybe I wasn't too old. It was more a matter of not having the feeling of intrigue in the whole concept. On the one hand, I found the idea of the "transforming" quite interesting. Seeing how you could design a robot to fold up into the shape of a car or plane or something was a fascinating spatial challenge. Seeing how they did that gave me a joy that I now only get when unpacking Ikea furniture.
It's just after that which I didn't get. Okay, these cars are now robots. What do they do? Fight? That's it? And yes, I know now that they have a big backstory. But at the time you didn't really get that idea when the commercials just showed kids making up their own flimsy battle scenarios.
Speaking of made up flimsy battle scenarios - the movies. I haven't seen them either, and once again, there may be a lot more to them, but the ads and the impressions of others seem to indicate that they don't really do anything but fight. Sure, it's now in excruciating CGI detail instead of eight-year-olds waving their toys at each other, but it still doesn't draw me in.
And this is a bit off-topic, but can we spare a thought for the Go-Bots? The Pepsi to the Transformers' Coke have been ridiculed over the years, and largely left-out of eighties nostalgia. But it's hard to believe that in today's world where they make blockbusters on any pop-culture property, that no studio would take a chance on them.
Anyway, there's yet another Transformers movie coming out. And it seems to be doubling-down on the concept of fights between giant robots that are inexplicably built out of a lot of really tiny, intricate parts. That leaves me with a question - again, having not seen the movies - do the Transformers, you know, transform? All they ever show is them in robot form fighting it out. And since the battles are epic, destroy-everything-in-sight affairs, there doesn't seem to be much point in hiding. I'm assuming that if you see a the aftermath of a Transformer battle, with a neighbourhood turned into a huge crater of destruction, and then notice a few undamaged cars in the middle, they aren't fooling anyone.
(The blogger, on the eve of his 44th birthday, looks down at the Lego race car on his desk and realizes that his previous sentence may not be entirely accurate.)
Okay, maybe I wasn't too old. It was more a matter of not having the feeling of intrigue in the whole concept. On the one hand, I found the idea of the "transforming" quite interesting. Seeing how you could design a robot to fold up into the shape of a car or plane or something was a fascinating spatial challenge. Seeing how they did that gave me a joy that I now only get when unpacking Ikea furniture.
It's just after that which I didn't get. Okay, these cars are now robots. What do they do? Fight? That's it? And yes, I know now that they have a big backstory. But at the time you didn't really get that idea when the commercials just showed kids making up their own flimsy battle scenarios.
Speaking of made up flimsy battle scenarios - the movies. I haven't seen them either, and once again, there may be a lot more to them, but the ads and the impressions of others seem to indicate that they don't really do anything but fight. Sure, it's now in excruciating CGI detail instead of eight-year-olds waving their toys at each other, but it still doesn't draw me in.
And this is a bit off-topic, but can we spare a thought for the Go-Bots? The Pepsi to the Transformers' Coke have been ridiculed over the years, and largely left-out of eighties nostalgia. But it's hard to believe that in today's world where they make blockbusters on any pop-culture property, that no studio would take a chance on them.
Anyway, there's yet another Transformers movie coming out. And it seems to be doubling-down on the concept of fights between giant robots that are inexplicably built out of a lot of really tiny, intricate parts. That leaves me with a question - again, having not seen the movies - do the Transformers, you know, transform? All they ever show is them in robot form fighting it out. And since the battles are epic, destroy-everything-in-sight affairs, there doesn't seem to be much point in hiding. I'm assuming that if you see a the aftermath of a Transformer battle, with a neighbourhood turned into a huge crater of destruction, and then notice a few undamaged cars in the middle, they aren't fooling anyone.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Boldly Vote
There's an election in Britain today, so remember everyone...
... get out there and vote in Spock as Prime Minister.
... get out there and vote in Spock as Prime Minister.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Soccer Shorts
Can we please notice that soccer players are short? I keep hearing reporters - at least on this side of the Atlantic - marvel that such and such a player is successful despite their lack of height. How can you be surprised: most of the people working in sports journalism are old enough to remember Maradona, who was famously short. Here in Canada there's no excuse, since Toronto FC's star player, Sebastian Giovinco, is 5'4", and nicknamed "The Atomic Ant" just in case it wasn’t obvious enough.
But this obliviousness reached new heights (pun not intended) today. I actually heard someone say that an up-and-coming player is considered "the next Messi" despite being only 5'7." Go on, guess how tall Messi is.
And these are hardly obscure examples. Many of the greatest players of all time were below average height.
So I guess there is an advantage to shorter players. A lower centre of gravity will give greater agility, and that’s more of an advantage - at least for these offensive players - than the height needed to get to a header. Sure, some players do use height to their advantage (hello, Peter Crouch.)
So there can be an physical advantage to being smaller, and I can hang on to my fantasy that shorter people are taking over sports. Isaiah Thomas (5’9”) has emerged as a basketball star, José Altuve (5'6") is leading the best team in baseball, and honorary short person Russell Wilson (5'11") has a Super Bowl ring. So don’t look down, tall people, because we could be gaining on you.
But this obliviousness reached new heights (pun not intended) today. I actually heard someone say that an up-and-coming player is considered "the next Messi" despite being only 5'7." Go on, guess how tall Messi is.
And these are hardly obscure examples. Many of the greatest players of all time were below average height.
| Pele | 5'8" |
| Maradona | 5'5" |
| Romario | 5'5.5" |
| Bobby Charlton | 5'8" |
| Gheorghe Hagi | 5'7.5" |
| Roberto Baggio | 5'8.5" |
| Garrincha | 5'6.5" |
So I guess there is an advantage to shorter players. A lower centre of gravity will give greater agility, and that’s more of an advantage - at least for these offensive players - than the height needed to get to a header. Sure, some players do use height to their advantage (hello, Peter Crouch.)
So there can be an physical advantage to being smaller, and I can hang on to my fantasy that shorter people are taking over sports. Isaiah Thomas (5’9”) has emerged as a basketball star, José Altuve (5'6") is leading the best team in baseball, and honorary short person Russell Wilson (5'11") has a Super Bowl ring. So don’t look down, tall people, because we could be gaining on you.
Friday, June 2, 2017
Sword Fight
There's this phenomenon I've noticed in activism, and I don't know if it has a name. It's when people waste their efforts on useless endeavours. There's a number of different reasons why:
The commonality in each of these is that they're overthinking the situation. It can be just a case of wasting effort, but what's really frustrating about it, is when people actually end up working against themselves. For instance, there was this case a few years ago when someone was trying to convince poor people not to vote as a protest. You'd think that voting would be a no-brainer for activists, but here you have people voluntarily forfeiting it, for no reason but their own over-analysis.
I've always had a theory that this activist tire-spinning is at its worst in times and places where liberal ideas are favoured. That's when activists are indulgent, and don't consider that they must eternally struggle against political enemies. When progressive ideas fall out of favour, activists are forced to fight for everything, and can't afford to waste effort. They think about what's truly important, fight for their priorities and compromise on those things that don't really make a difference. It forces a rigorous efficiency.
I first came to this way of thinking in university. Universities are ripe for these problems to begin with, being filled with liberal intellectuals. And Canada is ripe for it, with our liberal leanings, and interventionist government traditions. People often take that for granted, and don't consider that others are working to roll back past progress. And this being the nineties, we'd had decades where the only conservative force was the Mulroney government, who in retrospect was hardly regressive. So an activist in this environment would feel quite unchallenged.
But there were plenty of hints that all was not well in progressive world. Newt Gingrich was trying to remake the American government. Here in Ontario, Mike Harris was handing out torches and pitchforks to angry suburbanites. And in pop-culture and word-of-mouth, it was clear that political correctness had become a lightning rod that was being used to demonize lots of positive actions.
I observed that this negativity seemed to be forcing American activists to think about what was important to them in a way that Canadians - particularly those around me on campus - didn't. I remember that when Bill Clinton's infidelities came out, Canadian feminists were ready to throw him under the bus, while American feminists defended him; they understood that a cad in the White House is a small price to pay to have a charismatic politician working against the conservative tsunami.
But now I think I may have to throw out the theory. It's because of what I'm seeing from African-American activists. You would think that if I'm right about political challenges forcing people to adopt a battle-tested robustness, then Black Americans in the alt-right era would be about as efficiently pragmatic as possible. And yet, I keep finding people disappearing into a spiral of opaque justifications of nonsensical actions.
The latest concerns a meme you may have seen recently. A white woman on the campus of Colgate University went around campus carrying a sword. Why she had a sword is a bit of a mystery - I thought Americans preferred guns. Anyway, her prancing around with a sword didn't seem to concern anyone, and was generally greeted as a whimsical prank. She goes on to report that months later, the campus was put on lock down after reports of a gunman. That turned out to be the result of someone seeing a black man with a glue gun and panicking. So now the woman is passing the story around as an example of white privilege: When people saw her they assumed the best, while they assumed the worst for that black man.
You would think that this meme would be welcomed by black activists. A white person finally understands white privilege! And she's explaining it to other white people! But no, in the upside-down world of activism, this woman's actions were criticized for... well - I don’t really know, but it sure has made the author of this article angry.
Obviously, you can understand why black activists would be frustrated by the circumstance. It’s unfair that this white woman gets credit for making point that black have been trying to make for years. But the writers of this article don’t seem to realize the unfairness is not her fault. I’m left wondering what exactly she should have done that would have been better. It’s telling that the author goes on to express frustration with white allies - a complaint I’ve heard a few times. If spreading your message for you leads to frustration, it’s hard to imagine how that relationship could work out better.
So here we are in an era of high racial tension, and people trying to fix problems are getting shouted down. It's not quite talking your own cohort into not voting, but it is the sort of intellectual time waster I'd hoped we'd left behind.
- working harder to piss off The Man than on actual change
- fighting sectarian battles
- working for esoteric intellectual goals, not what actually helps
- laying the groundwork for idealistic concepts that will never come to be
The commonality in each of these is that they're overthinking the situation. It can be just a case of wasting effort, but what's really frustrating about it, is when people actually end up working against themselves. For instance, there was this case a few years ago when someone was trying to convince poor people not to vote as a protest. You'd think that voting would be a no-brainer for activists, but here you have people voluntarily forfeiting it, for no reason but their own over-analysis.
I've always had a theory that this activist tire-spinning is at its worst in times and places where liberal ideas are favoured. That's when activists are indulgent, and don't consider that they must eternally struggle against political enemies. When progressive ideas fall out of favour, activists are forced to fight for everything, and can't afford to waste effort. They think about what's truly important, fight for their priorities and compromise on those things that don't really make a difference. It forces a rigorous efficiency.
I first came to this way of thinking in university. Universities are ripe for these problems to begin with, being filled with liberal intellectuals. And Canada is ripe for it, with our liberal leanings, and interventionist government traditions. People often take that for granted, and don't consider that others are working to roll back past progress. And this being the nineties, we'd had decades where the only conservative force was the Mulroney government, who in retrospect was hardly regressive. So an activist in this environment would feel quite unchallenged.
But there were plenty of hints that all was not well in progressive world. Newt Gingrich was trying to remake the American government. Here in Ontario, Mike Harris was handing out torches and pitchforks to angry suburbanites. And in pop-culture and word-of-mouth, it was clear that political correctness had become a lightning rod that was being used to demonize lots of positive actions.
I observed that this negativity seemed to be forcing American activists to think about what was important to them in a way that Canadians - particularly those around me on campus - didn't. I remember that when Bill Clinton's infidelities came out, Canadian feminists were ready to throw him under the bus, while American feminists defended him; they understood that a cad in the White House is a small price to pay to have a charismatic politician working against the conservative tsunami.
But now I think I may have to throw out the theory. It's because of what I'm seeing from African-American activists. You would think that if I'm right about political challenges forcing people to adopt a battle-tested robustness, then Black Americans in the alt-right era would be about as efficiently pragmatic as possible. And yet, I keep finding people disappearing into a spiral of opaque justifications of nonsensical actions.
The latest concerns a meme you may have seen recently. A white woman on the campus of Colgate University went around campus carrying a sword. Why she had a sword is a bit of a mystery - I thought Americans preferred guns. Anyway, her prancing around with a sword didn't seem to concern anyone, and was generally greeted as a whimsical prank. She goes on to report that months later, the campus was put on lock down after reports of a gunman. That turned out to be the result of someone seeing a black man with a glue gun and panicking. So now the woman is passing the story around as an example of white privilege: When people saw her they assumed the best, while they assumed the worst for that black man.
You would think that this meme would be welcomed by black activists. A white person finally understands white privilege! And she's explaining it to other white people! But no, in the upside-down world of activism, this woman's actions were criticized for... well - I don’t really know, but it sure has made the author of this article angry.
Obviously, you can understand why black activists would be frustrated by the circumstance. It’s unfair that this white woman gets credit for making point that black have been trying to make for years. But the writers of this article don’t seem to realize the unfairness is not her fault. I’m left wondering what exactly she should have done that would have been better. It’s telling that the author goes on to express frustration with white allies - a complaint I’ve heard a few times. If spreading your message for you leads to frustration, it’s hard to imagine how that relationship could work out better.
So here we are in an era of high racial tension, and people trying to fix problems are getting shouted down. It's not quite talking your own cohort into not voting, but it is the sort of intellectual time waster I'd hoped we'd left behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)