The Souvenir of Foolishness

If you watch much baseball, particularly in person, you have no doubt witnessed it: a frantic rush for every home run and foul ball batted into the stands.  Occasionally, these balls are caught outright, and the happy fan holds up his prize and receives cheers all around.  Far more often, however, the batted ball bounces off a seat or a spectator’s hand, and initiates a mad scramble to retrieve it.  Grown men and boys leap over one another, and crawl along the floor to snatch it.  It would not be exaggerating to say that, for some young boys, the quest for a foul ball holds greater interest than the game on the field.

The same foolish impulse that animates the men who snatch baseballs from one another in the stands, and the boys who race each other from section to section in greedy anticipation, is the same one that prompts fans to interfere with balls in play.  The infamous Steve Bartman incident is the best known, but others occur almost daily, with fans reaching over walls, gloves in hand, to scoop up fair balls.

This obsession reached its logical climax in Arlington last night, when a fan at Rangers Park tumbled from the upper deck to the stands below.  He had been reaching for a foul ball and lost his balance.  He dropped thirty feet onto fans below.  Fans in the park screamed when they saw it happen.  The home plate umpire threw his hands over his head in horror.  The television announcers were similarly terrified.  The game was halted for fifteen minutes, and many players were visibly distressed, with several of the Cleveland fielders clearly mouthing prayers.

Everyone loves a souvenir.  But is a $16 baseball really worth all that?

Grammar Rodeo: Pronouns for Pros

Looking for grammar mistakes on websites is a finicky exercise.  I don’t go out of my way, but sometimes they find me.  In a story about allegations of sexism at The Daily Show, Alex Leo writes:

The response from the women of the “Daily Show” reads as earnest and heartfelt, but if one of these women did feel the environment was hostile, it would be difficult for them to speak up without jeopardizing their career.

The problem here, of course, is the singular “they”.  This common mistake is generally found in situations in which the sex of the subject or object of the sentence is unknown: “I don’t know who my new teacher will be, but I hope they are nice”.  The singular “they” is a self-conscious and incorrect effort to avoid sexist language.  But in the excerpt above the sex of the subject is explicitly noted, and given the theme of this story, it is odd to find such an error.  Leo should have written, “…it would be difficult for her to speak up without jeopardizing her career”.  (A good writing teacher would also have a problem with the vague pronoun reference of “it would be difficult”, since “it” doesn’t appear to refer to anything.  You may have noticed that I don’t worry much about that.)

Until the otherwise genderless English language invents a neuter pronoun (besides “it”), this problem will persist.  One correct way to form my example sentence above would be to simply pick “he”, even if the teacher may be female.  Alternatively, one could write “he or she”, though that sometimes leads to wordy constructions.  My writing teacher, Professor McCrea, would advise students whenever possible to “make … nouns that refer to general classes plural and then replace those nouns with the plural (and sexually neutral) pronoun they“.  In that case, Leo would need only to eliminate the words “one of”, and change “career” to “careers”.  But Professor McCrea would agree with me that Leo’s sentence does not allow this without altering the meaning.  The danger of one woman speaking out is central to Leo’s message.

Meanwhile, don’t bother searching for grammatical errors on my webpage; I promise there are more than a few.  I am not a professional writer.

Orlando International Airport

ORLANDO – Airports are fascinating places.  But they are no longer fun places.  When I was young, you could go to the airport, make your way out to the terminal, and watch planes land and take off.  You could accompany your loved one to the gate, or wait there for her arrival.  Those days are long gone.  Now, the best you can do is drop someone off at the ticketing area or wait for them at baggage claim.  The security screening process is a hurried and intimidating experience.  Will they harass me about my toothpaste?  Oh, no, the next guy’s bags are coming off the X-ray conveyor belt and I haven’t got my shoes back on!  I wish that lady on the intercom with the grating voice would stop trying to make people feel guilty about not giving up their seats.  And I wish the Licorice family would report to Gate 107.

A Brief History of Discourse

Debate is healthy–essential, even–to a thriving democracy.  But debate requires that all parties tell the truth.  Dishonesty poisons social discourse, and invariably prevents us from arriving at common ground and reaching important goals.

I am extremely troubled by the misinformation–lies, really–being spread about the proposed health care reform slowly winding its way through Congress.  The misinformation takes many forms, but at its heart lies a straw man.  That is, some of those who strongly oppose health care reform are deliberately distorting what reform would mean in an effort to make change appear undesirable.  So, for example, they make outrageous claims that, under the Obama plan, the elderly will face forced euthanasia (or any sort of euthanasia), when, in fact, all the proposal would do is give patients the option of discussing advanced directives regarding life-support should they ever suffer a perpetual coma.  There is nothing wrong or even scary about that.  In fact, in the wake of the Terry Schiavo calamity, you would think that everyone would be in favor of such a logical proposal.  But, by misinterpreting what the legislation would do, those making false claims are able to frame the debate in new terms.  If all you hear are people screaming at their congressmen at town hall meetings, you, too, might walk away with the wrong ideas of what health care reform would look like.  (There is a curious similarity between some of those screaming about health care and others screaming about President Obama’s citizenship.)

Another common refrain amongst those who–for whatever reason–oppose reform is that citizens of other nations which have some form of national health care (“socialized medicine!”) or single-payer program (which isn’t even on the table here in the USA, though, mark my words, it will happen in my lifetime) receive much worse care than Americans.  Generally, these arguments point to the “long waits” that patients must endure before receiving essential treatment.  I don’t doubt that patients needing elective operations occasionally have to wait their turns.  But I strongly suspect that the more horrifying claims are greatly exaggerated.  Moreover, when you consider that many tens of millions of Americans are not able to receive those procedures at all, waiting a few weeks doesn’t seem that bad.

But, others who claim that “America has the greatest health care system in the world”, which is demonstrably false if you use almost any measurable criteria, like to make different, more terrifying false claims.  A hilarious one appears in the latest Investors Business Journal.  It suggests that the British public health system is terrible because of “rationing”, and that “the stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied care altogether read like a horror movie script”.  If, the article states, the bureaucrats don’t believe your life is worth saving, they cut you off, and “you get to curl up in a corner and die”.  Now, you might expect such a shabbily written and poorly researched article to cite ridiculous and unreliable tabloids like the New York Post, and this one does.  And you might also expect it make the sinister insinuation that American patients will be “compelled” to pull their own plugs, so to speak, and this one does that, as well.  But you probably would not have believed that anyone who receives money to write words could make a mistake this stupid:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Investors Business Journal probably ought to have asked British scientist Stephen Hawking, who lives in the United Kingdom, where they have the National Health Service, if he agreed with that premise.  He would probably have told them that he “wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS”.  That is, in fact, exactly what he told The Guardian.  The ignorance of facts displayed by the Investors Business Journal is not unlike that demonstrated by those fools who claim that, even if President Obama was born in Hawaii–which they’re not willing to concede–he cannot be an American citizen because his father was Kenyan, which is clearly wrong.

It is, of course, appropriate to discuss what this health care reform will cost and how we will pay for it.  And it is entirely understandable that many who oppose abortion would be troubled to think of their money going to cover abortions.  I resent that even a penny of my tax dollars goes to pay for chemicals that the state of Florida uses to kill human beings strapped to a table.  So, their concerns are fair, and we should discuss our options.  But intellectual dishonesty makes legitimate debate impossible, and the fanatics who insist nothing is wrong with what we have, or who seek to make the perfect the enemy of the good, are only making things worse.

A Newspaper that Deserves to Fold

I follow a number of photographers’ streams on Flickr, the website where I keep tens of thousands of my own photographs.  I have met none of these photographers in person, though one, whose Flickr name is Gato Ranch, lives in north central Florida.  She has many pictures of nature and bands.

On her stream today, Gato Ranch, whose real name is Jana, posted something that I found disturbing.  The Gainesville Sun has taken one of her photographs, and, without her permission, posted it on their webpage in conjunction with a story.  Worse still, in spite of the fact that the stolen picture had her real name and a copyright symbol, the Sun gave her no credit, and posted a link for readers to buy the image.  From them!  It is the most blatant copyright violation I’ve ever seen.

Jana tells me that she notified the Gainesville Sun of their violation, but this isn’t the first time they have done this to her, so one must assume that this is par for the course with them.  She doesn’t believe that they copied the picture from Flickr, but from MySpace, which explains the low resolution.

I’ve never thought much of the Gainesville Sun.  In fact, I have a hate-hate relationship with that paper.  They publish unsolicited Craigslist-style rants in their letters section, which I feel violates all standards of journalism; they have been adversarial in their coverage of WUFT-FM, where I work; they have misquoted me in articles, and acted offended when I alerted them to that fact.  They are simply a bad newspaper.  Now I see they are also criminals.

Shame on you, Gainesville Sun.

So, I have a polite request for anyone who reads the Sun online:  if you ever see any photographs you recognize as mine, please let me know.  If it can happen to Jana, it can happen to me.