Month: January 2020

So.  Aaron.  Old buddy.  Old pal.  Opening up is good.

But it’s come to this, has it?

First, you win a Super Bowl.

Then, you get a hot race-car-driving girlfriend.

Suddenly you’re estranged from your family.

You start questioning your faith.

Then, before you know it,

you’ve bought a house.

A $28 million Malibu beach house.

That’s right. You heard me.

Twenty-eight million.

So.  What’s left?

Well, there’s always retirement I guess.

Stay tuned for details as they develop.

Oh, and Aaron? Take heart, buddy.

We’re praying for ya.

Well, you and Danica both, I guess.

Couldn’t hurt.

Am I right?

Every once in a while, I make an exception. For instance, most days I try to eat healthy, but today I had chili-cheese-fries for lunch.  So sue me. Also, I have banned political speech from these pages, yet sometimes I sneakily skirt the edges of decency with some sly reference to 45. But most days, this is a politics-free zone.  And overall, I stand by that editorial decision. I think it makes dewconsulting.net/blog a more enjoyable space for more kinds of people to pull up a chair, have a chuckle, and maybe even gain some insight. If you wanna enter into battle over the 2020 campaign, there are plenty of other places for you to do that. And if you feel called to fight the culture wars, please go some place else. I wish you godspeed.

But today, there was an editorial in the DP that I found so perplexing, I almost choked on my chili-cheese-fries. The thing almost sounds like half-an-editorial, with the key part that would reveal its true meaning – and maybe put it in proper perspective – cut out. I’m not usually so dense, so please tell me if you see something I missed. Go here to read in full.

On Friday, Jan. 17, Megan Schrader, editor of The Denver Post’s editorial pages, decided we would no longer run Jon Caldara’s weekly column. Caldara had been providing that column on a freelance basis to The Post since 2016….

We believe it is both possible and desirable to write about sensitive subjects and about people with whom one disagrees using respectful language. In exercising our right to edit material submitted for publication, we make changes and suggestions to uphold that standard. We expect writers to work with us in a collaborative and professional manner as we strive toward that goal.

 

********

I was so mystified, I searched through Caldara’s recent DP columns to find the following. You can read it in full here.  It explains a lot.

 

It is fascinating how the built-up frustration to the main-stream media carried Trump to victory. It’s more fascinating that the media has shown absolutely no introspection into their role in the phenomenon. They really think most Americans see them as they see themselves — brave warriors of truth, not torchbearers for progressive ideology.

 

********

Before we go any further, let me say that there are lots of topics on which I find myself in stark disagreement with Jon Caldara.  Gun control, public vs. private education, you name it:  The guy’s a libertarian’s libertarian. Additionally, he’s the kind of professional devil’s-advocate – always doing his darndest to stir the pot – that I find supremely distasteful. But in this case, I think he may be on to something. The DP, of course, is welcome to publish works of whatever free-lance pundits they so choose. There’s no contract with Caldara, nor is the DP required to give editorial space to anyone, regardless of where they fall on whatever spectrum.

I guess I’d say what’s most glaring – by way of omission – from the “Editor’s note on discontinuation” is any positive indication of what got Caldara canned. Was he “disrespectful?” “Uncollaborative?” “Unprofessional?” Or maybe so politically Incorrect that he finally crossed over some invisible line into journalistic no-man’s-land? We can only guess.  And when it comes to the editorial pages, “making us guess” is probably the biggest sin an editorial writer – or indeed, an editor – can commit.

Further, I’d say all of this lends credence to exactly the kind of arguments Caldara was making in his Jan. 3rd op-ed, the gist of which is that the MSM is so blind to its own innate biases that they unwittingly abet the cause of getting 45 re-elected. And if that doesn’t give the DP editorial board a moment’s pause… well, then maybe it should.

I have written about gossip before, and you can see that post here.  But even though it’s more than a year old, I really love this article from The Atlantic – titled “Gossip is Good” – for any of a number of reasons, including these:

1.  The title, providing alliteration on the letter “G.” It also posits a counter-intuitive conclusion from the usual. Gossip is bad? Think again!
2.  It doesn’t take long to read.  Plus, it’s easy to understand. In fact, the number of paragraphs (6) is less than the number of footnotes (9).
3. Wait, what?  Did I mention, it has footnotes? Hey, don’t let that scare you off. Footnotes are good too. Honest.
4.  It quotes everybody from Blaise Pascal to Ann Landers, not to mention The Talmud. I mean, c’mon: THE TALMUD!? Yes, you heard me: The Talmud.
5.  It’s got great science references. Plus, there’s even a tongue-in-cheek formula, called The Law of Inverse Accuracy:  C = (TI)^v – t

The likelihood of gossip being circulated (C) equals its timeliness (T) times its interest (I) to the power of its un-verifiability (v) minus the reluctance someone might feel about repeating it out of taste (t).

Last, but certainly not least, there’s the matter of primate social grooming. “Whaaaaat?” I hear you say?  That’s right: Primate. Social. Grooming.  If you wanna find out what that’s got to do with gossip, read the article!  And remember: Gossip is good.  Oh, and also…. <wait for it>… you heard it here first.

Only 2 weeks to the Super Bowl. Only 6 weeks to March Madness.

But still…

Pitchers and catchers report Feb. 12th.

Meanwhile back at the Supreme Court…. with DC all atwitter over impeachment and whatnot, this story about Chief Justice John Roberts’ question to a lawyer in an age-discrimination case caught my eye.  At issue was whether the snarky phrase “OK, Boomer” would constitute an “actionable offense” if uttered by a hiring manager during a job interview. From the USA Today article:

 

The use of the phrase in a hypothetical situation drew laughter in the courtroom. “OK, Boomer” has become a biting slogan younger generations have used on platforms like TikTok and Twitter to express resentment toward older people, invoking the name of the baby boom generation.

Far be it from me to weigh in on such a momentous issue, but it did strike me that computer skills in particular were mentioned in the lawyer’s response to the Chief Justice’s question:

“If the decision-makers are sitting around the table and they say, ‘we’ve got Candidate A who’s 35’ and ‘we’ve got Candidate B who’s 55 and is a Boomer’ — and is probably tired and you know, doesn’t have a lot of computer skills, I think that absolutely would be actionable.”

 

Not sure what “tired” has to do with it.  But in my book, the Luddite angle is particularly noteworthy. And I say that as the unabashed Boomer that I certainly am.

In any case…

Another article, this one from Quartz, also caught my eye today. In its own way it’s loosely related to the goings-on over at SCOTUS.  Titled, “The Best Parts of Your Childhood Probably Involved Things Today’s Kids Will Never Know,” it details things that are part of cultural shifts over the past few decades.  These include fewer opportunities for risk-taking, less abundant family-connections, and the loss of freedom from screen-time. Each has re-shaped childhood for today’s youth, and presumably has altered the landscape for us all.

Again, it’s not for me to presume or judge.  Instead, let me offer a selection of family photos from my own childhood as testament to an earlier era. These were recently made available when my nephew (Thanks, Thom!) digitized all my parents’ and grandparents’ old slides from the years 1957 to 1988.

In case you missed it, I grew up on a farm. Was it better or worse than being adept at typing with your thumbs? My guess is that SCOTUS won’t decide that question this term, so you be the judge. I could tell you what _I_ think.  But – sorry, Millennials – I won’t be typing it with my thumbs.

Other than the webmaster here at dewconsulting.net – and maybe an old room mate or two – it’s unlikely most of you will make it to this show. Nevertheless, here’s a shameless promo: Barbies Invade Portland!  On the other hand, The Barbies do get around. So maybe you’ll get to see them at a venue near you.  In any case, check out their cheeky music video, here.

Genghis Barbie – Third Angle New Music Ensemble

This self-styled “post post-feminist feminist all-female horn ensemble” invades Portland with a killer, eclectic program that will include the quartet’s own arrangements of classical gems, pop music, rock ’n’ roll, and alternative contemporary numbers. With an appearance at Carnegie Hall und five studio albums under their collective belts, these musicians have generated lots of attention.  And in keeping with their spontaneous style, they will announce their program from the stage.  7:30 p.m. Thursday and Friday, Feb. 6-7, Studio 2 @ N.E.W., 810 SE Belmont St.; thirdangle.org or 503-331-0301. 

Genghis Barbie was incepted in a unique moment of ingenuity. That’s when Freedom Barbie, Cosmic Barbie, Velvet Barbie and Attila the Horn converged and vowed to create distinctive, interactive and personal performances. Balancing individual careers in symphony orchestras plus their busy New York City performing schedule, the ladies of Genghis Barbie have performed at multiple International Horn Society Symposiums, premiered a solo commission at Carnegie Hall, and appeared on America’s Got Talent. They have released five studio albums, including their self-titled debut album. A holiday album, Genghis Barbie: Home for the Holidays. Genghis Baby: Songs for Noa. A second pop album, Amp it Up!  And the newest of all – classical arrangements, “2 Legit.” Program note: Genghis Barbie aspires to appear on the Ellen DeGeneres show within one calendar year.