As I write this, the New York City metro area is digging out from yet another massive snowstorm. Central Park recorded over twenty inches of snow in the last day and a half. That is a lot of snow! Overall, the city and region have done fairly well, with public transportation getting back to normal service levels and most major roads plowed down to the blacktop within six hours of the end of the snowfall. Well done, states of New York and New Jersey. That's what happens when adequate levels of taxation and public spending are maintained. (Not that I mean to disrespect other metropolitan areas, such as our nation's capital city and surrounding states..)
That, however, is not the point of this post. My main amusement is the well-known hysterics into which the local TV newspeople throw themselves during every winter storm, this one being no exception. The local NBC affiliate has put aside their normal daytime programming for hour after hour of non-stop snowstorm coverage. The anchors and roving reporters are giddy with snow-induced fatigue; all normal restraints on their playful banter have been tossed into the snow pile. They swing schizophrenically between outrage at bureaucratic muck-ups (such as the current "truck-stucking", their words not mine, on a highway upstate covered with flair by Tim Minton, who has just on live TV described one inept driver as a "knucklehead"), to profound sadness at the man killed by a falling branch, to sympathy for business owners whose roofs have collapsed, to jubilation for the NYC school children enjoying their unexpected day off.
Adding to the whimsy, the white-girl news anchor literally "oh-no-he-didnt'ed", in a spirit of chummy urban camaraderie no doubt, at Janice Huff after fellow meteorologist John Marshall dared mention the possibility of more snow next week. (He and Janice will be fleeing to Bermuda to escape the wrath of the villagers, because as we know the weather is controlled by the TV meteorologists.) And, in another inspiring story, a reporter has just told us of his siting of a convoy of Orthodox Jews passing his perch near the highway. Apparently, Purim begins tomorrow, and those intrepid Jews just aren't going to let the snow stop their fun. So brave! Thank you for inspiring us all with that story, Mr. Reporter-man!
They've also wheeled out the cutesy names - Snow-cane, Hurrizard, Blizzicane - all owing to this storm's unusually hurricane-like spiral structure. It is all fair enough: they are being forced to fill 8 hours of news coverage with about 20 minutes worth of news story. I'd crack up, too. It is certainly amusing to watch, and I think sort of interesting to see how behavior norms change, for news people and everyone else, due to what is in this area a fairly common weather event. You don't see this sort of change in response to severe thunderstorms, not in the New York area, at least. I'd be interested to know if, in the Midwest and Great Plains, tornado season brings such sweeping changes to the local news landscape. There is something not quite right about coming up with cutesy names for a destructive tornado (Whirly-Wind? Tornadothon? Cyclonageddon?), so I'm guessing any change is not in the direction of levity and laughter.
Nevermind, back to the Blizzicane for me. And, oh-no-he-didn't, the news anchor just called NY Governor David Paterson's current predicament a "storm, a political storm of sorts". Oh yes, he did.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Big O
No, not that O, nor Oprah. My mind is more on the Olympics, and O Canada!
Canada: the Great White North. Or, as it might just as easily be called in the USA: the Great Unknown! Ah, Canada. Americans know a few things about you:
1. Hockey.
2. That your people say "Eh". Whether or not this is really all that common, I have no idea. I think it might be the Canadian equivalent to England's "Cheerio", ie: something many Americans imagine people to say all the time, but is heard rarely, if ever. I might be wrong, but my gut tells me I might be right.
3. Universal healthcare. Many Americans are wary of the Canadian model, Medicaid. Probably because it is named the same as our own fledgling indigent care program, and federally structured in a vaguely similar way. It is also frequently compared to HMOs, which are not that popular. People south of the border generally imagine this is a nightmare, or a dream come true, depending.
4. Molson beer.
5. There is no five, most Americans know exactly four things about Canada.
Luckily, Tom Brokaw and the good people at NBC conjured a little montage (visible here!) to explain Canada and its relationship to the US, shown during their coverage immediately preceding the opening ceremony. There are many things annoying about this. For one, it was just the beginning of the non-stop montages and human interest sob stories that clutter NBC's coverage of the games. I don't know if thats how they are covered on TV in other countries, but it gets annoying. Just show me the sports, when they happen, and tell me a little about the athletes. I don't need to know about their aunt's struggle with constipation. That, and all the commercial breaks.
I digress. That little piece of reportage, while highly celebratory of Canada and her special relationship with the US, struck me as a little... patronizing. Both of Canada, and of the American TV viewership. It was definitely US-centric, but that isn't really unexpected. I was bothered that it portrayed Canada's worth as a country mostly as a function of its utilitarian value to the United States, as in, "Canada is great, look at all we get from it!" It kind of reminds me of the scene from Love, Actually in which UK Prime Minister Hugh Grant tells off the US president, saying he just takes takes takes and never gives in that other "special relationship". Perhaps that is how the US comes across in its relations with a lot of other countries, through foreign eyes. The NBC piece, in my view, reinforces the notion that countries only matter inasmuch as they contribute to the United States' dominance and strength, and only insofar as they have similar qualities to the US.
Of course, it was nice of NBC to try and educate Americans on Canada, because people are definitely under-informed. However, it could have done so in a way that was a bit more about Canada itself, rather than about Canada: A Subsidiary of America, Inc.
Canada: the Great White North. Or, as it might just as easily be called in the USA: the Great Unknown! Ah, Canada. Americans know a few things about you:
1. Hockey.
2. That your people say "Eh". Whether or not this is really all that common, I have no idea. I think it might be the Canadian equivalent to England's "Cheerio", ie: something many Americans imagine people to say all the time, but is heard rarely, if ever. I might be wrong, but my gut tells me I might be right.
3. Universal healthcare. Many Americans are wary of the Canadian model, Medicaid. Probably because it is named the same as our own fledgling indigent care program, and federally structured in a vaguely similar way. It is also frequently compared to HMOs, which are not that popular. People south of the border generally imagine this is a nightmare, or a dream come true, depending.
4. Molson beer.
5. There is no five, most Americans know exactly four things about Canada.
Luckily, Tom Brokaw and the good people at NBC conjured a little montage (visible here!) to explain Canada and its relationship to the US, shown during their coverage immediately preceding the opening ceremony. There are many things annoying about this. For one, it was just the beginning of the non-stop montages and human interest sob stories that clutter NBC's coverage of the games. I don't know if thats how they are covered on TV in other countries, but it gets annoying. Just show me the sports, when they happen, and tell me a little about the athletes. I don't need to know about their aunt's struggle with constipation. That, and all the commercial breaks.
I digress. That little piece of reportage, while highly celebratory of Canada and her special relationship with the US, struck me as a little... patronizing. Both of Canada, and of the American TV viewership. It was definitely US-centric, but that isn't really unexpected. I was bothered that it portrayed Canada's worth as a country mostly as a function of its utilitarian value to the United States, as in, "Canada is great, look at all we get from it!" It kind of reminds me of the scene from Love, Actually in which UK Prime Minister Hugh Grant tells off the US president, saying he just takes takes takes and never gives in that other "special relationship". Perhaps that is how the US comes across in its relations with a lot of other countries, through foreign eyes. The NBC piece, in my view, reinforces the notion that countries only matter inasmuch as they contribute to the United States' dominance and strength, and only insofar as they have similar qualities to the US.
Of course, it was nice of NBC to try and educate Americans on Canada, because people are definitely under-informed. However, it could have done so in a way that was a bit more about Canada itself, rather than about Canada: A Subsidiary of America, Inc.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Oxymorons and Ideology
While I wanted to start this blog off with a post examining Americans' weird obsession with the "Founding Fathers", I was sidetracked today by a confluence of news and opinion pieces that got the gears in my head turning. The issue in question: gay Republicans. I know, I know: it's easy to get a good laugh out of that phrase, as is. However, I think the existence of gay Republican organizations highlights some big issues in our contemporary politics .
As you might know, the Conservative Political Action Conference is taking place in Washington this week. Check out their website to find out more, but basically it is a yearly get-together thrown by the American Conservative Union to discuss all the exciting regressive developments in and future direction for American conservatism. Note, this is not a Republican organization per se, but definitely is partly composed of and seeks to influence the GOP.
Anyway, I stumbled across this blog post linked to a CNN report about GOProud, a gay Republican pressure group that wants to promote gay rights via some strategy of dis-empowering the Federal government in favor of each state making decisions on gay marriage and other issues. Because, as everyone knows, the states tend tonot make very gay friendly laws when left to their own devices.
Now, if you're gay and a Republican, fine. I accept that there are greedy irrational gay people just as there are greedy irrational straight people. (I'm simplifying GOP ideals, here.) However, specifically mobilizing on the basis of your sexuality signals a concern for LGBT specific issues and interests. If the GOP were true to its more classical liberal, small government roots, I could almost understand mobilizing as "gay Republicans". It is not. At best, the GOP is indifferent to the specific concerns and interests of LGBT people and, at worst, is openly hostile to them. The party is for small government in welfare and public service provision, but for large intrusive government in almost every other respect, including butting in (no pun!) to the sexual and family lives of the citizenry. By going along with the GOP, even as it fights against the interests of LGBT people, you simply consent to and aid their narrative.
Earlier today I read a piece (on an unrelated issue) appearing in the Guardian by Jessica Asato, a British Labour party activist and think-tank director. This line struck me:
The parties clearly have ideological differences, but with Blue Dog Democrats and GOProud Republicans running around clucking about their pet peeves, the lines are definitely blurred. Instead, politicians and parties vacillate, responding to each "issue" as though it were a stand-alone phenomenon. Without a clear set of political and social beliefs and values to appeal to, the interests of narrow pressure groups and constituencies, rather than the good of all, tends to win out. Politicians and other organizations claim to "want what is best for America", without defining a vision of how we would get there, or what it would look like when we did.
As you might know, the Conservative Political Action Conference is taking place in Washington this week. Check out their website to find out more, but basically it is a yearly get-together thrown by the American Conservative Union to discuss all the exciting regressive developments in and future direction for American conservatism. Note, this is not a Republican organization per se, but definitely is partly composed of and seeks to influence the GOP.
Anyway, I stumbled across this blog post linked to a CNN report about GOProud, a gay Republican pressure group that wants to promote gay rights via some strategy of dis-empowering the Federal government in favor of each state making decisions on gay marriage and other issues. Because, as everyone knows, the states tend to
Now, if you're gay and a Republican, fine. I accept that there are greedy irrational gay people just as there are greedy irrational straight people. (I'm simplifying GOP ideals, here.) However, specifically mobilizing on the basis of your sexuality signals a concern for LGBT specific issues and interests. If the GOP were true to its more classical liberal, small government roots, I could almost understand mobilizing as "gay Republicans". It is not. At best, the GOP is indifferent to the specific concerns and interests of LGBT people and, at worst, is openly hostile to them. The party is for small government in welfare and public service provision, but for large intrusive government in almost every other respect, including butting in (no pun!) to the sexual and family lives of the citizenry. By going along with the GOP, even as it fights against the interests of LGBT people, you simply consent to and aid their narrative.
Earlier today I read a piece (on an unrelated issue) appearing in the Guardian by Jessica Asato, a British Labour party activist and think-tank director. This line struck me:
We join single issue groups because it's easier than having to think about the complexities of modern life and the politics that should result.Organizing as "gay Republicans" signals a refusal to recognize that the overall 'politics' of the GOP is inherently hostile to historically disempowered groups. This sort of narrow single-issue thinking isn't just a gay republican problem, but is rife in our politics today. It is easier to think only about the issues that affect us, or that we care about specifically, than to formulate a framework of values and beliefs that guides our response to the demands of democratic social and political life. The name for this framework is ideology, a dirty word in today's discourse. However, without some form of ideology to structure our politics, all we are left with is a vague "America-first centrism" (itself an ideology).
The parties clearly have ideological differences, but with Blue Dog Democrats and GOProud Republicans running around clucking about their pet peeves, the lines are definitely blurred. Instead, politicians and parties vacillate, responding to each "issue" as though it were a stand-alone phenomenon. Without a clear set of political and social beliefs and values to appeal to, the interests of narrow pressure groups and constituencies, rather than the good of all, tends to win out. Politicians and other organizations claim to "want what is best for America", without defining a vision of how we would get there, or what it would look like when we did.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Hello
This is where my obnoxious analysis will go. You will read it and it will be good.
Following on the success of "Tea and Apathy", which was your standard "I'm living in a foreign country! Lets analyse the locals like animals in a zoo!" type blog, I've decided to do a similar one for the United States now that I am stuck there for the foreseeable future. Hence, "Coffee and Excessive Hugging", certainly the loud American answer to British tea and apathy.
Expect a mix of social analysis, politics, and historical discussion in an appropriately sardonic style. I have felt my brain whithering from disuse over the last few months, so hopefully this will be just the pseudo-intellectual boost I need. And hopefully you'll be entertained, as well.
Following on the success of "Tea and Apathy", which was your standard "I'm living in a foreign country! Lets analyse the locals like animals in a zoo!" type blog, I've decided to do a similar one for the United States now that I am stuck there for the foreseeable future. Hence, "Coffee and Excessive Hugging", certainly the loud American answer to British tea and apathy.
Expect a mix of social analysis, politics, and historical discussion in an appropriately sardonic style. I have felt my brain whithering from disuse over the last few months, so hopefully this will be just the pseudo-intellectual boost I need. And hopefully you'll be entertained, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
