Lightning is cool. Thunder is even cooler. I really like the summer thunderstorms. Nothing like you get back West. The humidity that comes along with it is not as fun. It's really storming hard right now and it's just fun to listen to.
Mary was in town last weekend. We saw "Romeo and Juliet" at Shakespeare in the Park. If you don't know what that is, it's pretty much the best thing ever. Central Park has this gorgeous theatre called the Delacorte where every summer they put on daily performances of Shakespearian plays that are free. Yes, free. People line up at 6 a.m. to get the best seats. We got our place at 9 and got some of the last seats. The setting is beautiful; the lake is behind the stage and the show takes place as the sun is setting, which for "Romeo and Juliet" had the awesome effect of the sun setting and night falling as the play got darker and darker. However, I would have preferred it not be a play that I've seen and studied a million times before (like we all have).
I honestly had some witting things to say about various observations I had made throughout the week, but I forgot most of them. I need to post more often.
Big crack of thunder there. Cool.
I'll be out of commission the next few days. Up in the Poconos (Pennsylvania) through Friday for staff retreat and the Syracuse to bring Mary back for my week of vacation. Hooray vacation!
Storm's a-comin'...
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Summer's back
One of the great things about living on the East Coast is that there is a measurable variation in the seasons. You get a real fall, a real winter, and a real summer. The downside is while summer in California is usually everyone's favorite season - a reprieve from the rain and clouds of winter/fall/spring - summer in New York is probably the worst. More rain falls in the summer than in the winter, and the humidity is just brutal. Regardless, I feel I'm just repeating things I said last summer when I first got here.
Living in New York also inevitably turns to moving in New York, as it did for one John Zabala this weekend. Lucky for us, it was 90 degrees the day we decided to move him to Brooklyn. It was a regular comedy of errors. Among the highlights: trying to maneuver the parts of his futon down five flights of stairs, trying to fit the six foot futon into my 5 foot trunk, getting lost in Brooklyn, and me fearing I was going to run out of gas and stall in the middle of traffic in lower Manhattan. At least I didn't have to work out yesterday...
I can't decide if I like driving in New York or not. I think I have learned to be a more aggressive driver, which is good for the city but won't be so good when I eventually return to California. It is kind of fun crusing down the streets (yes, I said cruising), darting in and out of lanes and avoiding the taxis. It's not as fun dealing with masses of pedestrians swarming across streets, and inevitable traffic. Plus, driving in lower Manhattan where the streets don't make sense is less fun than in upper Manhattan's strict grid plan. It's more fun when you know where you're going.
Last June orientation is this Thursday and Friday. I'm still trying to figure out why Admissions has to deal with orientation here and not Student Life. Mary comes to the city Friday night for a quick weekend, so I have that to get me through the week.
At least I get paid this week. Plus, there's alway money in the banana stand...
Living in New York also inevitably turns to moving in New York, as it did for one John Zabala this weekend. Lucky for us, it was 90 degrees the day we decided to move him to Brooklyn. It was a regular comedy of errors. Among the highlights: trying to maneuver the parts of his futon down five flights of stairs, trying to fit the six foot futon into my 5 foot trunk, getting lost in Brooklyn, and me fearing I was going to run out of gas and stall in the middle of traffic in lower Manhattan. At least I didn't have to work out yesterday...
I can't decide if I like driving in New York or not. I think I have learned to be a more aggressive driver, which is good for the city but won't be so good when I eventually return to California. It is kind of fun crusing down the streets (yes, I said cruising), darting in and out of lanes and avoiding the taxis. It's not as fun dealing with masses of pedestrians swarming across streets, and inevitable traffic. Plus, driving in lower Manhattan where the streets don't make sense is less fun than in upper Manhattan's strict grid plan. It's more fun when you know where you're going.
Last June orientation is this Thursday and Friday. I'm still trying to figure out why Admissions has to deal with orientation here and not Student Life. Mary comes to the city Friday night for a quick weekend, so I have that to get me through the week.
At least I get paid this week. Plus, there's alway money in the banana stand...
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
While reflecting on being an adult...
...I decided that reality is scary. (Hey, no wonder George Bush prefers to live outside of it.)
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Republican debate
Just a quick thought on the Republican debate versus the Democratic debate (both in New Hampshire these past few days). While the Democrats stayed in their seats during the debate and elicited only a smattering of applause from the (mostly Democrat and Democrat-leaning Independent) audience, the Republican candidates are continually standing up to give their responses and getting much applause from the (mostly Republican and Republican-leaning Independent) audience.
Some may say that the Republican candidates are connecting more with the audience. I put forward, however, the Republican candidates are more prone to demagoguery, and that Republicans in general are more receptive to demagoguery. Or put in other words, maybe is it that Republicans are just more easily swayed by strong-looking candidates who stand up and yell the loudest.
Also, they seem to be talking over moderator Wolf Blitzer more than the Democrats did. Sorry Wolf, I'm in the middle of fear-mongering right now...
Some may say that the Republican candidates are connecting more with the audience. I put forward, however, the Republican candidates are more prone to demagoguery, and that Republicans in general are more receptive to demagoguery. Or put in other words, maybe is it that Republicans are just more easily swayed by strong-looking candidates who stand up and yell the loudest.
Also, they seem to be talking over moderator Wolf Blitzer more than the Democrats did. Sorry Wolf, I'm in the middle of fear-mongering right now...
Friday, June 01, 2007
'Stray-Rod' hits Boston — with his wife - Baseball - MSNBC.com
'Stray-Rod' hits Boston — with his wife - Baseball - MSNBC.com
Personally I don't care what A-Rod does with his free time. If he wants to cheat on his wife, that's his demon to deal with, not mine. I also don't care, period. Why should I spend my day worrying about the moral decisions of an overpaid baseball player?
However, I do have a real problem with the wording of the articles on this so-called story, like this one from MSNBC.com. The subhead blares that A-Rod has been seen with a "bombshell," a word repeated several times throughout the article itself, along with mentioning several times that the woman he was with was a blond.
I guess this first offends me as a (former) journalist because they throw objectivity to the wind in pronouncing this woman a "bombshell." Sure, by most standards she may be considered attractive, but that is no excuse for inserting a heavily subjective (and sensationalized) word into the headline. Let the reader determine whether or not she is a bombshell and you, the journalist, keep your own opinions out of it. This is the stuff of The New York Post, not MSNBC.
Secondly, whether or not she is a "bombshell," or blond, should not even matter. Would it change the story if A-Rod was out on the town with a less-attractive burnette? If there were two different women he was out with, one blond and the other not, maybe then a clarification would be needed (big maybe), but it makes no sense to describe the same woman over and over. We get it. He was with another woman. That's all we need to know, and the inclusion of words such as "bombshell" and "blond" do nothing more than the take what was an objective story regarding a famous public figure and turn it into yellow journalist sensationalism.
Lastly, referring to this woman as a "bombshell" and "blond" is just plain disrespectful. In the entire article, only once is she referred to as simply "the woman" without at least one of the other two adjectives in front of it. She is turned into nothing but an object. Thanks to articles like this, she is no longer a woman who makes her own thoughts and decisions. She is reduced to her hair color; she is defined by her looks.
It was no surprise when The Post broke this story and turned it into the tabloid drama that it's now become. It's sad, however, to see reputable news sources like MSNBC play into the sensationalist game. I guess I just expected more journalistic integrity from them. Apparently I was wrong.
Personally I don't care what A-Rod does with his free time. If he wants to cheat on his wife, that's his demon to deal with, not mine. I also don't care, period. Why should I spend my day worrying about the moral decisions of an overpaid baseball player?
However, I do have a real problem with the wording of the articles on this so-called story, like this one from MSNBC.com. The subhead blares that A-Rod has been seen with a "bombshell," a word repeated several times throughout the article itself, along with mentioning several times that the woman he was with was a blond.
I guess this first offends me as a (former) journalist because they throw objectivity to the wind in pronouncing this woman a "bombshell." Sure, by most standards she may be considered attractive, but that is no excuse for inserting a heavily subjective (and sensationalized) word into the headline. Let the reader determine whether or not she is a bombshell and you, the journalist, keep your own opinions out of it. This is the stuff of The New York Post, not MSNBC.
Secondly, whether or not she is a "bombshell," or blond, should not even matter. Would it change the story if A-Rod was out on the town with a less-attractive burnette? If there were two different women he was out with, one blond and the other not, maybe then a clarification would be needed (big maybe), but it makes no sense to describe the same woman over and over. We get it. He was with another woman. That's all we need to know, and the inclusion of words such as "bombshell" and "blond" do nothing more than the take what was an objective story regarding a famous public figure and turn it into yellow journalist sensationalism.
Lastly, referring to this woman as a "bombshell" and "blond" is just plain disrespectful. In the entire article, only once is she referred to as simply "the woman" without at least one of the other two adjectives in front of it. She is turned into nothing but an object. Thanks to articles like this, she is no longer a woman who makes her own thoughts and decisions. She is reduced to her hair color; she is defined by her looks.
It was no surprise when The Post broke this story and turned it into the tabloid drama that it's now become. It's sad, however, to see reputable news sources like MSNBC play into the sensationalist game. I guess I just expected more journalistic integrity from them. Apparently I was wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)