Her Nibs's New Pastime

Her Nibs loves to be naked. She's started a new hobby. When her clothes come off in preparation for bedtime, she bolts away from whichever one of us is changing her clothes and runs around in circles shouting, "Nakedy, nakedy, nakedy. . . ." It's actually pretty hilarious.

Cavemen on TV?

I read a little bit about the fall television schedules today, and I've got to say that I'm less than impressed. I tend to watch more TV than I should, but there are only a few television shows that I specifically make time for, and none of them are on ABC, which, regardless of its popularity right now, actually makes what I consider to be the worst shows. This fall appears to be no exception. They've created a spinoff of Grey's Anatomy, which I personally hate, and to top it all off, there's a show about those cavemen from the Geico ads.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with cavemen, per se (I loved Phil Hartman as Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer), but this show just seems like a bad idea. Geico makes the worst commercials.I just want to step on the stupid gecko with the accent, and the cavemen are just too creepy. For some reason I shiver whenever they come on my television, and I instinctively change the channel. I really don't think I could possibly watch an entire episode of them. It would weird me out too much. I know Plainbellied agrees with me on this one, but are we the only ones?

In related, sad news, it looks like Andy Barker, P.I., was not picked up by NBC. That's sad, because it was a really clever show. It was one of very few shows that I looked forward to each week during its short run (kind of like Psych on USA, which we download from iTunes whenever there is a new episode). Raines appears to be gone as well. I do have high hopes for the new Bionic Woman show, though I have found myself somewhat uninterested by Heroes.

Anyway, I guess that's enough of that. It's probably good there aren't a lot of shows I like. Maybe I'll stop watching so many shows that I don't.

One other thing

While I'm talking about reality television, I should mention this. I'm not a fan of "The Bachelor." It's a really horrible idea for a show, and the few episodes I've seen were some of the worst television ever (although "Joe Millionaire" was worse). However, if you either love or hate the show, you might be interested in the "Sports Gal" blog about the show.

For those who aren't familiar, the Sports Gal is the wife of ESPN's Sports Guy, Bill Simmons, who writes about sports from a fan's perspective (he's from Boston, so I naturally gravitate toward his opinions on a lot of issues). Last season he decided that he wanted to put a theory about predicting football outcomes to the test, so when he wrote his weekly picks column, where he predicted who would win each of the coming weeks' games, he had his wife (who he claims knows nothing about football) pick as well. In return, his wife (they claim) demanded to be given a column of her own without restrictions. It turned out to be hilarious and insightful, and Plainbellied and I looked forward to her column every week. At the end of the season, she actually had a better record than her husband, essentially proving his point that the people picking winners have no better chance than a novice.

Well, I guess ABC liked what it had seen in her column (since they own ESPN), and the fact that she made occasional references to "The Bachelor," and they asked her to write a column about that show this season. It's really funny, and she doesn't pull any punches. I even admit to watching about ten minutes of the show one week in preparation for her column. ABC should give her a medal just for that.

Lawsuits and "Reality"

I've mentioned before that Plainbellied really likes "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," and that I think its smarmy and lame. I'm more of a "This Old House" kind of person, not a "Queen for a Day" type. Well, it looks like "Extreme Makeover" is getting sued by some of the people it featured on an episode of the show. I actually remember the episode pretty well, and I have an idea of what's going on in the case (I heard about it when they first sued a year or two ago). It's an interesting case that deals with two issues: our litigation-happy society and "reality" television.

Here's the gist of what's going on. A group of five siblings lost both of their parents and were taken in by another family. The kids nominated their new caregivers for the "Home Edition" makeover, and ABC signed a contract to rebuild the house. They sent the family on vacation and got to work, putting together a massive house for all of them to live in (the older kids got cars and stuff, too). This all took place in a short time, then ABC basically left. Within a short time, the kids had been kicked out of the house and separated, living among friends. Then they sued ABC the family that they had been living with, and the builder.

The specifics of the case are disputed, but the kids say they were intimidated and bullied in a deliberate campaign to get them to move out of the house. The family they had been living with says that after the show, the kids stopped respecting the rules they had agreed to when they moved in, which led to fights and ultimately to the kids moving out. One key point of contention is that the parents had asked the two oldest siblings to get jobs to help pay for expenses.

Now, I'm not a legal expert (or even a fan of big companies), but I'm a little confused about how ABC is responsible for this. The company didn't sign a contract to build a home for the kids. They agreed to build a home for the people who took them in. Obviously the details will be hammered out in court, but I think it's a tragic situation, made worse by the fact that it played out on reality television. Money really changes people. The way that reality television portrays things makes it seem as though they can somehow swoop in, drop a ton of stuff on people, then leave and expect everything to be fine and dandy. I've seen what they give to people, and often, it seems like they are only trying to give lots of stuff, without a real thought about how it might be used. For example, they built a house for another group of siblings who had lost their parents. In an effort to give them "together" time, they put in a wall of televisions, and each kid got a headset, so they could all be watching different things, lost in their own little world, but since they were in the same place, it somehow counted as "family time" (TV as family time is another issue, and I don't have the space or time to cover that here).

The kicker in all of this, though, is that ABC knew the kids had been kicked out when they re-ran the episode a few months later, but they left it exactly as it originally aired. This is hard for me to fathom. I guess it's just one more way that they manipulate the "reality" to get ratings and advertising dollars. Well, maybe "Pirate Captain" will be better.

Kids and Secrets

I suppose I'm making up for a lack of entries over the past week by writing a bunch today. In fact, I almost forgot a classic story about Her Nibs.

I was talking to her the other day when she told me that "we got you a present, but it's a secret." When I related it to Plainbellied, thinking Her Nibs had totally made it up, she looked like the cat that swallowed the canary. So I pressed a little bit and got a confession. Ha! I still like surprises, though, so I didn't ask what it was. My birthday is less than a month away, so I figured that's what it was.

Last night I found out I was wrong. Plainbellied had gotten new wheels for my rollerblades, which I haven't been able to use for a while. She also replaced her own wheels, so as long as we can get someone to watch Her Nibs (this summer we'll be really close to Grandma), we can go blading. We used to go a lot before we got married and before Her Nibs came along. Since I'm teaching at our alma mater this summer, we can go on the trails we used to take in the mountains. Pretty cool.

Anniversaries

Today is my fifth anniversary. So far, we've never been able to do anything nice (well, we went to Busch Gardens one year). I'm really looking forward to our tenth, when I have an actual job and can afford to take Plainbellied somewhere nice. I'll never be a rich man (history professors just aren't--assuming I can get a job in my chosen field), but I have a great family, and the last five years have been the best of my life so far. I hope they only get better.

We are going on a date tonight, though. Plainbellied even gave me an invitation. She put it in the mailbox with the rest of the mail. Got a sitter and everything. How cool is that?

Antiques Roadshow and the Beatles

I learned something really disturbing on "Antiques Roadshow." Someone brought in a copy of the Beatles' "Yesterday and Today" with its original cover. I had never heard of this before, but it turns out that the album cover offended a lot of people, and it got pulled from Sears shelves after only a day. The record company, instead of re-wrapping all of the records, pasted an alternate cover on it. The woman who brought her copy in had bought it the day they sold it with the original cover. Apparently, it's worth like 10,000 dollars.

I've elected not to show the cover here, because I agree that it's wicked disturbing. Let's just say they call it the "Butcher Cover" and it involves dismembered baby dolls, raw meat, and eerie grins. I always knew the Beatles were a bit freaky, but this is ridiculous. Not cool guys . . . not cool. And by the way, Pete Townshend was right, your music isn't really that good.

LPs, CDs, and MP3s

I've been thinking about music a lot lately. I picked up the new Rush album this week, and I think I like it. The songs sound good, but the mastering is pretty bad (see "Loudness War" at Wikipedia). The lyrics, as usual, are kind of hit-or-miss. Neil Peart isn't the intellectual a lot of people think, but I usually don't pay attention to the lyrics, anyway. Occasionally he'll write something I really like, as in this line from "Far Cry" on the new album: "One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel/And the next it's rolling over me." I don't know why I like this line, but it feel both playful and profound. The melodies and rhythms are what get me, though. Rush has always done a good job at constructing songs. I'm even more excited to see them this summer.

But I've drifted from the topic I intended to discuss. the two albums I've been listening to the most recently are Cheap Trick "At Budokan" and the new Rush, and it has made me think of how CDs changed the way we listen to music, and how the iPod is doing the same again. Let me stick with the "At Budokan" disc. I mainly listen to just a couple of tracks, but I listened to the whole thing the other day. What I realized is that when I was a kid, I only ever listened to side 2 of the record. I don't even recognize the songs from side 1 of the album. Then I started thinking about other albums from when I was a kid, like "2112" by Rush and Led Zeppelin IV and others, and I realized that I only listened to one side of many of them. I remember "2112" distinctly because one of my brother's friends made me listen to side 2 in the 1990s, and I had never heard some of the songs there. Other albums, like "Who's Next" by the Who were more likely to get a listen on both sides.

In any case, it was perfectly possible to have a favorite side of an album or cassette. With the advent of the CD, that became a thing of the past. Bands could now put more songs on albums, and no decision had to be made about which side to put them on. Of course, the difference was now that instead of moving the needle to skip a song or having to fast-forward all the way through a track, you could skip songs with the push of a button.

Then along came the MP3, which made it possible to choose songs a-la-carte. The Apple iTunes store is a perfect example of this. You can now simply download the song you want (for free if you are that kind of person) and not have to get the entire album. With the iPod and other digital music players, you can create playlists easily (without having to go to crazy lengths to tape a record), so albums are becoming less and less relevant.

I'm not trying to pass judgement on this, but I think it's an interesting development. Changes in technology are really influencing how we listen to music.

PBS Documentary

Last week, PBS showed a documentary on Mormons over two nights. I've been thinking about this for a few days, so now I'd like to share some thoughts. A lot of people have been asking me about it. My doctoral advisor, who knows I am Mormon, asked me what I thought, and I told him mostly what I will say here. It's very rare that we even speak about non-academic issues, so that really told me how significant this documentary was.

As members of a church long regarded as on the fringes of American society, one might understand why our community was a bit apprehensive. Recent events involving polygamous split-off groups and Mitt Romney's political aspirations have put a spotlight on us in ways we may or may not be comfortable with. Add to that a Mormon persecution complex and a general fear among us of learning too much about our past, and our fears becomes even more understandable. I think this is the best review of the documentary. It does a good job of highlighting the good and bad aspects.

There was a big build-up during the week before the airing. The Church actually posted an article about it on the official website, clarifying that the Church itself had cooperated with the filmmakers but had not had any control over the final product. Then the NY Times and other major newspapers reviewed it rather favorably. I resolved to watch it before passing any sort of judgment.

Well, I thought it was good overall. I appreciated that they spoke candidly about many issues, and I liked that they allowed both friend and foe alike to speak. I think that it gave a generally good view of the complexity of Mormon life. Many Church members were upset at the portrayal of modern polygamy, but I thought that the documentary did a good job of distancing the official Church from that problem, and I especially liked how they portrayed the difficulties some face in trying to find a place in our culture.

The only major issue I have is the coverage of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and this comes from my training as an historian. The documentary devoted 20 minutes to this topic, giving it a separate segment all to itself. While this was a heinous act perpetrated by a group of Mormons, looking at the MMM out of context is quite problematic. The documentary gave much more space to this single incident than they did to the persecutions the church suffered in New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. Also, they relied too much on the work of the "historian" Will Bagley (actually a newspaper columnist), who can't actually find evidence to back up his assertions of complicity among Church leadership (because there isn't any). The massacre, perpetrated by a relatively small group of isolated Mormons and Native Americans in the context of the Utah War, really deserved better treatment than it received.

Other than that, I found it relatively fair and insightful, if uncomfortable for some members of the Church.

Cheap Trick

In a nod to Rhonda, I had to put this up. Yesterday we went to Lowe's to pick up some stuff, and as we were driving, Plainbellied actually requested that I put on "I Want You To Want Me" from Cheap Trick's At Budokan album that I bought not too long ago. It was a very exciting moment. Her Nibs even demanded that we all sing along with the song, which she also enjoyed very much, even if she didn't know the words.

Laptops in Education

In Friday's NY Times, they had an article on the introduction of laptop computers into school classrooms. It's interesting because it discusses the fact that many schools are now giving up the programs they started, even while many other schools are still developing their programs. You may recall that I have issues with the over-focus of American schools on test scores. I don't think they do much good for students, and they are playing a key role in the dumbing-down of American children (I think).

Well, I look at the laptop issue in a similar fashion. There are those who think that cutting edge is always best, and that technology can cure all problems, so long as it is used properly. I personally applaud the schools for getting rid of the computers. I think they do more harm than good. Often, people claim that poorer schools are somehow technologically deficient and that explains the disparities in test scores, when in reality it isn't a technological problem. It is a social problem. Studies are now showing that students in the laptop programs don't do any better on tests.

In fact, it looks like students are becoming complacent, using the computers for recreational purposes, and even taking advantage of the laptops to cheat in school. Laptops are useless in helping students learn how to read or write well. Technological savvy should not be a goal. It should be a tool, and putting it above learning how to think does our children a disservice.

I am particularly disturbed by the conclusions of one researcher who, after concluding that the computers did not affect test scores, argued the following:
“Where laptops and Internet use make a difference are in innovation, creativity, autonomy and independent research,” he said. “If the goal is to get kids up to basic standard levels, then maybe laptops are not the tool. But if the goal is to create the George Lucas and Steve Jobs of the future, then laptops are extremely useful.”


Frankly, I don't buy it. Creativity can be taught just as well with a pencil and paper as with a laptop. There are larger problems at work, and the following quote from the article summarizes my feelings on the matter (especially since I teach history):

In the school library, an 11th-grade history class was working on research papers. Many carried laptops in their hands or in backpacks even as their teacher, Tom McCarthy, encouraged them not to overlook books, newspapers and academic journals.

“The art of thinking is being lost,” he said. “Because people can type in a word and find a source and think that’s the be all end all.”


My students recently submitted a term paper for an advanced college-level history course, and I found that many of them were reluctant to actually go to the library to find books. They thought (wrongly) that everything they needed was on the Internet. Because of this attitude, a number of them did quite poorly on the paper, because they misunderstood fundamental issues.

Now that I've written this, I need to clarify that I am not against teaching technology. I use my computer for much of what I do. However, it is only a tool. There are things for which it is quite unsuited. Even when I do find relevant articles online (many academic journals now publish online, through subscription services like JStor), I usually print them up to read and to mark up. The computer is just a tool for finding them.

I do think that schools should conduct computer classes (we had to take a typing class), and classes should have access to computers for relevant projects, but they really need to focus on what is most important. That should be teaching our children to think. Unfortunately, they're so set on test scores and technology that many seem to have lost track of that.

I wish I had something pithy to say at the end of this post, but I don't. Oh well. At least I got through it without saying "puke." (oops, there it is.)

Movie weekend

This weekend, Plainbellied and I saw three new movies. On Friday night, we watched "Rocky Balboa." Plainbellied had never seen "Rocky" until after we got married, and she's not very familiar with the earlier movies. I really like the first four, though (usually I pretend "Rocky V" never happened). Well, I'm not really into "Rocky II," but I really like "Rocky," "Rocky III," and "Rocky IV." I have to say that I enjoyed "Rocky Balboa." If you're not familiar, it follows the same basic storyline of "Rocky," but it's about life after Adrian and how Rocky tries to relate to his kid. It's a schmarmy, feel-good kind of movie, and I am not ashamed to say that I liked it. There are even a few memorable scenes where Rocky talks sense into his son. If I had a choice, though, I'd probably watch I, III, or IV before renting this one again.

On Saturday we saw "Hot Fuzz." It was amazing. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. If you've ever seen an action movie, then you may love it (noticeable influences are "Point Break" and "Bad Boys II"). The plot itself is engaging, if absurd, but it's really the dialogue that makes the film. It does start off a bit slow, but that's all right, because once it gets going, it doesn't really stop. There are a number of running gags, but they aren't annoying. The only caveats I'll make is that it is incredibly graphic in its depiction of violence, and there is a fair amount of cursing. It is definitely not a family movie. If you have a weak stomach, don't go. If that's not a problem for you, then you may have the same experience we did when we saw it in a filled theater where everyone was absolutely laughing their head off.

When we got home that night, we popped in "The Queen," which Plainbellied got from Netflix. Frankly, I didn't like it. It isn't my kind of film. I didn't like any of the characters. I never had any sympathy for Diana, even. More than anything, watching everyone interact made me wonder why the British would maintain the monarchy for so long. I'm not a fan of bowing and scraping. It particularly bothers me that when the Prime Minister, elected by the British people, goes to meet the Queen, he has to bow and he can't turn his back to walk out of the room, and he actually has to ask her permission to form a government. I realize these are all simply formalities, but come on! Why biology should be considered a reasonable way to choose a head of state is beyond me.

Plainbellied later confessed that she didn't realize that the whole movie was about Diana's death. She thought it was a biopic of Elizabeth II. I don't think she'll make that mistake again.